No. Explain what the applicant knows and why it meets the specialized-knowledge standard. A teaching assignment alone does not establish the nature or level of that knowledge.
Separate the course content from the employee’s expertise
Identify which elements are general industry material, which concern the organization’s particular system and which require advanced experience to apply. Describe problems the applicant can solve and how that expertise was obtained. Do not inflate confidentiality or uniqueness as universal requirements; provide concrete evidence of the knowledge that actually supports the proposed work.
For L-1B, document the qualifying relationship, doing-business evidence, one continuous qualifying year abroad within the preceding three years, and knowledge that is special or advanced in relation to the organization. The five-year overall limit is a planning boundary, not a promise of future approvals. Hypothetical example: a medical-device assembler is the only employee trained to tune a company’s proprietary leak-detection sequence, but the U.S. affiliate wants her mainly to train new assemblers in ordinary safety rules. The review separates the organization-specific sequence from general training. The decision is whether the U.S. role actually needs the specialized knowledge or simply needs an experienced worker.
Put that conclusion beside the record that demonstrates it, then identify any mismatch between the technical narrative, training file, and actual U.S. assignment. A label for expertise is less useful than a traceable explanation of the work it enables.
Decide from that comparison whether to retain the transfer plan, narrow the assignment to knowledge-dependent work, or use a route that matches the actual role. The employer should make that choice before issuing final travel instructions.