Matter of S-P-, Inc.

March 19, 2018 PM-602-0158 Policy Memorandum SUBJECT: Matter of S-P-, Inc., Adopted Decision 2018-01 (AAO Mar. 19, 2018) Purpose This policy memorandum (PM) designates the attached decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in Matter of S-P-, Inc. as an Adopted Decision. Accordingly, this adopted decision establishes policy guidance that applies to and shall be used to guide determinations by all U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) employees. USCIS personnel are directed to follow the reasoning in this decision in similar cases. Matter of S-P-, Inc. clarifies that a beneficiary who worked abroad for a qualifying multinational organization for at least one year, but left its employ for a period of more than two years after being admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant, does not satisfy the one-in-three foreign employment requirement for immigrant classification as a multinational manager or executive. To cure the interruption in employment, such a beneficiary would need an additional year of qualifying employment abroad before he or she could once again qualify. Use This PM is intended solely for the guidance of USCIS personnel in the performance of their official duties. It is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or by any individual or other party in removal proceedings, in litigation with the United States, or in any other form or manner. Contact Information Questions or suggestions regarding this PM should be addressed through appropriate directorate channels to the AAO.

2018年3月19日 PM-602-0158 政策备忘录 主题：Matter of S-P-, Inc.，Adopted Decision 2018-01（AAO 2018年3月19日） 目的 本政策备忘录（PM）将行政上诉办公室（AAO）在 Matter of S-P-, Inc. 案中附上的决定指定为“采纳决定”（Adopted Decision）。因此，该采纳决定确立了政策指导，适用于并必须用于指导所有美国公民及移民服务局（USCIS）雇员的裁定。USCIS人员被指示在类似案件中遵循该决定中的推理。 Matter of S-P-, Inc. 澄清，受益人若在符合条件的跨国组织海外工作至少1年，但在以非移民身份入境美国后离职超过2年，则不满足作为跨国经理或高管进行移民分类的“三年中一年”海外雇佣要求。为弥补雇佣中断，该受益人需要在海外再具备1年的合格雇佣经历，才能再次符合资格。 使用 本PM仅供USCIS人员履行公务时作为指导。其不意图、也不、并且不得被依赖以创设任何权利或利益，无论实体性或程序性，可在法律上或由任何个人或其他当事人在遣返程序中、在与美国的诉讼中、或以任何其他形式或方式强制执行。 联系信息 有关本PM的问题或建议应通过适当的局渠道向AAO提出。

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES

行政上诉办公室 美国公民及移民服务局

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

国土安全部

March 19, 2018 [1]

2018年3月19日 [1]

A beneficiary who worked abroad for a qualifying multinational organization for at least one year, but left its employ for a period of more than two years after being admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant, does not satisfy the one-in-three foreign employment requirement for immigrant classification as a multinational manager or executive. FOR THE PETITIONER: Eliot Norman, Esquire, Richmond, Virginia The Petitioner, a manufacturer of tissue paper products, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as a technical director-product development and plant manager under the first preference EB-1 immigrant classification for multinational executives or managers. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 203(b)(1)(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C). This classification allows a U.S. employer to permanently transfer a qualified foreign employee to the United States to work in an executive or managerial capacity. The employee must have worked for a qualifying entity abroad for one year in the three years preceding the filing of the petition or preceding his or her admission to work for the petitioner as a nonimmigrant. Today, we explore some finer points of this “one-in-three” rule. The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition and affirmed that decision in a subsequent motion to reconsider, concluding that the record did not establish, as required, that the petitioning organization employed the Beneficiary abroad for at least one year during the three years preceding his September 2014 entry to work for the Petitioner as a nonimmigrant. In particular, the Director found that there had been an interruption of approximately four years between the Beneficiary’s foreign employment with the Petitioner’s affiliate and his U.S. employment with the

