USCIS adopted decision · Employment immigration
Matter of Leblanc
13 I&N Dec. 816 (Reg. Comm. 1971)
A Canadian company sought L-1 intra-company transferee classification for its employee, and the District Director denied the petition because the U.S. branch did not yet exist. The Regional Commissioner held that the statute does not require the beneficiary to be coming to an existing office or establishment, and that the petition may be approved where the petitioner has acquired physical premises evidencing the bona fides of its intended U.S. operation and is otherwise approvable.
Rule cited
The statute does not require that the L-1 beneficiary be coming to an existing office, branch, or other establishment of the employer; where the petitioner has acquired physical premises necessary to its functions evidencing the bona fides of its intended U.S. operation, the petition may be approved if otherwise approvable.
Scope of application
This precedent addresses L-1 intra-company transferee petitions where the U.S. office is not yet established; it is a 1971 Regional Commissioner administrative decision, cited in the USCIS Policy Manual in discussing documentary requirements for new office cases, and does not resolve all L-1 requirements.
Official citation and verification records
Checked:2026-11-04 · Official decision source
- 第5章 - 所有权与控制
[^ 6] See documentary requirements for new office cases in 8 CFR 214.2(l)(3)(v) and the discussion in Matter of Leblanc (PDF) , 13 I&N Dec. 816 (Reg. Comm. 1971).
The records identify official use of the cited rule. A partial reversal, statutory amendment or controlling court ruling may affect its scope.
Complete reference translation, organized by original page and paragraph. Headings, citations and footnotes are retained. The English document is the official text.
Original page 1
aterim Decision #2110
临时决定第2110号
MATTER OF LEBLANC
LEBLANC案
In Visa Petition Proceedings
在签证申请程序中
LOS—N-12900
LOS—N-12900
Decided by Regional Commissioner November 26, 1971
由区域专员于1971年11月26日裁定
The statute does not require that the beneficiary of a visa petition to accord nonimmigrant classification as an intra-company transferee under section 101(a) (15) (L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, be coming to an existing office, branch or other establishment of his employer in order that the petition may be approved. While there may be a question as to whether or not the petitioning company actually has an established and existing affiliate in the United States at this time, where, as the rec- ord in the instant case shows, the petitioner has acquired physical prem- ises necessary to its functions here which evidences the bona fides of its intended operation in this country, the petition may be approved if other- wise approvable.
该法并不要求,为使申请获得批准,依据经修正的《移民与国籍法》第101(a)(15)(L)条申请给予公司内部调任人非移民类别的签证申请受益人必须前往其雇主现有的办事处、分支机构或其他机构。尽管对于申请公司目前是否确实在美国设有已设立且现有的关联公司可能存在疑问,但如本案记录所示,申请人已取得其在此职能所需的实际场所,这证明其在美国拟开展经营的真实性,则在其他方面可批准的情况下,该申请可以批准。
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: Paul Gutman, Esquire 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1060 Los Angeles, California 90067
代表申请人:Paul Gutman,Esquire 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1060 Los Angeles, California 90067
This case comes before the Regional Commissioner on appeal from the decision of the District Director, Los Angeles, who de- nied the petition on October 7, 1971, stating in pertinent part that: "Inasmuch as the services of the beneficiary are requested to participate in the organization of the United States branch, not yet in existence, it is concluded that the beneficiary does not meet the criteria for classification as intra-company transferee under section 101(a) (15) (L) of the Act, as amended." The petitioner, Thriftmart Ltd., is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the province of Ontario, Canada, since 1964, intending to conduct its business in the State of California under the name of Cosmetiques Herbelle. It intends to promote the door-to-door retail sales of cosmetics on credit as it has been doing in Canada. The petitioner has submitted a certificate of qualification certifying the petitioner, dba Cosmetiques Herbelle, as a Canadian corporation qualified to transact intrastate business in California. The petition was filed on October 7, 1971, under
