remanded EB-1C Case: Professional Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 19979923 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR . 28 , 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Multinational Managers or Executives 
The Petitioner, a "global professional services firm ," seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary in 
the position of "principal consultant" under the first preference immigrant classification for 
multinational managers or executives. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b)(l)(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C). 
Section 203(b )(1)(C) of the Act makes an immigrant visa available to a beneficiary who "has been 
employed for at least 1 year by" the petitioning employer or a related entity "in the 3 years preceding the 
time of the alien's application for classification and admission into the United States under this 
subparagraph," i.e., the filing of the immigrant petition. We will refer to this three-year period as the 
"qualifying period." 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that its organization employed the Beneficiary abroad for at least one year during 
a three-year qualifying period before the filing of the petition. 1 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will remand the matter to the 
Director for the entry of a new decision. 
Because the statutory language does not distinguish between beneficiaries who are already in the United 
States when the immigrant petition is filed , and those who are still abroad, the regulations at 8 C.F.R 
§ 204 .5 j)(3)(i)(A) and (B) address the two different situations by adjusting the timing of the qualifying 
period. If the beneficiary is outside the United States at the time of filing, then the qualifying period is 
"the three years immediately preceding the filing of the [immigrant] petition." See 8 C.F.R 
§ 204 .5G)(3)(i)(A). Fora beneficiary who is "already in the United States workingforthesameemployer 
1 The record shows that the Di.rector issued two adverse decisions regarding this petition. The first decision , issued in 
January 2021, denied the petition based on the determination that the Petitioner did not demonstrate one year of 
employment during the qualifying three-year period. In response to the Petitioner 's motion to reopen and reconsider, the 
Director issued a second decision in July 2021, affirming the basis for the initial denial. The record shows that in February 
2021 the Petitioner filed anotherpetition(with receiptnol l which was denied in September 2021. 
or a [related employer]," 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(B) sets the qualifying period as "the three years 
preceding entry as a nonimmigrant." 
Here, the record shows that the Beneficiary has a lengthy period of continuous employment within the 
same multinational organization, which includes working for the Petitioner and its affiliate in India. The 
Beneficiary's employment with this organization started with the Indian affiliate in November 2011 and 
continued until June 2013, when the Beneficiary came to the United States to work for the Petitioner 
pursuant to an approved L-1 nonimmigrant visa. The Beneficiary continued to work for the Petitioner 
until April 2018, when he returned to India and resumed his employment with the foreign affiliate. After 
remaining in India until November 2018, the Beneficiary returned to the United States, again as an L-1 
nonimmigrant, and resumed his position with the Petitioner. 
In denying the petition, the Directorrelied on the Beneficiary's latest U.S. entry in November 2018 as 
"the three[- ]year mark looking back" to determine whether the Beneficiary satisfied the foreign 
employment requirement. Because the Beneficiary was only employed abroad from April to November 
2018 during the three-year period that preceded November 2018, the Director concluded that the 
Beneficiary did not have the required one year of employment abroad. The Director reasoned that "[i]t 
is inelevant that the [B]eneficiary worked for a foreign affiliate of the [P]etitioner." Rather, the Director 
determined that "[w ]hat is relevant is that the [B]eneficiary no longer meets the criteria of working in the 
United States during the time spent at the overseas affiliate." 
We disagree with the Director. The full text of 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5 (j)(3)(i)(B) requires the Petitioner to 
demonstrate that: 
If the alien is already in the United States working for the same employer or a subsidiary 
or affiliate of the firm or corporation, or other legal entity by which the alien was 
employed overseas, in the three years preceding entry as a nonimmigrant, the alien was 
employed by the entity abroad for at least one year in a managerial or executive 
capacity. 
In promulgating the implementing regulations, the former Immigration and Naturalization Service 
concluded that it was not the intent of Congress to disqualify "nonimmigrant managers or executives 
who have already been transfened to the United States" to work within the same corporate 
organization. See 56 Fed. Reg. 30,703, 30,705 (July 5, 1991). Thus, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(j)(3)(i)(B) allows USCIS to look beyond the three-year period immediately preceding the 
filing of the I-140 petition, when the beneficiary is already working for a qualifying U.S. entity. 
Without such a provision, a beneficiary employed in the United States by a qualifying organization in 
a nonimmigrant status for more than two years would not be eligible for immigrant classification as a 
multinational manager or executive. 
There is no dispute that the Beneficiary was working for the Petitioner at the time the immigrant petition 
was filed and that at all times he remained in the employment of the same multinational organization. 
