"Here, the petitioner submitted detailed and credible evidence to demonstrate that the beneficiary possesses special knowledge of the petitioner's SERDES technology and its application in international markets. The petitioner's assertions are supported by independent evidence, such as the press release confirming that the petitioner will be implementing this proprietary technology into customer products. The evidence presented also establishes that the beneficiary has intimate knowledge of the petitioner's SERDES technology based on: the petitioner's detailed explanation of SERDES technology and the beneficiary's involvement with the product; the beneficiary's five plus years of experience with the foreign employer related to SERDES product design; the beneficiary's leadership of a team of design engineers focusing on SERDES technology with the foreign employer; his four patents in the field of circuit design; and his other contributions to the field of circuit design in the form of publications. The petitioner established that the knowledge is special as the product itself is patented and exclusive to the petitioner, such that it is not widely known in the industry. The petitioner also submitted evidence that SERDES technology is not only exclusive to the petitioner, but that it is of significant complexity, requires a substantial period experience to pelform at the beneficiary's senior technical level, and that it is otherwise not easily transferrable to others in the beneficiary's field. In addition, the evidence establishes that the beneficiary's knowledge of the product is "special" within the company, such that not everyone possesses the beneficiary's level of knowledge and experience with the product. The petitioner also submitted evidence of the beneficiary's educational background and work experience that contributes to his special knowledge of the SERDES technology. 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. In conclusion, 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 10 140 51163, Mar. 15, 2013.
[Hats off to Carolyn Choi!]