USCIS 采纳决定 · 职业移民与工作签证
Matter of Kloeti
L-1跨国公司调派人员的一年境外工作经历要求
18 I&N Dec. 295 (Reg. Comm. 1982)
瑞士公司美国分公司为其雇员申请L-1跨国公司调派人员身份，但该雇员此前仅以B-1身份在美国境内为该公司工作，从未在境外受雇于该公司或其关联公司。地区专员驳回上诉，认定该雇员不满足法定的一年连续境外工作经历要求，且以B-1身份在美工作的时间不能计入该一年期限。
所引用的裁判规则
L-1受益人申请入境前须已在境外为申请公司或其关联公司连续工作一年；依Matter of Continental Grain，该一年经历须完全在美国境外，仅短暂赴美参加会议、培训等可例外；以B-1身份在美为申请公司工作的时间不计入该一年期限。
适用范围
仅适用于L-1跨国公司调派人员申请中一年境外连续工作经历的认定；该先例由地区专员作出，并非全国性行政先例，且仅就本案事实与所引法规作出解释。
查看官方引用与核查记录
核查日期：2026-11-04 · 官方判决来源
- 第2章 - 一般资格
[^ 2] See Matter of Kloeti (PDF) , 18 I&N Dec. 295 (Reg. Comm. 1982).
- https://www.justice.gov/eoir/dhs-aao-ins-decisions
Kloeti , 18 I&N Dec. 295 (R.C. 1982) (PDF)
以上记录用于核对官方对具体规则的引用。部分推翻、法律修订或有管辖权法院的后续判决，可能影响其适用范围。
完整中文参考译文，按原文页码与段落对应，保留标题、引注及脚注。官方文本为英文原件。
原文第 1 页
Interim Decision #2918
临时决定第2918号
MATTER OF KLOETI
KLOETI案
In Visa Petition Proceedings
在签证申请程序中
CHI-N-22755
CHI-N-22755
Decided by Regional Commissioner October 29,
由区域专员于10月29日决定，
(t) The beneficiary of a petition under 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act 8 U.S C. 1101(aX15)(L). does not satisfy the qualifying experience requirement when the beneficiary's only previous employMent for the petitioning firm was as a B4 nonimmigrant in the United States. (2) Matter of Continental Grain, 14 UN Dec. 140 (D.D. 1972), holds that a beneficiary's one year qualifying experience with the petitioner must be wholly outside the United States, except for brief trips to the United States to attend conferences, training sessions, or similar functions. (3) 8 C.F.R. 214.2(1)(2) requires a petitioner to submit "a statement describing the capacity in which the beneficiary has been employed abroad" to support the petition for 1..4 status.
(t) 根据该法第101(a)(15)(L)条、8 U.S.C. 1101(aX15)(L)提交的申请中的受益人，当该受益人为申请公司唯一的先前工作经历是在美国作为B4非移民身份时，不满足合格经验要求。 (2) Matter of Continental Grain，14 UN Dec. 140 (D.D. 1972) 裁定，受益人与申请人之间1年的合格经验必须完全在美国境外，但为参加会议、培训课程或类似活动而短暂赴美除外。 (3) 8 C.F.R. 214.2(1)(2) 要求申请人提交“一份说明受益人在国外受雇担任何种职务的陈述”，以支持1..4身份的申请。
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: Samuel D. Myers, Esquire Freedman, Freedman & Myers, Ltd. Suite 1902, 2 North LaSalle Street Chicago, Illinois 60602
代表申请人：Samuel D. Myers, Esquire Freedman, Freedman & Myers, Ltd. Suite 1902, 2 North LaSalle Street Chicago, Illinois 60602
This matter is before me on appeal from the District Director's deci- sion of December 31, 1981, denying the petition to classify the benefi ciary as an intra-company transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(L). as amended. The appeal will be dismissed. The petitioner is the United States branch of a Swiss firm, Ladmatic AG, Flaesch/Switzerland, which designs and builds systems, robots, fixtures and tools for grinding machines. The petitioning United States branch was established in 1978 and has two employees, its president and an engineer. It handles fixtures and tools for the Swiss-made grinding machines which have been sold to United States customers. The peti- tioner has gross annual sales of $350,000. The beneficiary is a 28-year-old native and citizen of Switzerland whom the petitioner wishes to employ as a service engineer, a position which allegedly involves specialized knowledge. As a service engineer, the beneficiary would train operator:, fur the petitiuner's equipment in its customers' plants and then stand by for maintenance and emergency
