Yes. The regulations recognise an advanced level of knowledge of the organization's processes and procedures, which is not defeated by writing those procedures down. The petition must show what the documentation leaves to judgement and why applying it requires this employee.
A manual describes steps; it does not confer judgement
Officers do sometimes reason that comprehensive documentation makes an employee replaceable, and a petition that does not anticipate the point can be caught by it. The answer is structural. The statutory definition has two limbs, and the second refers to an advanced level of knowledge or expertise in the organization's processes and procedures, which presupposes procedures that exist and are known.
What separates the technologist from a technician following the manual is the range of situations he can resolve without one: a formulation that behaves differently on a new pavement surface, a controller rate map that must be built for a grade nobody has treated before, a supplier change that alters the chemistry. The petition should give two or three worked examples from the last year, each naming the problem, what the manual said, and what he did beyond it. Generic assertions about years of experience will not carry the same weight.
Hypothetical example: a Hope water-treatment supplier wants to send the engineer who devised its corrosion-control dosing method to troubleshoot a U.S. installation. The first review identifies the claimed proprietary knowledge, where it was learned, and why ordinary engineers cannot quickly perform the same task.
Versioned formulas, training records, and incident reports settle those points better than a résumé alone. The company should choose one or two examples where the engineer applied judgment beyond published instructions, because a claim built on general industry skill will not establish specialized knowledge. L-1B also requires the qualifying twelve-month foreign employment in the relevant lookback period and has a five-year maximum stay.