Further, in a 2018 policy memorandum, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) stated 
that "the proper reference point for determining the one-year foreign employment requirement is the 
date the petitioner files the initial L-1 petition on the beneficiary's behalf, the starting point in the 
2 
alien's application for admission in L-1 status." users Policy Memorandum PM-602-0167 , 
Satisfying the L-1 I-Year Foreign Employment Requirement ; Revisions to Chapter 32.3 of the 
Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) at 3 (Nov. 15, 2018), https: //www.uscis.gov /legal­
resources /policy-memoranda. Although the memorandum specifically addresses L-1 nonimmigrant 
petitions for intracompany transferees, the same reasoning applies to immigrant petitions for 
multinational managers and executives, because both classifications require calculation of at least one 
year of qualifying employment abroad during a three-year period. 2 
The same memorandum states: 
By regulation, time a beneficiary spent working in the United States "for" a qualifying 
organization does not count towards the one-year foreign employment requirement; 
however , this time does result in an adjustment of the three-year period (8 CFR 
214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(A)). A nonimmigrant in the United States will be considered to have 
been admitted to work "for" the qualifying organization if he or she is employed by 
that organization as a principal beneficiary of an employment-based nonirnmigrant 
petition or application, such as H-lB or E-2 executive , supervisory , or essential 
employee. 
users Policy Memorandum PM-602-0167 at 4. 
Applying the reasoning of the above memorandum to the matter at hand, the Beneficiary's departure 
from the United States and return to India from April to November 2018 did not trigger a reset of the 
three-year qualifying period to the date of the Beneficiary's latest U.S. entry as an L-1 nonirnmigrant in 
November 2018 . Rather, the relevant tirneframe to consider employment abroad would still be the 
three-year period from June 2010 to June 2013, which preceded the Beneficiary's initial U.S entry as 
an L-1 nonimmigrant coming to work for the Petitioner. During that three-year period, the Beneficiary 
was employed abroad by a qualifying foreign employer for more than the required one year. As 
contemplated in the memorandum, the Beneficiary's 2013 U .S. entry was for the purpose of working for 
the Petitioner and therefore it did not disrupt the continuity of his accrued period of qualifying foreign 
employment. Likewise, that continuous period was not interrupted bytheBeneficiary' s subsequent return 
to India from April to November 2018, during which the Beneficiary resumed his former employment 
with the foreign affiliate. 
2 The regulationat8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(1)(12)provides: 
Limits. An alien who has spent .. . seven years in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity 
under section 10 l(a)(l5) (L) and/or (H) of the Act may not be readmitted to the United States under 
section 10 l(a)(l 5) (L) or (H) of the Act unless the alien has resided and been physically present outside 
the United States, except for brief visits for business or plea sure, for the immediate prioryear . . . In view 
of this restriction , a new individual petition may not be approved foranalien who has spent themaximum 
time period in the United States under section 101 (a)(l 5)(L) and/or(H) of the Act , unless the alien has 
resided and been physically present outside the United States, except for brief visits for business or 
pleasure , for the immediate prior year. 
Here , the Beneficiary did not remain outside the U.S. forovera year to warrant calculation ofa new L-1 time-pe1iod. His 
entry time-period to calculate his maximum stay in L-1 status is still viewed from the June 2013 time-period. 
3 
As the AAO previously observed on this question, "both the statute and the regulations focus on the 
continuity of the beneficiary's employment with the same multinational organization. This is not 
inconsistent with the purpose of the intracompany transferee visa classification, which is to facilitate 
the international transfer of multinational businesses' key personnel." Matter ofS-P-, Inc., Adopted 
Decision 2018-01 at 3 (AAO Mar. 19, 2018). Thus, whether a beneficiary is now in the United States 
or abroad at the time of filing the immigrant petition, the determinative issue is whether there has been a 
two-year intenuption in that beneficiary's qualifying employment within the larger multinational 
organization. In other words, "the statute and regulations clearly sever eligibility for this multinational 
visa classification for a beneficiary who is outside the United States if there was an intenuption in 
employment with the petitioner's multinational organization for more than two years during the three 
years prior to filing the immigrant visa petition." Id. Here, there was no such interruption. 
Therefore, the Director's determination that the Beneficiary's L-1 entry in November 2018 is the new 
reference point for calculating the qualifying three-year timeframe is incorrect. As discussed above, the 
Beneficiary's entire time-period in the United States as an L-1 nonimmigrant was spent working for the 
Petitioner and is not interruptive of the previously accrued period of foreign employment. Likewise, the 
six-month period the Beneficiary spent abroad in 2018 was also spent working for the same multinational 
national organization and similarly was not interruptive of the Beneficiary's original period of 
employment abroad. 
For the above reasons, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for consideration 
of the petition on its merits. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision. 
4