dismissed L-1B Case: Food Production

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF D-O-A-A- (USA) LTD 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 26, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an international producer and distributor of foods, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a plant manager under the L-lB nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 10l(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101 (a)(l5)(L). The L-lB classification allows a corporation or other legal entity (including its affiliate 
or subsidiary) to transfer a qualifying foreign employee with "specialized knowledge" to work 
temporarily in the United States. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition on multiple grounds concluding that 
the Petitioner did not establish that: 1) the Beneficiary had at least one continuous year of full-time 
employment abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years preceding the filing of the 
petition; 2) the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a specialized knowledge capacity; 3) the 
Beneficiary was qualified to perform the intended services in the United States; and 4) the Beneficiary 
would be employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. On appeal, the Petitioner submits two additional support letters 
explaining the Beneficiary's accomplishments while working as a plant manager in the United States 
and contends that he qualifies for the benefit sought. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal because the Petitioner has not established that the 
Beneficiary was employed for the requisite one-year period abroad with a qualifying organization in 
the three years preceding the date the petition was filed. As this is a fundamental element of eligibility 
the Petitioner has not established, we will reserve the remaining issues addressed by the Director. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary "in a capacity that is managerial, executive, or involves specialized 
knowledge," for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. Section 10l(a)(15)(L) of the Act. In addition, the beneficiary must 
seek to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial or executive capacity. Id. The petitioner 
Matter of D-O-A-A- (USA) Ltd 
must also establish that the beneficiary's prior education, training, and employment qualify him or her 
to perform the intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
According to the regulations, a beneficiary must have "one continuous year of full-time employment 
abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years preceding the filing of the petition." 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(iii). 
The term "intracompany transferee" is defined as: 
An alien who, within three years preceding the time of his or her application for 
admission into the United States, has been employed abroad continuously for one 
year by a firm or corporation or other legal entity or parent, branch, affiliate or 
subsidiary thereof: and who seeks to enter the United States temporarily in order to 
render his or her services to a branch of the same employer or a parent, affiliate, or 
subsidiary thereof in a capacity that is managerial, executive or involves specialized 
knowledge. Periods spent in the United States in lawful status for a branch of the 
same employer or a parent, affiliate, or subsidiary thereof and brief trips to the United 
States for business or pleasure shall not be interruptive of the one year of continuous 
employment abroad but such periods shall not be counted toward fulfillment of that 
requirement. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(A). 
II. ONE YEAR OF FOREIGN EMPLOYMENT ABROAD 
For the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary was employed 
full-time for one continuous year with his qualifying foreign employer. 
A. Procedural History 
The Petitioner explained that it and its affiliated companies around the world are engaged in the import, 
manufacture, and distribution of cashews, dried fruits, rice crackers, snack foods, spices, and other 
dried food goods. In Section 1 of the Form 1-129, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary had 
been employed as deputy plant manager with the foreign employer from April 201 7 to the date the 
petition was filed in September 2018. The Petitioner explained in the Form 1-129 that this foreign 
employment had "no interruptions" and that it was "continuous employment." The Petitioner did not 
provide a duty description related to the Beneficiary's asserted deputy plant manager position, but 
submitted paystubs reflecting his payment by the foreign employer from April 2017 to August 2018. 
The Director later issued a request for evidence (RFE) stating that United States Citizenship and 
Immigration Services' (USCIS) records reflected that the Beneficiary had been in the United States 
for over 13 months during his claimed employment abroad. The Director correctly noted that periods 
in the United States could not be counted towards fulfilling the Beneficiary's required one year of 
foreign employment. Therefore, the Director requested that the Petitioner submit additional evidence 
to clarify this apparent discrepancy. 
2 
Matter of D-O-A-A- (USA) Ltd 
In response, the Petitioner provided a support letter from the foreign employer which did not directly 
address the issue of the Beneficiary's substantial time in the United States during his claimed 
employment abroad. The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary had "been trained with alternative 
ways from on the job trainrg (OJr to [be] the folly internal plant manager ready to handle the position 
of plant manager in [the] [U.S.] plant." The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary was "still 
working under [the foreign employer] and receiving his foll packages from Vietnam and there is no 
payment to him in US." The Director subsequently denied the petition pointing to the aforementioned 
users records. The Director concluded that the Beneficiary had spent over 13 months in the United 
States during his asserted 16 month employment abroad; and therefore, he did not have the requisite 
one year of continuous employment abroad. 