受益人若在符合条件的跨国组织海外工作至少1年，但在以非移民身份入境美国后离职超过2年，则不满足作为跨国经理或高管进行移民分类的“三年中一年”海外雇佣要求。 申请人代表：Eliot Norman，Esquire，弗吉尼亚州里士满 申请人是一家纸巾产品制造商，寻求根据跨国高管或经理第一优先EB-1移民分类，永久雇佣受益人担任技术总监-产品开发和工厂经理。见《移民与国籍法》（该法）§ 203(b)(1)(C)，8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C)。该分类允许美国雇主将合格的外国雇员永久调往美国，以高管或管理身份工作。该雇员必须在提交申请前3年内，或在以非移民身份入境为申请人工作前3年内，已在海外为符合条件的实体工作1年。今天，我们探讨这一“三年中一年”规则的一些更细节点。 内布拉斯加服务中心主任拒绝了该申请，并在随后的重新考虑动议中维持该决定，结论是记录未能按要求证明申请组织在受益人2014年9月以非移民身份入境为申请人工作之前的3年内，在海外雇佣了受益人至少1年。特别是，主任认定，受益人在申请人的关联公司海外雇佣与其在美国为

Matter of S-P-, Inc. Adopted Decision Petitioner. The Director declined to look to the three-year period preceding the Beneficiary’s earlier entry to work for the Petitioner in 2008, because the Beneficiary had later worked for an unrelated U.S. employer for several years prior to returning to work for the Petitioner in 2014. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts its eligibility for this classification on the basis that the Beneficiary worked for the Petitioner’s overseas affiliate immediately before he initially entered the United States in 2008 to work for the Petitioner. The Petitioner maintains that the regulations do not preclude a post-entry interruption in employment as long as the Beneficiary is working for the Petitioner as a nonimmigrant at the time of filing the EB-1 petition. Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal.

Matter of S-P-, Inc. 采纳决定 申请人工作之间，存在约4年的中断。主任拒绝考虑受益人2008年较早入境为申请人工作之前的3年期间，因为受益人后来在2014年返回为申请人工作之前，曾为一家无关的美国雇主工作数年。 在上诉中，申请人主张其符合该分类资格，理由是受益人在2008年首次入境美国为申请人工作之前，立即为申请人的海外关联公司工作。申请人坚持认为，法规并不排除入境后的雇佣中断，只要受益人在提交EB-1申请时为申请人以非移民身份工作即可。 经重新审查（de novo），我们将驳回上诉。

I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK Multinational managers and executives who have been employed outside of the United States for at least one year may immigrate to the United States to continue to render managerial or executive services to the same employer or to its subsidiary or affiliate. Section 203(b)(1)(C) of the Act. If the beneficiary is outside the United States at the time of filing, the petitioner must demonstrate that the beneficiary’s one year of qualifying foreign employment occurred within the three years immediately preceding the filing of the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(A). If the beneficiary is already working in the United States for the petitioner, or its affiliate or subsidiary, at the time of filing, the petitioner must demonstrate that the beneficiary’s year of foreign employment occurred in the three years preceding his or her entry as a nonimmigrant. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(B).

I. 法律框架 已在美国境外受雇至少1年的跨国经理和高管可以移民美国，继续为同一雇主或其子公司或关联公司提供管理或高管服务。该法第203(b)(1)(C)条。如果受益人在提交申请时在美国境外，申请人必须证明受益人的1年合格海外雇佣发生在提交申请前紧接的3年内。8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(A)。如果受益人在提交申请时已在美国为申请人或其关联公司或子公司工作，申请人必须证明受益人的1年海外雇佣发生在受益人以非移民身份入境前的3年内。见8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(B)。

II. DISCUSSION The Beneficiary in this case has been working for the Petitioner as an L-1A nonimmigrant and, therefore, the Petitioner must show that his foreign employment occurred in the three years preceding his entry to the United States. At issue is whether we should look at the three-year period preceding his initial entry to work for the Petitioner, or the three-year period preceding his entry to work for the Petitioner after an extended period of employment with a different U.S. employer. The Beneficiary worked in a qualifying capacity for the Petitioner’s affiliate in Indonesia for more than one year, until January 2008, when he first entered the United States to work for the Petitioner. He ceased employment with the Petitioner in September 2010, and his next documented employment was with an unrelated U.S. employer from April 2011 to July 2014. Thereafter, the Beneficiary departed the United States, but he returned in September 2014 to work for the Petitioner. The Petitioner then filed the immigrant petition in November 2014. The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary had been employed abroad for at least one year during the three years preceding his entry to the United States to commence employment with the Petitioner in September 2014, because of the intervening years spent working for an unrelated company.

