No. Future training expenditure does not establish the knowledge the applicant actually holds. Explain both current expertise and training still planned.
Separate proof of knowledge from training costs
Identify records demonstrating the applicant’s existing capability and the purpose of any additional course. Keep government and professional immigration charges separate, checking current official amounts. An expensive course is not an eligibility shortcut, and a low training cost does not automatically mean the knowledge is ordinary. The substance and evidence control the assessment.
Use a current fee check that distinguishes the employer’s petition charges from business expenses and personal relocation costs. The U.S. petitioner should determine which L-related fees apply, whether it wants premium processing, and which dependent or consular costs may arise. Corporate-document copies, translations, and knowledge-evidence preparation should be separately budgeted. Hypothetical example: a lithium-battery safety test lead is transferred after an operating manager quotes a previous case’s total. Finance should verify the current form fee schedule, the petitioner’s facts, and whether any additional charge is triggered before funds are allocated. Keep invoices and payment records with the case file so a later extension does not confuse government charges with ordinary technical-project costs. The practical decision is whether the employer can support the documentation and travel plan without asking the employee to fund the petition that benefits the business.