No, on its own. A trade certification and long service describe a skilled worker, which is not the standard. The question is whether the technician holds special or advanced knowledge of the employer's own product, process or procedures.
Test the claim against a competitor's technician
A useful test is to imagine a competent technician hired from another company with the same certification and comparable years. What would that person not know on day one, and how long would it take them to learn it? If the honest answer is a few weeks of familiarisation, the knowledge is trade skill with a company flavour. If the answer involves a control sequence the company developed, a fault library built from its own installed base, or a commissioning protocol that exists nowhere else, there is something specific to describe. Write that answer down before writing anything else, because it determines whether the petition has a subject. Certification and tenure still belong in the file as context, but they support the story rather than being the story, and a file that leads with them tends to read as a skilled-worker case in the wrong category.
Hypothetical example: A water-treatment manufacturer proposes to transfer a control-systems analyst who configured a proprietary filtration algorithm for four years. The first review should produce a knowledge inventory, a foreign-employment chronology, and a precise American assignment. Access permissions, internal training records, and project logs settle what the analyst knows; payroll and HR records settle the qualifying twelve continuous months. A university degree or a generally available trade certificate does not establish specialized knowledge by itself. Show why the knowledge is uncommon within the company or advanced relative to its standard operations. The five-year L-1B total limit should be calculated before the assignment is designed around repeated extensions.