本案因上诉提交区域专员,针对洛杉矶地区主任1971年10月7日拒绝该申请的决定,该决定的相关部分称:“鉴于要求受益人的服务是参与尚未存在的美国分支机构的组建,因此认定受益人不符合经修正的法案第101(a)(15)(L)条规定的公司内部调任人分类标准。” 申请人Thriftmart Ltd.是一家自1964年起根据加拿大安大略省法律组建并存在的公司,拟以Cosmetiques Herbelle的名义在加利福尼亚州开展业务。其拟如一直在加拿大所做的那样,推广化妆品的上门赊销零售。申请人已提交资格证明,证明申请人(以Cosmetiques Herbelle名义经营)为有资格在加利福尼亚州从事州内业务的加拿大公司。该申请于1971年10月7日依据
Original page 2
Interim Decision #2110
临时决定第2110号
section 101 (a) (15) (L) of the Act seeking the services of the ben- eficiary as an intra-company transferee. The beneficiary is a 26-year-old married male, a native and citi- zen of Canada. The petitioner has stated that beneficiary "has unique, peculiar and specialized knowledge and talent in the screening, recruiting, contracting with and training of persons to participate in a sales program selling cosmetics marketed by peti- tioner. Mr. LeBlanc has been employed by petitioner for more than four years and, in respect of the last year and a half, has had full charge of screening, recruiting, contracting with and training sales personnel and has supervised sales of our products for the entire western Canadian area." The petitioner states that the beneficiary is to be employed in California for twelve months at $200.00 a week with "override commission" and will be hiring and training sales personnel to sell cosmetics on credit. Section 101 (a) (15) (L) of the Act describes an intra-company transferee as follows:
法案第101(a)(15)(L)条提交,寻求受益人的服务作为公司内部调任人。 受益人为26岁已婚男性,加拿大本土出生公民。申请人称受益人“在筛选、招募、签约和培训参与申请人营销化妆品销售项目的人员方面具有独特、特殊和专门的知识和才能。LeBlanc先生受雇于申请人已超过四年,并且在过去一年半中,全面负责筛选、招募、签约和培训销售人员,并监督我们产品在整个加拿大西部地区的销售。” 申请人称,受益人将在加利福尼亚州受雇十二个月,每周200.00美元,另有“超额佣金”,并将招聘和培训销售人员以赊销方式销售化妆品。 法案第101(a)(15)(L)条对公司内部调任人的描述如下:
An alien, who immediately preceding the time of his application for admis- sion into the United States, 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 a subsidiary or af- filiate thereof in a capacity that is managerial, executive or involves special- ized knowledge.... In support of the petition, the petitiorier submitted a statement dated September 24, 1971, stating that at the present time there were no employees in the proposed Los Angeles affiliate branch but that "It is intended that Mr. LeBlanc set up the Los Angeles branch office. Currently the address of the petitioner is that of petitioner's firm of accountants until such time as a formal branch office facility can be established by Mr. LeBlanc. It is in- tended that the beneficiary will come to the United States to par- ticipate in the establishment and commencement of business in Los Angeles." On appeal, counsel for petitioner concedes that at the time the petition was filed there were no employees in the "proposed" Los Angeles branch office and that it had been petitioner's intention to use the beneficiary "to set up the Los Angeles office." He goes on to state that "since that time conditions have changed signifi- cantly and materially justifying reconsideration of petitioner's petition and of the District Director's decision." Counsel now states that the petitioner has leased an office and warehouse in Los Angeles and, as evidence, has submitted copy of
