sustained L-1B Case: Telecommunications Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 19429491 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB . 14, 2022 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lB Specialized Knowledge Worker 
The Petitioner, a developer of optical and ethernet transport solutions, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as its service manager under the L-lB classification for intracompany transferees . 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(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 concluding the record did not 
establish that: ( 1) the Beneficiary is employed abroad by a qualifying branch of the Petitioner , as 
claimed; or (2) 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 matter is now 
before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence . Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S .C. 1101 1361; Matter of Chawath e, 25 
l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). Upon de nova review , we will sustain the appeal. 
I. LAW 
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). 
A "qualifying organization" means a United State or foreign firm, corporation or other legal entity 
which : ( 1) meets exactly one of the qualifying relationships specified in the definitions of a parent, 
branch , affiliate or subsidiary as defined at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)( 1 )(ii); (2) is or will be doing business 
as an employer in the United States in at least one other country directly or through a parent, branch, 
affiliate or subsidiary for the duration of the noncitizen's stay in the United States as an intracompany 
transferee; and (3) otherwise meets the requirements of section 10l(a)(l5)(L) of the Act. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(G). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The issue to be addressed is whether the statute and regulations for L-1 intracompany transferees 
permit the transfer of a foreign employee who has been employed abroad by the petitioning U.S. entity, 
rather than by a separate foreign entity within the same qualifying organization. 
The Director determined that the Beneficiary, who resides and works in Mexico, is employed by the 
petitioning U.S. entity, despite the Petitioner indicating on the Form 1-129 L Classification Supplement 
that his employer abroad is a "branch" office in Mexico. 1 The Director concluded that based on the 
definition of "qualifying organization" at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(G), the Petitioner must establish 
that the Beneficiary is employed abroad by the Petitioner's foreign "parent, branch, affiliate or 
subsidiary." Because the Petitioner did not establish that it has a branch, affiliate, subsidiary or parent 
in Mexico, the Director determined it did not demonstrate that it has a qualifying relationship with the 
Beneficiary's foreign employer or that the Beneficiary has been employed abroad by a qualifying 
organization. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that based on the statute and relevant case law, the L-1 classification 
does not require a petitioner to establish that a beneficiary has been employed abroad by a separate 
foreign entity or branch office. The Petitioner asserts that direct employment with a qualifying U.S. 
entity, if based outside the United States, allows a noncitizen to accrue the required one year of 
continuous employment abroad with a qualifying organization in the three years preceding the filing 
of the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(iii). The Petitioner emphasizes that the statute specifically 
provides for L-1 classification to be granted to a noncitizen who has been "employed continuously for 
one year by a firm or corporation or other legal entity or an affiliate or subsidiary thereof," and who 
seeks to enter the United States temporarily in order "to continue to render his services to the same 
employer or to an affiliate or subsidiary thereof" Section 101(a)(l5)(L) of the Act. 
In support of its assertions, the Petitioner relies on Matter of Chartier, 16 I&N Dec. 284 (BIA 1977), 
in which the Board of Immigration Appeals determined that a Canada-based employee of a U.S. 
petitioner was eligible to be classified as an L-1 nonimmigrant despite the petitioner not having a 
1 The Form 1-129 L Classification supplement requires a petitioner to indicate whether the U.S. company and the company 
abroad have a "parent," "branch," "subsidiary," "affiliate" or "joint venture" relationship. The Petitioner marked "branch" 
but added a clarifying statement that the Beneficiary "works under the control and supervision of the Petitioner in Mexico." 
We observe that the form does not provide an option for direct employment in a foreign endeavor and note that the "branch" 
option most closely matches the facts of this case. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(J) (defining "branch" as an "operating 
division or office of the same organization housed in a different location"). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner submitted sufficient evidence to establish that it supervises and controls the 
Beneficiary's work and serves as his employer in Mexico. As we agree with the Director's conclusion, we decline to reach 
any argument based on Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318 (1992) or Clackamas Gastroenterology Assocs. 
P.C. v. Wells, 538 U.S. 440 (2003). Instead, as will be discussed, the matter may be resolved by applying the regulations 
and binding precedent that govern L-1 qualifying relationships. 
2 
related legal entity in Canada. The Board held that there should be no distinction between "United 
States companies with subsidiaries abroad and United States companies with employees abroad who 
work directly for the parent company." 
The Petitioner's assertions are persuasive. The former Immigration and Naturalization Service 
directly addressed Chartier when it published the final rule defining "qualifying organization," at 
which time it clarified that all L-1 petitioners must establish the existence of at least one parent, branch, 
affiliate, or subsidiary that is doing business outside the United States: 
The Service's position is that the requirement to continue to do business in the U.S. and 
at least one other country for the duration of the L's stay does not conflict with Chartier. 
That case involved a United States company with an employee stationed abroad. The 
employee was not employed by a subsidiary or other legal entity of the U.S. employer 
but reported directly to the parent company in the United States. The U.S. company 
was an international corporation with a subsidiary in Belgium. The facts of this case 
are consistent with L classification, and the Service has not attempted to alter the 
situation where a U.S. company can have employees abroad unattached to a foreign 
entity and qualify to transfer such employees to the United States under the L 
classification. 
52 Fed. Reg. 5738, 5741 (Feb. 26, 1987). 
The current definition of "qualifying organization" at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(G) was implemented 
by final rule in 1991, but no substantive changes were made to the prior definition, and the agency did 
not indicate an intent to overturn Chartier as a precedent decision. See 56 Fed. Reg. 61111 (Dec. 2, 
1991). More recently, in a policy memorandum addressing the one-year foreign employment 
requirement, users stated that "[t]he 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." See USCrS 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), 3 (Nov. 15, 2018), https://www.uscis.gov/laws-and-policy/policy-memoranda. 
An L-1 petitioner that meets the definition of "qualifying organization" by doing business in the United 
States and through a qualifying branch, parent, affiliate or subsidiary abroad, and which will continue 
to do business through at least one qualifying entity abroad for the duration of a beneficiary's intended 
stay in the United States, is eligible to transfer its foreign employee to the United States. Following 
Matter of Chartier, the petitioner remains eligible even if that employee is working in a country in 
which the petitioner has no branch, affiliate, subsidiary or parent. See 16 I&N Dec. at 287-88. 
As noted, the Director determined that the Beneficiary is employed by the U.S. Petitioner in Mexico. 
The record contains ample evidence of the Petitioner's business activities in the United States, Mexico, 
and the Latin American region. The record further establishes that the Petitioner meets the definition 
of qualifying organization, as it is a subsidiary of a German parent company and has qualifying 
subsidiaries and affiliates doing business in approximately 15 countries worldwide, as evidenced by 
the 2019 annual report for the Petitioner's corporate group and USCrS' approval of its blanket L 
petition in 2020. 
3 
For the reasons discussed, we conclude that the Petitioner has established that the Beneficiary has the 
required one continuous year of employment abroad with a qualifying organization in the three years 
preceding the filing of the petition. As the Petitioner has overcome the Director's stated grounds for 
denial of the petition, the appeal will be sustained. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
4