II. 讨论 本案受益人一直以L-1A非移民身份为申请人工作，因此，申请人必须证明其海外雇佣发生在其入境美国前的3年内。问题在于，我们应审查其首次入境为申请人工作之前的3年期间，还是其在为另一家美国雇主长期工作后入境为申请人工作之前的3年期间。受益人在印度尼西亚为申请人的关联公司以合格身份工作了1年以上，直至2008年1月其首次入境美国为申请人工作。他于2010年9月停止为申请人工作，其下一段有记录的雇佣是2011年4月至2014年7月为一家无关的美国雇主工作。此后，受益人离开美国，但于2014年9月返回为申请人工作。申请人随后于2014年11月提交了移民申请。 主任认定，申请人未能证明受益人在2014年9月入境美国开始为申请人工作之前的3年内，已在海外受雇至少1年，因为其间有数年时间为无关公司工作。

2

2

Matter of S-P-, Inc. Adopted Decision On appeal, the Petitioner points to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(B) and asserts that the relevant three-year period was prior to the Beneficiary’s first nonimmigrant entry in 2008, and that a subsequent change of U.S. employers does not disqualify the Beneficiary from the immigrant classification that the Petitioner seeks on his behalf. We disagree. Statutes and regulations must be read as a whole, and interpretations should be consistent with the purpose of the Act. Under the Petitioner’s interpretation of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(B), any beneficiary who had worked as a manager or executive for a qualifying entity abroad for one year during the three years preceding entry would remain eligible indefinitely for immigrant multinational classification, as long as he or she was initially admitted to work for the multinational organization and eventually returned to its employ prior to filing the immigrant petition. We decline to construe the statute and regulations as establishing a more lenient standard for a beneficiary already in the United States than for one seeking admission from abroad. A single nonimmigrant entry to work for the Petitioner does not permanently qualify a beneficiary for EB-1 classification, regardless of the passage of time and changes of employment that occur after that entry. According to the statute, the relevant period during which a beneficiary must have had one year of managerial or executive employment abroad is the three years “preceding the time of the alien’s application for classification and admission into the United States under this subparagraph.” Section 203(b)(1)(C) of the Act. The statute, however, is silent with regard to those key personnel who have already been admitted to the United States in a nonimmigrant classification. In promulgating the implementing regulations, the former Immigration and Naturalization Service concluded that it was not the intent of Congress to disqualify “nonimmigrant managers or executives who have already been transferred to the United States” to work within the same corporate organization. See 56 Fed. Reg. 30,703, 30,705 (July 5, 1991). Thus, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(B) allows USCIS to look beyond the three-year period immediately preceding the filing of the I-140 petition, when the beneficiary is already working for a qualifying U.S. entity. Without such a provision, a beneficiary employed in the United States by a qualifying organization in a nonimmigrant status for more than two years would not be eligible for immigrant classification as a multinational manager or executive. That said, both the statute and the regulations focus on the continuity of the beneficiary’s employment with the same multinational organization. This is not inconsistent with the purpose of the intracompany transferee visa classification, which is to facilitate the international transfer of multinational businesses’ key personnel. 2 The statute and regulations clearly sever eligibility for this multinational visa classification for a beneficiary who is outside the United States if there was an interruption in employment with the petitioner’s multinational organization for more than two years during the three years prior to filing the immigrant visa petition. Such a beneficiary, regardless of earlier employment, cannot establish one year of qualifying employment in the three years prior to the

Matter of S-P-, Inc. 采纳决定 在上诉中，申请人援引8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(B)，主张相关三年期间是受益人2008年首次非移民入境之前，且随后更换美国雇主并不使受益人丧失申请人代表其寻求的移民分类资格。 我们不同意。法规和条例必须作为整体解读，解释应与该法的目的相一致。按照申请人对8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(B)的解释，任何受益人在入境前三年内曾为合格实体在海外担任经理或高管一年，只要其最初获准为跨国组织工作，并最终在提交移民申请前回到该组织任职，就将无限期地保持跨国移民分类资格。我们拒绝将法规和条例解释为对已在美国境内的受益人确立比寻求从国外入境的受益人更宽松的标准。仅为申请人工作的一次非移民入境并不能使受益人永久符合EB-1分类资格，无论该次入境后经过多长时间以及发生何种雇佣变更。 根据该法，受益人必须在海外担任经理或高管一年的相关期间是“在该外国人根据本项申请分类和获准进入美国之前的”三年。该法第203(b)(1)(C)条。然而，该法对已以非移民分类获准进入美国的那些关键人员未作规定。在制定实施条例时，前移民和归化局认定，国会无意取消“已被调往美国”在同一公司组织内工作的“非移民经理或高管”的资格。见56 Fed. Reg. 30,703, 30,705（1991年7月5日）。因此，8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(B)的条例允许USCIS在受益人已为合格美国实体工作时，考察I-140申请提交前三年期间之外的情况。若无此类规定，以非移民身份为合格组织在美国就业超过两年的受益人将不符合跨国经理或高管的移民分类资格。 尽管如此，该法和条例均侧重于受益人与同一跨国组织雇佣关系的连续性。这与公司内部调任签证分类的目的并不矛盾，该目的旨在便利跨国企业关键人员的国际调动。2 该法和条例明确规定，对于在美国境外的受益人，如果在提交移民签证申请前三年内与申请人的跨国组织的雇佣关系中断超过两年，则丧失该跨国签证分类资格。此类受益人，无论先前有何雇佣经历，均无法证明在提交申请前三年内有一年的合格雇佣经历。