B. Analysis 
To qualify as an intracompany transferee, a beneficiary must have been employed abroad continuously 
for one year during the three years before the petition filing date, by the petitioner or a qualifying 
related entity. 8 e.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(A). 
The one-year foreign employment requirement is only satisfied by the time a beneficiary spends 
physically outside the United States working foll-time for the petitioner or a qualifying organization. 
A petitioner cannot use any time the beneficiary spent in the United States to meet the one-year foreign 
employment requirement, even if the qualifying foreign entity paid the beneficiary and continued to 
employ the beneficiary while he or she was in the United States. 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) 4 (Nov. 15, 2018), https://www.uscis.gov/legal­
resources/policy-memoranda ("L-1 l-in-3 Policy Memo"). 
As noted by the Director, users records reflect that the Beneficiary spent more than 13 months in the 
United States on B 1 and B2 visas during his asserted foreign employment as a deputy plant manager 
from April 2017 until the petition was filed in September 2018. 1 The Director requested that the 
Petitioner submit evidence to demonstrate the Beneficiary's employment abroad given his apparent 
presence in the United States for most of this time. However, the Petitioner submitted little evidence, 
and still provides little evidence on appeal, to substantiate the Beneficiary's required one year of 
employment abroad. For instance, the Petitioner submitted paystubs indicating the Beneficiary's 
payment by the foreign entity from April 201 7 through the date the petition was filed and states on 
appeal that the Beneficiary "remains an employee of the Vietnamese company ... [ and that] he flies in 
to train and teach the operators." However, as noted above, the Petitioner cannot use time the 
Beneficiary spent in the United States to meet the one-year foreign employment requirement, even if 
the foreign employer paid and continued to employ him while he was in the United States. 
In fact, the Beneficiary's resume reflects that he joined the foreign employer in April 2017 from a 
dairy company and very soon entered the United States on April 20, 2017, leaving question as to 
1 Specifically, USCTS records indicate that the Beneficiary spent the following periods of time in the United States during 
his asserted foreign employment: April 20, 2017 to July 20, 2017, September 10, 2017 to February 10, 2018, April 8, 2018 
to August 24, 2018, and September 9, 2018 to September 26, 2018 (the date the instant petition was filed). Therefore, our 
records reflect that the Beneficiary spent a total of 399 days in the United States during his asserted foreign employment. 
3 
Matter of D-O-A-A- (USA) Ltd 
whether he was ever employed abroad by the foreign employer as a deputy plant manager prior to 
entering the United States. The Petitioner also provides few details related to his duties and 
accomplishments as a claimed deputy plant manager abroad; but in contrast, submits an additional 
support letter on appeal detailing the Beneficiary's accomplishments while working in the United 
States for the Petitioner. Likewise, the Petitioner provided a "Client Profile" dated in February 2018 
listing the Beneficiary's contact information and certain compliance information related to the 
company's products, leaving farther question as to its assertion that he was engaged in employment 
abroad and only flying in to "teach the operators." 
In addition, the record reflects that the Petitioner also filed a motion to reopen on December 31, 2018, 
three weeks after this appeal was filed. In a support letter provided with this motion the Petitioner 
stated the following with respect to the Beneficiary's foreign employment: 
The Director noted that although the Beneficiary has worked for the [ foreign employer] 
for a continuous 18 months (April 2017-August 2018), government records indicate 
that during that period, the Beneficiary made several trips to the United States totaling 
over 13 months in duration. 
While it is true that the Beneficiary did spend approximately 13 months in the United 
States, it is also true that the Beneficiary did hold employment for a qualifying company 
in Vietnam for the continuous 12 months as required for the LI visa. 
As such, the Petitioner appears to acknowledge that the Beneficiary was in the United States for over 
13 months during his asserted 18 months of foreign employment. Again, as we have noted, time spent 
in the United States cannot count toward the Beneficiary's required one year period of employment 
abroad. Id. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed because the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary had one year 
of foll-time continuous employment with a qualifying entity abroad in the three years preceding the 
filing of the petition. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility 
for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not 
met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of D-O-A-A- (USA) Ltd, ID# 3790166 (AAO June 26, 2019) 
4