Uniqueness is not a universal, standalone requirement. The analysis concerns qualifying special or advanced company knowledge and the proposed specialized-knowledge work, assessed on the evidence as a whole.
Explain the distinction concretely, without overstating it
Identify what the employee knows, how it was learned, and why it matters to the specific U.S. assignment. Avoid an unsupported claim that no U.S.
worker could perform the role. Support the account with training or project records tied to the company, and let counsel apply the legal standard to those facts rather than to a general assertion of expertise. Ask first whether the knowledge is genuinely specialized within the company and then verify the foreign qualifying year and entity relationship.
The review should produce an exhibit list that proves the knowledge exists, the employee acquired it, and the U.S. role uses it. Hypothetical example: a Québec maker of industrial fermentation controls wants to send its formulation archivist to configure a U.S.
pilot line. The archivist knows internal batch histories, but the company must show why that knowledge is uncommon and needed, rather than relying on a claim that she is trusted. Technical records and a defined assignment settle that distinction.