L-1 Intracompany Transfer Case Results

Ms. L was opening a new company in the U.S. on an L-1A. Her husband, Mr. L, and their minor son applied to change from F-1 and B-2 respectively to L-2 dependent status so the family could stay in the U.S. together.

• The two dependents had different status backgrounds and different paths: Mr. L held F-1 student status, and their son, under 14, held B-2 status, so each one's eligibility for L-2 had to be argued on its own basis.
• The child's proof of relationship was at first not acceptable: the original birth certificate and medical birth certificate did not meet requirements and had to be notarized and translated again.
• The dependents' timeline was tied to Ms. L's L-1A new office petition. Because her petition went through a long review with substantive scrutiny (including an RFE), both dependents' I-539 applications were held up too, leaving the family waiting on status for a long time.
• A denial would have upended the whole family's plans: if the L-2 applications were denied, both dependents would have had to leave, Ms. L's life and plans in the U.S. would have been cut short, and the whole family might have had to go back together.

• When we filed Ms. L's L-1A petition, we filed the spouse's and child's L-2 applications concurrently to keep their wait as short as possible.
• We guided and helped the family redo the child's birth notarization and related documents so the proof of relationship met USCIS standards.
• Because the child had entered on B-2 and that status was about to expire, we also filed a B-2 extension for him as a second layer of protection, so he would have no gap in status whatever happened with the L-2.
• We tracked the progress of Ms. L's L-1A new office case to keep the dependents' materials consistent with the main case.
• The day the child's L-2 was approved, we immediately withdrew the backup B-2 extension.

Date	Milestone
May 15, 2026	Both applications filed together with Ms. L's L-1A new office petition
September 24, 2026	Minor son's L-2 approved
September 24, 2026	Backup B-2 extension withdrawn the same day
September 25, 2026	Mr. L (spouse) L-2 approved

A denial could have derailed the family's life and business plans in the U.S. So when we filed the main case, we laid down a B-2 extension as a safety net for the child and withdrew it only on the day the L-2 was settled. From the birth notarization setback to the double layer of status protection, Ms. L's family was reunited, which shows again that every step of a dependent's status deserves the same care.

The spouse's and minor child's L-2 status were both approved, and the family is together in the U.S.

Ms. L planned to come to the U.S. on an L-1A to serve as CEO of her company's newly established U.S. subsidiary, leading the U.S. launch of its luxury resale business.

• Her overseas managerial evidence was called "too general." In the pre-owned luxury industry, what many clients actually did before can easily be seen by USCIS as operational work rather than a managerial or executive role. Ms. L's original overseas employment letter also lacked specifics on her daily managerial duties and time allocation, and her authority over hiring, firing, and performance reviews had little supporting evidence.
• The new office category is reviewed more strictly. Compared with a routine extension, an L-1A new office petition requires stronger proof of company size, organizational structure, and the need for a manager.
• If she was denied, the whole family would be affected. Ms. L's husband and child were applying for L-2 status alongside her, so a denial of her L-1A would have left the whole family without status.

• We went through every piece of existing evidence against the legal definition of a managerial or executive role, and picked out the evidence from her actual work in China that truly fit the definition of a managerial position.
• We rebuilt her overseas employment letter, breaking down her daily managerial duties and time allocation and spelling out her supervision of her team, performance reviews, and authority over personnel decisions.
• We added an org chart, supplier collaboration documents, and other supporting evidence to form a complete chain that answered USCIS's "insufficient evidence" concern head on.

Date	Milestone
May 15, 2026	I-129 filed (premium processing)
June 5, 2026	RFE received, asking for more evidence of the overseas managerial role
July 27, 2026	RFE response filed
August 14, 2026	Approved; L-1A valid until August 13, 2027

From evidence called "too general" to a complete chain approved after one response, Ms. L's case shows again that the key to an L-1A new office case is never "did you manage?" but "can you explain the management clearly and prove it?"

