IN THIS GUIDE · Distinguish continuity of foreign employment from time that counts toward it
Start with the L-1B eligibility and application overview
Record physical presence alongside employment
Hypothetical example: payroll shows a full year while travel records include several U.S. visits. Identify the actual dates and activities rather than assuming payroll alone settles the foreign-employment requirement. Do not automatically treat a brief trip as a complete break, or count it as time abroad. Assign the travel reconstruction to the person who took the trips. Nobody else can say why a given week was spent in the United States, whether for a client meeting, a training session or a holiday, and that characterisation matters as much as the dates. Hypothetical example: a site-design specialist logs six U.S. trips in a year and can identify which were brief business visits and which were personal, while the payroll office could only ever have supplied the salary run.
Have the relevant lookback assessed
Prior U.S. work and status history can affect the applicable timing analysis. Provide the actual employer, status and dates rather than applying one simple calendar rule to every case. Time in a dependent status should not be assumed equivalent to qualifying employment for the organization. Prior U.S. status is documented by whoever granted it, not by recollection. Ask the applicant to retrieve the actual admission records and any petition approvals, and have the adviser read them against the applicable lookback instead of applying a calendar rule of thumb. Where an earlier period was spent in a dependent status, the question is what work was actually performed and for whom, and that is a question the applicant answers rather than the employer.
Keep knowledge evidence separate from the calendar
Explain the applicant’s special or advanced knowledge and how the proposed U.S. work uses it. Relevant training and projects can support that claim but do not replace the qualifying foreign-employment calculation. Establish the legal company relationship separately as well. The petitioner describes the specialized knowledge; the adjudicator decides whether the description meets the standard. That division is worth respecting when drafting, because a letter written as though the conclusion were the employer's to reach reads poorly. Have the manager who supervises the work state what the applicant knows that the organisation would otherwise have to develop or train for, and keep that statement separate from the employment calculation, which is arithmetic about dates rather than an argument about value.
Use the reviewed sequence for planning
Identify missing travel or employment records before relying on a proposed filing or start date. A passport, visa exemption or corporate schedule does not establish the entire L case. Review changes in the assignment or history and follow the applicable process. Name the person who will notice when a fact changes. Assignments get extended, trips get added, and an applicant who has moved on from the conversation will not think to report either. Agree that the applicant tells the adviser about any new U.S. travel before the filing, and that the petitioner tells the adviser about any change to the proposed role, since a case reviewed against last quarter's facts can be accurate when written and wrong when filed.
Sources reviewed 2026-09-07. This guide covers a preparation focus; it is not an individual eligibility assessment.