Potentially, but merely knowing a widely available product does not establish the claim. Explain the special or advanced knowledge within the applicable definition, such as the company’s particular processes or implementation, and why the proposed US work calls for it. Customization is a fact to analyze, not an automatic qualification.
Identify the company-specific decisions
Choose an integration or operational method the applicant understands and show what they do with that knowledge. Distinguish it from the vendor’s ordinary training. Support the account with actual experience and records rather than claiming every configured setting is inherently specialized.
First review produces a knowledge statement that identifies the employer's method, the employee's experience with it, and the US task requiring it. The record that usually resolves the issue is a dated project trail—internal training, change logs, and work product—rather than a list of software names. Sequence the analysis from the company process to the employee's role, then to the proposed assignment.
Problems arise when ordinary vendor proficiency is renamed specialized knowledge without explaining the employer-specific layer. Hypothetical example: A Canadian acoustics firm wants to transfer an engineer who maintains its proprietary concert-hall calibration workflow. The file should distinguish ordinary audio software use from the firm's measurement protocol and show why the US commissioning work calls for that protocol.