Approved after one RFE response; L-1A status valid until August 13, 2027.

The client runs a technology services company in China and planned to enter the U.S. market by setting up a new company, applying for an L-1A New Office petition.

The U.S. company had just been formed and did not yet have an established team, so the managerial position could not be supported by the number of current employees. The focus of review was whether the company could grow within the required period to a size that would support a managerial position.

We prepared the case around the business plan, office premises, capital investment, and organizational structure, showing that the company had a clear business direction and sufficient investment, and a realistic basis for growing to a managerial scale within one year.

L-1A New Office approved.

Mr. W holds L-1A status and serves in an executive and managerial role at the new company he established in the United States. The company had been operating for a full year, and this was the first extension after the initial validity period expired.

• Extension review is stricter than the initial new-office petition: USCIS no longer looks only at plans, but requires proof that the company actually grew in substance over the past year (team, business volume, organizational structure). Repeating the original narrative is not enough.
• Complex cross-border ownership: Mr. W indirectly controls the U.S. company through multiple layers of entities inside and outside China. The early materials described the parent-subsidiary relationship inaccurately, so at the extension stage it had to be re-verified and kept consistent with the initial petition.
• A small team with an unusual workforce structure (a mix of 1099 contractors and W-2 employees, with high turnover). We had to show that Mr. W does genuine managerial work, rather than being treated as doing operational work simply because the team is small.

• We re-verified the ownership and control relationships, clarified how the parent and subsidiary were described, and aligned everything with the initial petition to avoid inconsistencies that could raise new questions.
• We compiled data on team building, business expansion, and organizational changes over the past year to show that the company had moved from its preparatory stage into substantive operations.
• We rewrote the job description around Mr. W's specific management decisions, and explained the team's composition and chain of management under the mixed 1099/W-2 workforce.

Date	Progress
Early 2024	U.S. company incorporated
December 12, 2025	I-129 extension filed (premium processing)
December 24, 2025	Approved outright with zero RFE; validity extended to December 30, 2027

Approved outright with zero RFE; validity extended to December 30, 2027.

Mr. W had been running a company in the U.S. on an L-1A. Once the company was on solid footing, he applied for an EB-1C multinational executive green card.

• As an immigrant category, EB-1C is held to a higher standard than nonimmigrant categories like L-1A. Even for the same company and the same executive, evidence that was accepted at the L-1A extension stage may not meet EB-1C's final determination that the executive role already exists now. This comes from the different nature of the two reviews.
• The "ability to pay" evidence had to cover the period after the priority date. The priority date was February 2026, when the company's current-year financials did not yet exist, and earlier tax returns naturally could not cover the time after the priority date. USCIS routinely issued an RFE asking for the latest financial evidence.

• We rebuilt and strengthened every piece of evidence to the EB-1C final-determination standard instead of simply reusing the reasoning from the L-1A materials.
• We rewrote the detailed duties of the U.S. CEO role, listing specific tasks and time allocation and highlighting decision-making and supervisory authority.
• We added employment verification from the overseas employer, with exact start and end dates and details of the managerial or executive duties, connecting logically to the U.S. role.
• We promptly added the latest financials covering the period after the priority date, showing the company can keep paying the offered wage.
• We organized the evidence list and certified translations so the response was clearly structured and internally consistent, and submitted it all at once within the deadline.

Date	Milestone
February 12, 2026	I-140 filed (premium processing)
April 13, 2026	RFE received on the U.S. position, overseas experience, and ability to pay
June 10, 2026	RFE response filed
August 13, 2026	Approved

L-1A and EB-1C both look at executive roles, but the standards are different: even for the same company and executive, EB-1C requires a fresh, complete argument for the executive role and the ability to pay. Mr. W's case shows that when the evidence tracks the standard of the immigrant category, approval can follow.

EB-1C (I-140) approved after a single response to the three RFE issues: the U.S. position, overseas experience, and ability to pay.