3

3

Matter of S-P-, Inc. Adopted Decision filing of the petition. That beneficiary would need additional qualifying employment abroad, adding up to at least one year during the three years prior to filing, before a U.S. petitioner could file an EB-1 petition on his or her behalf. We construe the statute and regulations to apply the same rule, whether the interruption occurred during the three years prior to the beneficiary’s admission as a nonimmigrant or after his or her entry to the United States. A beneficiary who worked as a manager or executive for a qualifying multinational organization for at least one year, but who then left the organization for a period of more than two years, is ineligible for this immigrant visa classification. To cure the interruption in employment, such a beneficiary would need an additional year of qualifying employment abroad before he or she could once again qualify. We agree with the Petitioner that a period of employment with a different U.S. employer would not automatically disqualify a beneficiary. However, a break in qualifying employment longer than two years will interrupt a beneficiary’s continuity of employment with the petitioner’s multinational organization. Such breaks may include, but are not limited to, intervening employment with a non- qualifying U.S. employer or periods of stay in a nonimmigrant status without work authorization. In this case, the Beneficiary was admitted to the United States to work for the Petitioner, left its employ for nearly four years to work for an unrelated U.S. employer, and then returned to work for the Petitioner. Although he resumed employment with the Petitioner after that interruption, he can no longer establish eligibility based on the three-year period of employment that immediately preceded his 2008 admission to the United States. 3 As a result, the appropriate reference point is the date on which the Beneficiary entered the United States to resume working for the Petitioner, which is in September 2014. 4

Matter of S-P-, Inc. 采纳决定 提交申请前三年内。该受益人将需要在海外获得额外的合格雇佣经历，在提交申请前三年内增加至少一年，然后美国申请人才能代表其提交EB-1申请。 我们将该法和条例解释为适用同一规则，无论中断发生在受益人作为非移民获准入境前三年内还是在其进入美国之后。曾为合格跨国组织担任经理或高管至少一年，但随后离开该组织超过两年的受益人，不符合该移民签证分类资格。为弥补雇佣中断，此类受益人将需要在海外获得额外一年的合格雇佣经历，然后才能再次符合资格。 我们同意申请人的观点，即为不同的美国雇主工作一段时间不会自动使受益人丧失资格。然而，合格雇佣中断超过两年将中断受益人与申请人的跨国组织的雇佣连续性。此类中断可以包括但不限于在为不合格美国雇主工作期间或没有工作许可的非移民身份停留期间。 在本案中，受益人获准进入美国为申请人工作，离开其雇佣近四年为无关的美国雇主工作，然后回到申请人的工作。尽管他在该中断后恢复了与申请人的雇佣关系，但他不能再基于紧接其2008年获准进入美国之前的三年雇佣期间确立资格。3 因此，适当的参照点是受益人进入美国恢复为申请人工作的日期，即2014年9月。4

III. CONCLUSION As the Beneficiary was not employed for at least one year by a qualifying entity abroad between September 2011 and September 2014, the Petitioner cannot establish his eligibility as a multinational manager or executive. ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. Cite as Matter of S-P-, Inc., Adopted Decision 2018-01 (AAO Mar. 19, 2018)

III. 结论 由于受益人在2011年9月至2014年9月期间未在海外为合格实体工作至少一年，申请人无法确立其作为跨国经理或高管的资格。 命令： 上诉被驳回。 引用为 Matter of S-P-, Inc., Adopted Decision 2018-01 (AAO Mar. 19, 2018)

4

4