No. The actual knowledge must meet the applicable specialized-knowledge standard and relate to the proposed work.
Explain the substance
Identify the advanced or special aspects and genuine individual experience. Ordinary familiarity with a company workflow is not automatically a complete showing. Hypothetical example: a Canadian medical-imaging software company wants to transfer the employee who devised its proprietary calibration protocol for mobile scanners.
The first review should identify the knowledge itself, why it is advanced or special in relation to the organization’s products, services, research, equipment, techniques, management, or procedures, and how the individual gained it. General competence in the industry, a high salary, or access to a shared manual does not settle the question. Compare the worker’s experience with that of similarly situated staff and describe the learning path, confidential iterations, problem-solving role, and business consequence of losing that person.
Useful proof can include version histories, access controls, training materials, development records, supervisor declarations, and a precise U.S. duty description. Avoid revealing trade secrets unnecessarily; explain enough to show that the knowledge is not ordinary.
Next, verify the qualifying corporate relationship and one continuous year of qualifying employment abroad in the preceding three years. A weak case often describes the product at length but never shows the employee’s individual familiarity or the specialized U.S. role.
L-1B is capped at five years, so the assignment plan should account for prior L use and not portray a fixed technical deployment as open-ended. The question is evidence-based, not a branding exercise.