"The petitioner submitted detailed and credible evidence to demonstrate that the beneficiary possesses special knowledge of the company's superforming technologies and products, particularly as it relates to the international rail industry. The petitioner established that the knowledge is special as the product itself is patented, proprietary, or otherwise exclusive to the petitioner, such that it is not widely known in the industry. The petitioner also submitted evidence that its technologies and products are not only exclusive to the company, but that it they are of significant complexity, such that the knowledge required to perform the beneficiary's duties is not easily transferrable to others in the field. In addition, the petitioner established that the knowledge is "special" within the company, such that not everyone possesses the beneficiary's level of knowledge, trall1ll1g or experience with the product. The petitIoner also submitted evidence of the beneficiary's work experience with major rail customers that contributes to his special knowledge of the product's application to the rai I industry. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)( iv). Finally, the petitioner explained in detail why the proffered position requires the beneficiary's special knowledge. For the reasons discussed above, the evidence submitted establishes that the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge and will be employed in a specialized knowledge capacity with the petitioner in the United States. See Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal will be sustained." - Matter of X-, WAC 10 212 50789, Mar. 3, 2013.
[Hats off to Donna Hueckel!]