dismissed L-1B Case: Investment Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8397216 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 22, 2020 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lB Specialized Knowledge Worker 
The Petitioner, a company providing investment services, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary 
as its "Vice President, Investments" in the United States under the L-lB nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(L). 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did not 
establish that: 1) the Beneficiary had been employed abroad full-time for one continuous year in the three 
years preceding the date the petition was filed; 2) the Beneficiary's former foreign employment involved 
specialized knowledge; 3) the Beneficiary was qualified to perform the services in the United States; and 
4) the Beneficiary's U.S. position would involve specialized knowledge. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts the Beneficiary remained employed by the foreign employer while in 
the United States on an F-1 nonimmigrant visa thereby fulfilling his required continuous one year of 
foreign employment in the three years preceding the date the petition was filed. Further, the Petitioner 
contends the Beneficiary's foreign position involved, and his position in the United States would 
involve, specialized knowledge. The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary holds greatly developed 
knowledge of company's investment procedures and processes as compared to his colleagues. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lB 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 101(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 specialized knowledge capacity. Id. The petitioner 
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). 
II. ONE YEAR OF EMPLOYMENT ABROAD 
The first issue addressed by the Director is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary was 
employed fulltime for at least one continuous year in the three years preceding the filing of the petition. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(iii). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(I)(1)(ii)(A) defines "intracompany transferee" 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. 
The Petitioner stated it is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Beneficiary's foreign employer, a "strategic 
investment holding arm of the Government of Malaysia." The Petitioner stated the Beneficiary's 
foreign employer focused on holding and managing the assets of Malaysia and making strategic 
investments. In a support letter provided with the petition, filed on June 27, 2019, the Petitioner stated 
that the Beneficiary began his career with the foreign employer abroad in 2011 and that he was later 
promoted to vice president, investments in April 2015. The Petitioner indicated the Beneficiary 
worked in this position abroad from April 2015 until July 2017 when the foreign employer "sponsored 
the Beneficiary to study in the United States" pursuant to an F-1 nonimmigrant student visa. The 
Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary earned a Master's in Business Administration (MBA) in July 
2018 and stated that he "has now been working with [the Petitioner] in the United States since 2018." 
The Director later stated in a request for evidence (RFE) that United States Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) records reflected that the Beneficiary had arrived in the United States 
as an F-1 student in May 2017, indicating he was employed abroad for less than one year in the three 
years preceding the date the petition was filed in June 2019. In response, the Petitioner did not directly 
address this noted discrepancy, but only reiterated its previous statements as to the Beneficiaiy's 
foreign employment. For instance, it again stated that the Beneficiary was sponsored to enter into a 
U.S. MBA program in July 2017. In denying the petition, the Director pointed to USCIS records and 
emphasized that they showed the Beneficiary had entered the United States on an F-1 visa in May 
2017 and concluded this demonstrated that his employment abroad was for less than one continuous 
year in the three years preceding the date the petition was filed. 
The statute indicates that the relevant three-year period to be used as a reference point in determining 
whether the beneficiary had one year of continuous full-time employment with a qualifying entity 
abroad is the three years "preceding the time of [a beneficiary's] application for admission into the 
United States .... " Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. The statute, however, is silent with regard to 
2 
those beneficiaries who have already been admitted to the United States in a different nonimmigrant 
classification. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3) clearly requires the petition be accompanied 
by evidence that a beneficiary was employed abroad for one continuous year in the three-year period 
"preceding the filing of the petition." A policy memorandum clarified the agency's policy indicating 
that USCIS will use the date of filing of the initial L-1 petition as the reference point for determining 
the one-year foreign employment requirement. USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0167, Satisfying 
the L-11-Year Foreign Employment Requirement,· Revisions to Chapter 32.3 of the Adjudicator's 
Field Manual (AFM) (Nov. 15, 2018), https://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/policy-memoranda ("L-
11-in-3 Policy Memo"). As such, the Petitioner must demonstrate that the Beneficiary was employed 
abroad fulltime for one continuous year in the three years prior to the date the petition was filed, or 
from June 27, 2016, through June 27, 2019. In addition, the regulations are explicit that "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." 
