Explain why and whether the proposed work can still be performed as described. Review any resulting change to duties or the factual basis for the transfer.
Reassess the role rather than assuming knowledge vanished
A permission change and a knowledge change are different facts. The employee may retain relevant expertise, but the application should accurately describe the assignment that remains possible and any required next immigration step.
A project event does not itself authorize the proposed US work. Ask specifically why access ended, since a security policy change, a role reassignment, or the end of a contractor relationship each points to a different explanation and each carries different consequences for the proposed transfer. Preserve any system-generated activity record created while access was still active, such as login history, change logs, or task assignments, because that record documents what the person actually did at the time and does not depend on access continuing afterward. Ask colleagues who worked alongside the person during that period to describe specific tasks from memory while the details are still fresh, rather than waiting until the underlying dispute over access is resolved. Confirm whether a different, narrower form of access could support the specific duties the proposed assignment actually requires, since full restoration of the original access may not be necessary for every task on the list. Treat the access question and the underlying knowledge question as separate items to resolve, since restoring one does not automatically confirm the other.