The client has long been responsible for several business units within a Chinese corporate group. After the affiliated U.S. company was established and continued operating, the client took a senior management position at the U.S. company.

The case involved multiple layers of affiliated companies. The relationships among the group's ownership structure, the Chinese company, the U.S. company, and the client's overseas experience had to be clarified to form a clear chain of evidence.

We compiled the complete corporate structure and organizational relationships, broke down the complex group relationships layer by layer, and matched them to the changes in the client's duties abroad and in the United States.

EB-1C approved.

The client headed overseas business for a Chinese corporate group and was later transferred to its affiliated company in the United States. The U.S. company was small, with a limited number of staff.

With a small team, the managerial position could not simply be justified by headcount.

Starting from the company's actual business model, and drawing on the scope of functions the client managed, the duties of the client's subordinates, and the company's use of outsourced and third-party services, we showed that the organizational structure was sufficient to support a managerial or executive position.

EB-1C (I-140) approved.

The client is the founder and an executive of a Chinese company that has operated in China for many years and set up an affiliated company in the United States. After the U.S. company had operated for a full year, the company considered using an EB-1C to secure long-term status for the client.

A common problem when business owners apply for EB-1C is that, although their title is "owner," additional proof is needed that they actually perform managerial or executive work as defined.

Using the company's ownership structure, organizational chart, employee duties, and financial and business records, we explained in concrete terms the client's decision-making authority and the managerial nature of the client's daily work, rather than relying on the title of "founder" or "CEO."

EB-1C approved.

The client previously entered the United States in L-1A status as head of operations for the U.S. company. After a period of operation, the U.S. company's business kept growing, and its team and business systems had become stable.

The focus of the petition shifted from the client's personal history to proving the qualifying relationship between the Chinese and U.S. companies, the U.S. company's actual operating scale and organizational structure, and whether the client continued to perform managerial or executive duties in the United States.

We compiled the company structure, staffing, and the client's management responsibilities to show that the U.S. company had a stable operating foundation and that the client's role had evolved from head of a new company to executive of an established one.

EB-1C (I-140) approved.

The client originally entered the United States in L-1B status as a specialized knowledge employee, responsible for the company's core business and technical systems. As the U.S. business expanded, the client's work gradually shifted to managing the team and business operations.

The classification had to move from specialized knowledge employee to manager, which required proving anew that the client's current duties were team management rather than technical execution.

We re-mapped the team structure and scope of management around the changes in the client's duties while in the United States, and completed the change from L-1B to L-1A based on the company's actual operations.

L-1A approved, laying the groundwork for a future EB-1C petition.

The client is a key manager at a Chinese manufacturing company who has long been responsible for overseas sales, supply chain, and team management. After the company set up a U.S. subsidiary, it wanted the client to go to the United States to lead team building, client development, supply chain coordination, and overall operations.

The client's original position was closer to that of a business lead, so the client's management authority and reporting team had to be re-examined to fit the immigration law definition of a "manager."

We mapped the client's position at the overseas company, the team reporting to the client, and the actual scope of the client's decision-making. Combined with the U.S. company's organizational structure and business plan, we shifted the emphasis of the job description from business execution to management decisions.

L-1A approved.

The client is the head of operations at a Chinese cross-border e-commerce company and has long been responsible for U.S. market expansion, team management, and business strategy. As the company planned to expand its U.S. business, it arranged for the client to go to the United States to lead the overall operations of its U.S. subsidiary, applying on an L-1A.

The core of the case was proving that the relationship between the Chinese and U.S. companies met the "qualifying relationship" requirement, and clearly distinguishing the client's managerial duties at the Chinese company from simple business execution.

We presented evidence on the Chinese company's management structure, the team reporting to the client, and the client's decision-making authority. Combined with the U.S. company's organizational plan, this showed that after the transfer the client would still perform a managerial function rather than front-line business execution.

L-1A approved. The client moved to the United States to lead the U.S. team and business development.