remanded L-1B Case: Accounting

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
u.s. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Innnigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: JUN 15 2011 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker under Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office ("AAO") on appeal. The AAO will withdraw the 
director's decision and remand the matter to the service center for further action and entry of a new decision. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant visa petition to employ the beneficiary an L-IB intracompany transferee 
with specialized knowledge pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ("the Act"), 
U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner, a liquefied natural gas services company, states that it is an affiliate of 
the beneficiary's last foreign employer. The petitioner seeks to employ 
the beneficiary in the position of Senior International Accountant for a period of three years. The petitioner 
indicates that it has employed the beneficiary in this capacity pursuant to TN nonimmigrant status since July 
2005. The beneficiary was last admitted to the United States as a TN nonimmigrant on August 23,2008. 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary has at least 
one continuous year of full-time employment abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years 
preceding the filing of the petition, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(3)(iii). 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO. On appeal, counsel asserts that USCIS "has interpreted Section 
101(a)(l5)(L) as allowing an alien to meet the one year of qualifying employment requirement by looking at 
the three-year window preceding his lawful admission to the United States." Counsel asserts that, as the 
beneficiary was lawfully admitted to the United States in valid TN nonimmigrant status since June 28, 2005, 
the applicable one-year period of qualifying employment must have occurred between June 29, 2002 and June 
28, 2005. Counsel contends that the beneficiary was employed by a qualifying affiliate in Mexico for over 
one year prior to his transfer to the United States in TN status, and therefore is eligible for L-l status in 
accordance with the statute and regulations. 
I. The Law 
To establish L-l eligibility under section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act, the petitioner must demonstrate that the 
beneficiary, within three years preceding the beneficiary'S application for admission into the United States, has 
been employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, or in a capacity involving specialized 
knowledge, for one continuous year by a qualifying organization. The petitioner must also demonstrate that the 
beneficiary seeks to enter the United States temporarily in order to continue to render services to the same 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a capacity that is managerial, executive, or involves specialized 
knowledge. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3) further states that an individual petition filed on Form 1-129 shall be 
accompanied by: 
(i) Evidence that the petitioner and the organization which employed or will employ the 
alien are qualifying organizations as defined in paragraph (1)(1 )(ii)(G) of this section. 
(ii) Evidence that the alien will be employed in an executive, managerial, or specialized 
knowledge capacity, including a detailed description ofthe services to be performed. 
Page 3 
(iii) Evidence that the alien has at least one continuous year of full-time employment 
abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years preceding the filing of 
the petition. 
(iv) Evidence that the alien's prior year of employment abroad was in a position that was 
managerial, executive or involved specialized knowledge and that the alien's prior 
education, training, and employment qualifies himlher to perform the intended 
services in the United States; however, the work in the United States need not be the 
same work which the alien performed abroad. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(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. 
(Emphasis added). 
II. The Issue on Appeal 
The sole issue addressed by the director is whether the beneficiary had at least one continuous year of full­
time employment with a qualifying organization within the three years preceding the filing of the petition. 
Specifically, the issue is whether US CIS should reach over the beneficiary's "admission" into the United States 
and subsequent three years and eight months stay in TN status in determining whether the beneficiary has been 
employed abroad for one continuous year within the three years preceding the filing of the petition in a qualifying 
capacity. 
Procedural History 
The petitioner filed the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, on May 22, 2009. The petitioner 
indicated that the beneficiary was employed by its Mexican affiliate from January 15,2004 until June 14,2005, a 
period of 17 months, in the position of international accountant. In a supporting letter dated May 14, 2009, the 
petitioner stated that the beneficiary was transferred to its Houston, Texas office in June 2005 in TN status as a 
result of the consolidation of the company's North American natural gas control operations. 
The petitioner submitted a copy of the TN visa stamp in the beneficiary's Mexican passport, which was issued by 
the U.S. Consulate General in Monterrey, authorizing employment with the petitioner as an accountant. The 
petitioner also provided a copy of the beneficiary's latest Form 1-94 arrival and departure record indicating that 
the beneficiary was admitted to the United States in TN status on August 23, 2008. 
The director denied the petition on June 2, 2009 concluding that the petitioner failed to submit evidence that the 
beneficiary has at least one continuous year of full-time employment abroad with a qualifying organization within 
the three years preceding the filing of the petition, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(3)(iii). In denying the 
petition, the director noted that the beneficiary had been employed in the United States for approximately three 
years and eight months as of the date the petition was filed. 
