sustained EB-1C Case: Manufacturing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 25, 2023 In Re: 28184353 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Multinational Managers or Executives) 
The Petitioner, a manufacturer and distributor of flooring products, seeks to permanently employ the 
Beneficiary in the position of senior director, customer service and supply chain for North America, 
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). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary, who had resided in the United States in L-2 nonimmigrant status since 
October 2019, had the required one year of employment abroad in the three years immediately 
preceding the filing of the petition. The Director further determined that the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial capacity. The matter is now 
before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christa 's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will sustain the appeal. 
Section 203(b)(1 )(C) of the Act makes an immigrant visa available to a noncitizen who "has been 
employed for at least one year" by the petitioning employer or a related entity abroad "in the three 
years preceding the time of the [ noncitizen' s] application for classification and admission into the 
United States under this subparagraph." 
In addressing this qualifying period of employment abroad, 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. However, the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(A) and (B) provide 
different reference points for purposes of calculating the relevant 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. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(A). For 
a beneficiary who is "already in the United States working for the same employer 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." 
In Matter ofS-P-, Inc., Adopted Decision 2018-01, at 3 (AAO Mar. 19, 2018), we emphasized that the 
focus of the statute and regulations is on the continuity of a beneficiary's employment with the same 
multinational organization. Therefore, whether a beneficiary is in the United States or abroad at the time 
of filing, the determinative issue is whether there has been a two-year interruption in that beneficiary's 
qualifying employment within the larger multinational organization. For a beneficiary who is working 
for a qualifying entity in the United States, such interruptions may include periods of intervening 
employment with a non-qualifying U.S. employer or periods of stay in a nonimmigrant status without 
work authorization. Id. at 4. 
Here, the record indicates that the Beneficiary was employed within the Petitioner's multinational 
organization in France from June 2016 until October 27, 2019, when he ended his employment abroad to 
enter the United States in L-2 status as the spouse of an L-1 intracompany transferee. He was not 
employed between October 27, 2019 and August 15, 2020. The Petitioner hired the Beneficiary, who 
had a valid employment authorization document, to serve in his current U.S.-based position on August 
16, 2020, and filed the instant petition on May 12, 2022. The Beneficiary remained in L-2 status with 
valid work authorization at the time of filing the immigrant visa petition. 
The Director denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary was 
employed abroad for at least one year in the three years immediately preceding the filing of the petition 
in May 2022. The Director relied on guidance published in users Policy Memorandum PM-602-0167, 
Satisfying the L-lOne Year Foreign Employment Requirement; Revisions to Chapter 32.3 of the 
Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) (Nov. 15, 2018). We note the cited memorandum has been 
superseded by the publication of 2 USCIS Policy Manual L, https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 1 
This policy guidance addresses the one-year foreign employment requirement applicable to 
nonimmigrant petitions for L-1 intracompany transferees. Generally, a beneficiary's one year of 
employment abroad must occur within the three years preceding the filing of an initial L-1 petition. 
users will adjust this three-year period based on time a beneficiary spent working for a qualifying 
U.S. entity as a principal beneficiary of an employment-based nonimmigrant petition. However, for 
purposes of L-1 adjudications, time a beneficiary spends working in a dependent status ( such as L-2 
status) does not result in a similar adjustment of the three-year period. See generally 2 USCIS Policy 
Manual, supra, at L.6(G)(4). 
The Petitioner concedes that, based on this policy guidance, the Beneficiary was not eligible for L-1 
nonimmigrant status when it filed this immigrant petition on his behalf However, the Petitioner 
emphasizes that users has never advised that the same policy shall be applied to immigrant petitions 
for multinational managers and executives. The Petitioner maintains that the regulation at 8 e.F.R. 
§ 204.5(j)(3)(i)(B) clearly applies to the facts presented here and that it met its burden to establish that 
the Beneficiary was employed abroad for at least one year in the three years preceding his entry to the 
United States as a nonimmigrant on October 27, 2019. 
The Petitioner's assertions are persuasive. users has not advised that the cited L-1 policy guidance 
shall be applied to the adjudication of immigrant petitions for multinational managers and executives. 
1 See USCIS Policy Alert P A-2022-20, L-1 lntracompany Transferees (Aug. 16, 2022), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/ 
default/files/ document/po licy-manual-updates/2022 0 816-IntracompanyTransferees. pdf. 
2 
Further, we do not interpret the language at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(B) as limiting applicability to 
only those individuals who are working for a qualifying entity as principal beneficiaries of 
employment-based nonimmigrant petitions. Where, as here, a beneficiary is "already in the United 
States working for" a qualifying entity, 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(B) sets the qualifying period as "the 
three years preceding entry as a nonimmigrant." 
In applying 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(B) in cases involving beneficiaries who are already in the United 
States working for a qualifying entity, we must consider a beneficiary's continuity of employment 
within the petitioner's multinational organization to ensure there has been no interruption of two years 
or longer. See Matter ofS-P-, Inc., Adopted Decision 2018-01 at 4. While the Beneficiary had a break 
in employment between October 2019 and August 2020, immediately following his entry to the United 
States, this period ofless than ten months is not considered interruptive of his continuous employment 
within the Petitioner's multinational organization. 
Therefore, the Director should have looked at the three-year period between October 2016 and October 
2019, the period immediately preceding the Beneficiary's initial entry as an L-2 nonimmigrant on 
October 27, 2019, in determining whether he met the one-year foreign employment requirement. The 
record establishes his employment abroad within the multinational organization's French headquarters 
from June 2016 until October 2019. Accordingly, we withdraw the Director's determination that the 
Beneficiary did not accrue the requisite one year of employment abroad. 
The remaining issue is whether the Petitioner established the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a 
managerial capacity as defined at section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(44)(A). The 
record reflects that the Beneficiary held the position of customer experience director for the Europe, 
Middle East, and Africa (EMEA) region, in which he reported to a vice president, and had six direct 
reports who in tum, oversaw their respective subordinates. A letter from the foreign entity's CEO 
explained that the Petitioner "was responsible for managing all EMEA activities related to the areas 
of Customer Service, Customer Experience, Logistics and Supply Chain." 
The Director's adverse determination was based on a conclusion that the position description in the 
record was inadequate. However, the decision lacked any discussion of other evidence in the record 
relevant to this eligibility requirement. After considering the stated job duties in context with the 
nature of the business, the foreign entity's documented staffing levels and organizational structure, 
and other pertinent evidence, we conclude the Petitioner met its burden to establish the Beneficiary 
was employed abroad in a managerial capacity based on his management of a department of the 
organization, his supervision and control of subordinate managers, his authority to make hiring and 
firing decisions, and his exercise of discretion over the day-to-day activities of the department under 
his authority. See section 10l(a)(44)(A)(i)-(iv) of the Act. Moreover, the record establishes that his 
duties were, more likely than not, primarily managerial in nature. 
Based on the foregoing discussion, the Petitioner has overcome the grounds for denial of the petition. 
As all other eligibility requirements for the requested classification have been met, the appeal will be 
sustained. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
3