On appeal, the Petitioner reiterates that the Beneficiary entered into the United States to complete an 
MBA program as an F-1 nonimmigrant and states he "remained on the payroll of [the foreign 
employer] throughout this period of time." The Petitioner states this allowed the Beneficiary to gain 
his asserted advanced knowledge, that it was the equivalent of training with the foreign employer and 
asserts that his employment with the foreign employer did not terminate. The Petitioner contends that 
the Beneficiary should not be disqualified from "changing status to [that of a] L-1B [specialized 
knowledge nonimmigrant]" from an F-1 nonimmigrant student. 
Upon review of the evidence in the record, we agree with the Director that the Beneficiary did not 
complete one continuous year of full-time foreign employment from June 27, 2016, through June 27, 
2019 (the date the petition was filed). As noted by the Director, USCIS records reflect that the 
Beneficiary entered the United States on F-1 status well before June 27, 2017. Further, the Petitioner 
provided the Beneficiary's F-1 visa including an entry stamp dated May 27, 2017. The Petitioner also 
submitted the Beneficiary's F-1 visa application reflecting that the Beneficiary's MBA program began 
on June 12, 2017 and that his "earliest admission date" would be May 13, 2017. As, as discussed, by 
the Director, the evidence supports a conclusion that the Beneficiary entered into the United States to 
begin an MBA program prior to completing his one year of continuous foreign employment abroad. 
Despite the Director discussing the Beneficiary's entries into the United States on F-1 status prior to 
June 2017 in the RFE and in the denial decision, the Petitioner did not directly address on appeal the 
evidence indicating he did not complete one continuous year of foreign employment during the 
qualifying three-year period. Indeed, the Petitioner appears to assert that the Beneficiaiy's continued 
employment with the foreign employer while in the United States should count towards the required 
one year. However, the regulations are explicit that the Beneficiary's time in the United States does 
not count towards his required foreign employment. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(A). 
The fact that the foreign entity continued to pay the Beneficiary while he was in the United States does 
not establish his continuous employment with the foreign entity during the qualifying three-year 
period. USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0167, Satisfying the L-11-Year Foreign Employment 
Requirement; Revisions to Chapter 32.3 of the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) at 4. Any foreign 
compensation by the foreign employer is irrelevant for the purpose of establishing the Beneficiary's 
continuous employment abroad, given that he was not physically present there. Further, it is also 
3 
notable that the Petitioner states the Beneficiary completed his MBA program in July 2018 and began 
working for it in the United States in August 2018. Therefore, there is no indication that the 
Beneficiary was physically employed abroad after entering the United States in May 2017. 
For the foregoing reasons, the appeal will be dismissed as the Petitioner did not establish that the 
Beneficiary completed one year of full-time continuous employment with a qualifying entity abroad 
during the three-year period preceding the filing of the petition. 
111. SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE 
As we have discussed, the Director also denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that: 1) the Beneficiary's former foreign employment involved specialized knowledge, 2) the 
Beneficiary is qualified to perform the services in the United States, and 3) the Beneficiary's U.S. position 
would involve specialized knowledge. Because of the dispositive effect of the above finding of 
ineligibility, we will only briefly address whether the Beneficiary holds specialized knowledge. As a 
threshold matter, if the Beneficiary does not possess specialized knowledge, then his position abroad 
and in the United States would not involve specialized knowledge as necessary to qualify him. We 
decline to analyze whether the Beneficiary would be qualified for his proposed position in the United 
States. 
The Petitioner indicates that the foreign employer is "entrusted by the Government of Malaysia and 
undertaking new investments where there are strategic opportunities" and states that it performs this 
function in the United States marketplace. The Petitioner explained the position requires that the 
Beneficiary hold advanced knowledge of the foreign employer's "policies, processes, and procedures 
for investment and financial management," as well as "the creation of these processes, its investiture, 
divestment, advisory activities, and U.S. and Malaysian law." The Petitioner asserts on appeal that 
the Beneficiary's knowledge is "greatly developed and more complex in comparison to other workers 
throughout the company's operations in the U.S. or at any other offices worldwide." 