On appeal, counsel asserts: 
Since 1994, USCIS (formerly INS) has interpreted Section 101(a)(15)(L) [of the Act] as 
allowing an alien to meet the one year of qualifying employment requirement by looking at the 
three-year window preceding his lawful admission into the United States .... 
Beneficiary was lawfully admitted into the United States on June 28, 2005 ... in valid TN 
nonimmigrant status. Beneficiary has remained in valid TN status since that initial entry in June 
2005. According to the statute and the USCIS stated position, the applicable three-year window 
of eligibility for Beneficiary would have run between June 29, 2002 and June 28, 2005. 
Counsel asserts that the beneficiary was employed by the petitioner's Mexican affiliate between January 2004 and 
June 2005, and therefore acquired the one year of continuous full-time employment with a qualifying entity 
abroad within the three years preceding his lawful admission into the United States in TN status. 
In support of his position, counsel cites section 101 (a)(15)(L) of the Act and two 1994 letters from _ 
_ then Chief of the Nonimmigrant Visa Branch, legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service. Counsel 
provides copies of the referenced letters in support of the appeal, along with a copy of the Form 1-94 
arrival/departure record issued to the beneficiary upon his admission to the United States in TN status on June 28, 
2005. 
Discussion 
Upon review, counsel's assertions are persuasive. Based on the facts presented, the petitioner has established that 
the beneficiary has one continuous year of full-time employment with a foreign qualifying organization within the 
requisite three-year time period. 
To review the required one year of continuous employment abroad, USCIS must count back three years from 
the date that the L-1A petition is filed. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(3)(iii) clearly requires that an 
individual petition filed on Form 1-129 be accompanied by evidence that the beneficiary "has at least one 
continuous year of full time employment abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years 
preceding the filing of the petition." The definition of "intracompany transferee" also indicates that, if the 
beneficiary has been employed abroad continuously for one year by a qualifying organization within three years 
Page 5 
preceding the time of the beneficiary's "application for admission into the United States," the beneficiary may be 
eligible for L-1 classification. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(A). 
However, when the definition of "intracompany transferee" is construed together with the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3) and section 101(a)(l5)(L) of the Act, the phrase "preceding the time of his or her 
application for admission into the United States" refers to a beneficiary whose admission or admissions pertained 
to the rendering of services "for a branch of the same employer or a parent, affiliate, or subsidiary thereof' or for 
"brief trips to the United States for business or pleasure." Statutes and regulations must be read as a whole, and 
interpretations should be consistent with the plain purpose of the Act to avoid absurd results. See generally 
Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
Therefore, according to the plain purpose of the Act and regulations, USCIS may not reach over any admission 
and subsequent stay, unless that admission was "for a branch of the same employer or a parent, affiliate, or 
subsidiary thereof [or] brief trips to the United States for business or pleasure." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(A). 
Unless the authorized period of stay in the United States is either brief or "on behalf' of the employer, the period 
of stay will be interruptive of the required one year of continuous employment abroad. See 52 Fed. Reg. 5738, 
5742 (Feb. 26, 1987) ("Time Spent in the United States Cannot Count Towards Eligibility for L Classification"); 
see also Matter of Continental Grain Company, 14 I&N Dec. 140 (D.D. 1972) (finding that an intervening period 
of stay is not interruptive when the beneficiary was in the United States as an H-3 trainee on behalf of the 
employer). 
Here, the beneficiary was employed for one continuous year with a qualifying affiliate during the three-year 
period immediately preceding his initial admission to the United States in TN status. As the beneficiary was 
admitted to the United States for the purpose of employment with a U.S. affiliate of his foreign employer, and the 
same employer that now seeks to employ him in L-1 B status, the beneficiary's employment in the United States is 
not interruptive of his one year of continuous employment abroad. 
In denying the petition, the director failed to take into account the provisions of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(A), 
which states, in relevant part, that "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" Had the beneficiary been admitted to the United States to 
work for an unrelated company in TN status for over three years, the director's position would be correct. 
However, a beneficiary's one year of continuous employment abroad, once established, remains continuous, 
despite the beneficiary's subsequent stay in the United States for a branch, affiliate, subsidiary, or parent of 
the foreign entity in an authorized nonimmigrant status. Accordingly, the director's decision was in error and 
will be withdrawn. 