本事项因不服地区局长1981年12月31日的决定而由我审理，该决定拒绝了依据经修正的《移民与国籍法》第101(a)(15)(L)条、8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(L)，将受益人归类为 intra-company transferee（公司内部调任人员）的申请。上诉将被驳回。 申请人是瑞士公司Ladmatic AG, Flaesch/Switzerland的美国分支机构，该公司设计和制造磨床系统、机器人、夹具和工具。申请人的美国分支机构成立于1978年，有两名雇员，即其总裁和一名工程师。该分支机构处理已出售给美国客户的瑞士制造磨床的夹具和工具。申请人的年销售总额为$350,000。 受益人是28岁的瑞士国民和公民，申请人希望雇用其担任服务工程师，该职位据称涉及专业知识。作为服务工程师，受益人将在客户的工厂培训操作人员使用申请人的设备，然后待命进行维护和紧急
295
295
原文第 2 页
Interim Decision #2918
临时决定第2918号
repairs. The beneficiary has been doing this work in the United States since April 1979. This was the month in which he first began his employ- ment with Ladmatie, the petitioner's overseas parent company. The beneficiary was hired overseas expressly to be employed in the United States as a service engineer. He was never employed in Switzerland by the petitioner or its parent company. He entered the United States as a nonimmigrant visitor for business (B -1) on April 11, 1979, to do set-up and repair work, his salary being paid from abroad by the petitioner's parent firm. On May 20, 1980, the present petition was filed when it became apparent that the beneficiary's services in the United States would need to be continued for a longer period of time. Therefore, the petitioner and its parent firm decided to seek the status of nonimmi- grant intro-company transferee (L-1) for the beneficiary. The employment contract between Ladmatic and the beneficiary was submitted in support of this petition. It was dated March 28, 1979, and indicates that the beneficiary was hired as of April 1, 1979, to be sent directly to the United States to work as a service engineer in setting up units of machine tools which had been delivered to United States plants belonging to Ladmatic's customers. The beneficiary was hired to work in the United States. Thus, it cannot be said that the beneficiary was employed abroad by the petitioner or its affiliate or subsidiary in any capacity prior to coming to the United States, notwithstanding that the present visa petition was not filed until one year after the beneficiary's employment with the petitioner began and that during this one year the salary of the beneficiary was sent to him from Switzerland. The petitioner was unable to comply with the requirement of federal regulations at 8 C.F.R. 214.2(1)(2) that it submit "a statement describ- ing the capacity in which the beneficiary has been employed abroad" because the beneficiary had never been employed abroad by this company. The beneficiary also is not entitled to intra-company trans- feree (L-1) nonimmigrant classification because by section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act the category is reserved for a nonimmigrant alien who, immediately preceding the time of his application for admission into the United States, has been employed continuously for one year by a firm . . . 