Determinations concerning "advanced knowledge" require review of a beneficiary's knowledge of the 
petitioning organization's processes and procedures. A petitioner may meet its burden through 
evidence that a given beneficiary has knowledge of or expertise in the organization's processes and 
procedures that is greatly developed or further along in progress, complexity, and understanding in 
comparison to other workers in the employer's operations. Such advanced knowledge must be 
supported by evidence setting that knowledge apart from the elementary or basic knowledge possessed 
by others. Also, as with special knowledge, the petitioner ordinarily must demonstrate that a 
beneficiary's knowledge is not commonly held throughout the particular industry and cannot be easily 
imparted from one person to another. 
The Petitioner reiterates on the record many times, as well as on appeal, that the Beneficiary possesses 
advanced knowledge of the company's "policies, processes, and procedures." However, we cannot 
make a factual dete1mination regarding a given beneficiary's specialized knowledge if the petitioner 
does not, at a minimum, articulate with specificity the nature of its policies, processes, or procedures. 
At no point does the Petitioner explain in basic terms each of its policies, processes, or procedures. 
As such, the nature of the Beneficiary's knowledge is not entirely clear, making it difficult to discern 
how his knowledge is set apart or greatly advanced in comparison to his colleagues. Further, it is also 
4 
noteworthy that there is little to no supporting documentation on the record reflecting the Beneficiary 
acting in his asserted capacity to demonstrate his greatly developed level of knowledge. 
Further, the Petitioner did not sufficiently articulate how the Beneficiary gained this advanced 
knowledge as compared to his colleagues or how this knowledge was set apart from them. Determining 
whether knowledge is "advanced" inherently requires a comparison of the beneficiary's knowledge 
against that of others. The Petitioner bears the burden of establishing such a favorable comparison. 
The Petitioner did not provide any specific comparisons of the Beneficiary against his colleagues, such 
as comparing their years of experience, levels of education, projects they worked on, or their levels of 
knowledge. The Petitioner only declares the Beneficiary as one of the most knowledgeable, or the 
most knowledgeable, in the company. However, the Petitioner and its foreign parent are tasked with 
managing a large of group companies and assets making up most of the economy of Malaysia. In fact, 
a submitted 2018 foreign employer annual report reflects that it has a board of directors and 
approximately 20 senior managers, and a provided foreign organizational chart indicates that the 
Beneficiary reported to three investment directors assigned to specific Malaysian companies. Further, 
the Petitioner provided documentation indicating that the Beneficiary completed several foreign 
employer trainings widely provided to professionals within the company's greater organizational 
structure, including one titled "Aspiring Leaders Program for Vice President & Assistant Vice 
President." Given the scale of the foreign employer and the size of the assets it manages, it is 
reasonable to conclude that it has many financial professionals overseeing different Malaysian 
investments and companies and that they have generated expertise and knowledge of its "policies, 
processes, and procedures." 
However, the Petitioner has not submitted any specific comparisons of the Beneficiary against his 
colleagues to substantiate that his knowledge is greatly advanced in comparison. In fact, the Petitioner 
provided the cover pages of two policy documents and asserts the Beneficiary has advanced 
knowledge of them; yet, these documents appear to be widely distributed within the organization, 
suggesting his claimed knowledge is widely held within the company. The Petitioner notably did not 
specifically articulate how long it took the Beneficiary to gain his knowledge or indicate how long it 
would take another one of his colleagues, or someone similarly placed in the industry, to obtain his 
level of knowledge. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude, without more sufficient explanation and 
comparisons, that the Beneficiary's similarly experienced colleagues are also providing similar 
investment management services for the government of Malaysia. The Petitioner has not effectively 
set the Beneficiary's knowledge apart from his colleagues with detailed and probative comparisons. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary possesses advanced 
knowledge as claimed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5