一名外国人,在其申请进入美国入境之时紧接之前,已连续一年受雇于一家商号、公司或其他法律实体或其关联公司或子公司,并寻求临时进入美国,以便以管理、行政或涉及专门知识的身份继续向同一雇主或其子公司或关联公司提供服务…… 为支持该申请,申请人提交了一份日期为1971年9月24日的声明,称目前拟议的洛杉矶关联分支机构没有雇员,但“拟由LeBlanc先生设立洛杉矶分支机构办公室。目前申请人的地址为申请人会计师事务所的地址,直至LeBlanc先生能够设立正式的分支机构办公设施为止。拟由受益人前来美国参与在洛杉矶设立和开办业务。” 在上诉中,申请人的律师承认,在提交申请时,“拟议的”洛杉矶分支机构办公室没有雇员,并且申请人的意图是使用受益人来“设立洛杉矶办公室”。他接着称,“自那时以来,情况已发生重大和实质性的变化,足以证明应重新考虑申请人的申请和地区主任的决定。” 律师现称,申请人已在洛杉矶租赁了办公室和仓库,并作为证据提交了
817
817
Original page 3
erim Decision #2110
临时决定第2110号
'Standard Form Business Property Lease" dated November 8, 11, and showing the lease to start January 1, 1972, and run for 'ee years. An addenda to the lease indicates that the petitioner Ly have limited access to the premises prior to January 1, 1972, on the signing of the lease. Counsel also states that petitioner s employed an "American national" resident of California as ,s California manager in full charge of petitioner's office in the iited States and who will supervise the conduct and activities the beneficiary." Counsel then states that "Petitioner is in the process of estab- ling its inventory of merchandise for marketing and sale in ilifornia which merchandise, upon receipt from time to time, ill be stored in petitioner's warehouse facilities at the above )ted address. As a consequence petitioner can now be deemed to an operating branch of petitioner's Canadian based business ith physical and managerial facilities and with active, resident Lanagement. All that beneficiary will be doing will be the re- ruiting and training of a sales force to facilitate what has now ecome a going business of applicant." The statute requires that the beneficiary, immediately preced- Ig the filing of the petition, had been employed continuously for ne year by petitioner and that he seek to enter the United States emporarily in order to continue to render his services to the ame employer, the petitioner, or a subsidiary or affiliate in a Ca- iacity that is managerial, executive or involves special knowl- dge. The statute does not require that the beneficiary be coming to ,n existing office, branch or other establishment of his employer n order that the petition may be approved. While there may be a [uestion as to whether or not the petitioning company actually ias an established and existing affiliate in the United States at his time, where, as the record in this case shows, the petitioner las acquired physical premises necessary to its functions here Nhich evidences the bona fides of its intended operation in this :ountry, the petition may be approved if otherwise approvable. The record shows that beneficiary had been employed for more than a year in Canada by the petitioner in the recruiting, hiring and training of sales personnel in door-to-door credit sales tech- niques which requires and involves specialized knowledge, and that he is expected to perform the same services for an affiliate branch in the United States. On careful review, we find that the beneficiary qualifies as an intra-company transferee and is eligible for classification under
日期为11月8日、11日的“标准格式商业财产租赁”副本,显示租期自1972年1月1日开始,为期三年。租约的附录表明,申请人在签署租约后,可在1972年1月1日之前有限度地进入该场所。律师还称,申请人已雇用一名居住在加利福尼亚州的“美国国民”作为其加利福尼亚州经理,全面负责申请人在美国的办公室,并将监督受益人的行为和活动。 律师随后称,“申请人正在建立其在加利福尼亚州营销和销售的商品库存,该商品在不时收到后将储存在申请人位于上述地址的仓库设施中。因此,申请人现在可被视为其加拿大业务的运营分支机构,拥有实际和管理设施以及积极常驻的管理层。受益人将做的全部工作就是招募和培训销售队伍,以促进申请人现已开展的业务。” 该法要求,受益人在提交申请紧接之前,已连续一年受雇于申请人,并且其寻求临时进入美国,以便以管理、行政或涉及专门知识的身份继续向同一雇主即申请人或其子公司或关联公司提供服务。 该法并不要求,为使申请获得批准,受益人必须前往其雇主现有的办事处、分支机构或其他机构。尽管对于申请公司目前是否确实在美国设有已设立且现有的关联公司可能存在疑问,但如本案记录所示,申请人已取得其在此职能所需的实际场所,这证明其在美国拟开展经营的真实性,则在其他方面可批准的情况下,该申请可以批准。 记录显示,受益人在加拿大受雇于申请人已超过一年,从事上门赊销技巧中销售人员的招募、聘用和培训,这要求并涉及专门知识,并且预计其将为美国的关联分支机构履行相同服务。 经仔细审查,我们认定受益人符合公司内部调任人的资格,并有资格依据
Original page 4
Interim Decision #2110
临时决定第2110号
section 101(a) (15) (L) of the Act. The appeal will be sustained and the petition granted. ORDER: It is ordered that the appeal be sustained and the pe- tition granted.
法案第101(a)(15)(L)条获得分类。上诉将获支持,申请将获批准。 命令:兹命令上诉获支持,申请获批准。
819
819