Although the director's decision will be withdrawn, the AAO finds that the record as presently constituted does 
not establish that the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge or that he has been or will be employed in a 
capacity requiring specialized knowledge. 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(l)(3)(ii) and (iv). Based on the director's 
decision, it does not appear that he considered these substantive issues prior to denying the petition based on 
perceived clear evidence of ineligibility in the record, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.2(b )(8)(i). 
Page 6 
The petitioner indicates that the beneficiary has been and will be employed in the posItIon of Senior 
International Accountant, in which he would be primarily responsible for accounting for the petitioner's 14 
natural gas facilities located in Mexico. The petitioner indicates that the position requires "in-depth 
knowledge of company's internal accounting and auditing processes utilized to consolidate natural gas 
operations in Mexico with internal and external reporting requirements." The petitioner further states that the 
position requires "significant experience using the internal [company] accounting system (SMART)." The 
petitioner states that its internal accounting processes and practices are complex, and that the beneficiary 
became expert in these processes and practices while employed by its Mexican affiliate as an International 
Accountant from January 2004 to June 2005. The petitioner provided no further explanation regarding the 
beneficiary's qualifications as an employee with specialized knowledge. 
Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1184(c)(2)(B), provides the statutory definition of specialized 
knowledge: 
For purposes of section 101(a)(l5)(L), an alien is considered to be serving in a capacity 
involving specialized knowledge with respect to a company if the alien has a special knowledge 
of the company product and its application in international markets or has an advanced level of 
knowledge of processes and procedures of the company. 
Furthermore, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(D) defines specialized knowledge as: 
[S]pecial knowledge possessed by an individual of the petitioning organization's product, 
service, research, equipment, techniques, management or other interests and its application in 
international markets, or an advanced level of knowledge or expertise in the organization's 
processes and procedures. 
Considering the definition of specialized knowledge, it is the petitioner's, not USC IS', burden to articulate and 
establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the beneficiary possesses "special" or "advanced" 
knowledge. Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)(2)(B). USCIS cannot make a factual 
determination regarding the beneficiary's specialized knowledge if the petitioner does not, at a minimum, 
articulate with specificity the nature of the claimed specialized knowledge, describe how such knowledge is 
typically gained within the organization, and explain how and when the beneficiary gained such knowledge. 
Once the petitioner articulates the nature of the claimed specialized knowledge, it is the weight and type of 
evidence which establishes whether or not the beneficiary actually possesses specialized knowledge. A 
petitioner's assertion that the beneficiary possesses advanced knowledge of the processes and procedures of 
the company must be supported by evidence describing and distinguishing that knowledge from the 
elementary or basic knowledge possessed by others. Because "special" and "advanced" are comparative 
terms, the petitioner should provide evidence that allows USCIS to assess the beneficiary's knowledge 
relative to others in the petitioner's workforce or relative to similarly employed workers in the petitioner's 
specific industry. 
In this matter, the petitioner has not adequately articulated or documented exactly what constitutes the 
beneficiary'S specialized knowledge. Simply stating that the beneficiary is familiar with internal company 
Page 7 
processes or systems alone is insufficient to establish the beneficiary's eligibility for this classification. The 
petitioner has not provided a description of the position the beneficiary held while employed by the foreign 
entity, and thus has not established that he was employed in a position that involved specialized knowledge. 
Accordingly, the matter will be remanded to the director, who is instructed to review the record, request 
additional evidence that will assist in establishing the beneficiary's specialized knowledge qualifications, and 
enter a new decision. 
At this time, the AAO takes no position on whether the beneficiary qualifies for the classification sought. The 
director must make the initial determinations on those issues. So far, the director has not done so. By 
remanding this matter, the AAO does not necessarily find that the beneficiary is ineligible. Rather, we 
remand the matter because the director based the decision on incorrect grounds. 
Therefore, the AAO will remand this matter to the director for a new decision. The director should request 
any additional evidence deemed warranted and allow the petitioner to submit such evidence within a 
reasonable period of time. As always in these proceedings, the burden of proof rests solely with the petitioner. 
Section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1361. 
ORDER: The director's decision is withdrawn. The petition is remanded to the director for further 
action in accordance with the foregoing and entry of a new decision which, if adverse to 
the petitioner, shall be certified to the Administrative Appeals Office for review.