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 affiliate thereof.... The beneficiary applied for admission to the United States as a nonim- migrant visitor for business (B-1) in April 1979. At that time he had not been employed for one year by Ladmatic. His contemplated application for change of status is not an application for admission to the United States such as section 101 (a)(15)(L) refers, rather it is an application for a change of nonimmigrant status pursuant to section 248 of the Act, 8 U. S. C. 1258. . It cannot be said that his employment within the United States as a B-1 nonimmigrant from April 1979, until May 1980, (when this visa
维修。受益人自1979年4月起一直在美国从事这项工作。这正是他首次开始受雇于申请人海外母公司Ladmatie的月份。受益人在海外受雇，明确目的是作为服务工程师在美国受雇。他从未由申请人或其母公司在瑞士雇用。他于1979年4月11日以非移民商务访客（B-1）身份进入美国，从事安装和维修工作，其薪资由申请人的母公司从海外支付。1980年5月20日，当受益人在美国的服务显然需要持续更长时间时，本申请被提交。因此，申请人及其母公司决定为受益人寻求非移民公司内部调任人员（L-1）身份。 Ladmatic与受益人之间的雇佣合同被提交以支持本申请。该合同日期为1979年3月28日，表明受益人自1979年4月1日起受雇，将被直接派往美国担任服务工程师，负责安装已交付至Ladmatic客户所属美国工厂的机床单元。受益人受雇在美国工作。因此，尽管本签证申请直到受益人开始受雇于申请人一年后才提交，且在这一年内受益人的薪资是从瑞士寄给他的，仍不能说他来美国之前曾以任何身份受雇于申请人或其关联公司或子公司。 申请人无法遵守8 C.F.R. 214.2(1)(2)联邦法规的要求，即提交“一份说明受益人曾在海外受雇的职位的声明”，因为受益人从未由该公司在海外雇用。受益人也不享有公司内部调任人员（L-1）非移民分类资格，因为根据该法第101(a)(15)(L)条，该类别保留给在申请进入美国之时紧接之前，已在一家公司……或其关联公司或子公司连续受雇一年的非移民外国人，且该外国人寻求临时进入美国以继续向同一雇主或其子公司或关联公司提供服务……。 受益人于1979年4月申请以非移民商务访客（B-1）身份进入美国。当时他尚未受雇于Ladmatic满一年。其拟议的身份变更申请不是第101(a)(15)(L)条所指的进入美国申请，而是根据该法第248条、8 U.S.C. 1258提出的非移民身份变更申请。 不能说他自1979年4月至1980年5月（本签证……时）作为B-1非移民在美国的受雇……
296
296
原文第 3 页
Interim Decision #2918
临时决定第2918号
petition was filed) was one year's qualifying employment within the rule . of Matter of Continental Grain Co., 14 I&N Dec. 140 (D.D. 1972). The beneficiary% employment here certainly was not merely an "intervening" temporary stay in the .United States which only "interrupts" the 1- year period of his prior overseas employment, as Continental Grain's four month training program in the United States did, because the present beneficiary has had no previous employinent whatsoever with the petitioner or its Parent firm abroad. I conclude that the petition was properly denied. The precedent established in Continental Grain was that the one year's continuous employment with the petitioner's firm, affiliate or subsidiary which immediately preceded the beneficiary's application for admission, must be wholly outside the United States. However, during portions of that 'one-year period the beneficiary may spend some time in the United States such as short training periods, conferences, and the like. The petitioner has not shown that the beneficiary's employment during the one year which preceded the filing of this petition was actu- ally employment abroad which may have included merely some periods of employment in the United States. ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.
申请提交时）作为B-1非移民在美国的受雇，属于Matter of Continental Grain Co., 14 I&N Dec. 140 (D.D. 1972)规则下的一年合格受雇。受益人在此的受雇当然不仅仅是“介入性”的美国临时停留，仅“中断”其先前海外受雇的一年期间，如同Continental Grain在美国的四个月培训项目那样，因为本受益人此前与申请人或其海外母公司没有任何受雇经历。我认定该申请被适当拒绝。 Continental Grain所确立的先例是，紧接受益人申请入境之前，在申请人公司、关联公司或子公司连续受雇的一年必须完全在美国境外。但是，在该一年期间的部分时间内，受益人可以在美国度过一些时间，例如短期培训、会议等。申请人未证明在提交本申请之前的一年内，受益人的受雇实际上是境外受雇，而其中可能仅包括某些在美国的受雇期间。 命令：上诉驳回。
297
297
