Interim Decision #2758 

MATTER OF MICHELIN TIRE CORPORATION 

In Proceedings to Classify Alien as Nonimmigrant 

under section 101(a)(15)(L) 

ATL-N-4931 

Decided by Regional Commissioner January 9, 1978 

(1) In order to be eligible for nonimmigrant classification under section 101(a)(15)(L) of 

the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(L), the beneficiary must 

have been employed continuously fort year by the petitioner at the time the petition is 

filed with the Service. Having worked for the company for only 9 months, beneficiary 

failed to meet this time requirement. 

(2) Where a beneficiary seeks to qualify for "L" classification on the basis of specialized 

knowledge, that knowledge must be relevant to the business itself and directly 

concerned with the expansion of commerce or it must allow an American business to 

become competitive in overseas markets. In this case beneficiary's specialized knowledge was of the French Educational System. The petition sought to allow her to enter 

thi, country to teach the children of the French employees who would be coming here 

to start the plant, so their children's educational development would not suffer. This 

was not the specialized knowledge contemplated by the statute but was related to the 

provision of a fringe benefit for the company's employees. For that reason it does not 

qualify the beneficiary for admission under section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. 

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: Pro se 

The petition was denied by the District Director, Atlanta, Georgia, 

and is now considered on appeal. 

The petitioner, an international tire manufacturing company, has 

petitioned to accord the beneficiary classification as an intra -company 

transferee, to be a French education specialist for the company. The 

petition filed on June 6,1977, indicates the beneficiary will be employed 

in a capacity which involves specialized knowledge. 

Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act, as amended, defines an intra-company transferee as: . 

"An 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 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 

248 
Interim Decision #2758 

employer or subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a capacity that is managerial, or executive or involves specialized knowledge, ..." 

The petition was denied on the basis that at the time of filing the 

petition, the beneficiary had not been employed by the petitioner for 

the required period of one year, and, that the knowledge possessed by 

the beneficiary was general knowledge, rather than the specialized 

knowledge contemplated by the statute. 

On appeal, it is pointed out that during the start-up period for a new 

plant, it was necessary to bring temporarily a large number of French 

employees from their subsidiary in that country, and in order that 

their children will not suffer an educational set-back upon return to 

France, a teacher graduated from the French Educational System is 

required. It is also pointed out that by the time the beneficiary commences her employment here, she will have the required 1 year of 

experience. 

According to the information contained on the nonimmigrant visa 

petition, at the time of filing the petition with the Service, the beneficiary had approximately 9 months of employment with the petitioning 

firm- This does not meet the statutory requirement of the beneficiary 

having been employed continuously for 1 year immediately preceding 

the time of application for admission. In Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N 

Dec. 45 (R.C. 1971), although an immigrant visa petition case, it was 

held that the beneficiary must be qualified at the time of filing the visa 

petition. In view of the language of section 101(a) (15)(L) of the Act, it 

must be concluded that the intra-company transferee must likewise 

have the required 1 year of experience at the time of filing the nonimmigrant petition in her behalf. 

The remaining issue to be decided is whether or not the beneficiary 

would be employed in a capacity which "involves specialized 

knowledge." A review of available published precedent decisions has 

not disclosed a case ruling on the issue presented by the District 

Director. It is necessary, therefore, to turn to the legislative history. 

H.R. 851, 91st Congress, 1st Session, by the Committee on the Judiciary, cited the broad purposes of the then-proposed legislation, subsequently enacted as section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. On page 3 of that 

Report, there is stated: 

"The testimony of witnesses clearly establishes that existing law restricts and inhibits the ability of international companies to bring into the United States foreign 

nationals with management, professional, and specialist skills and thereby enable 

Ant erican business to maintain and improve the management effectiveness of international companies to expand U. S. exports and to be competitive in overseas markets. 

Existing nonimmigrant provisinne of the Immigration and Nationality Act offer little 

or no relief in the transfer of executive personnel since such entries are also limited to 

specific positions which are temporary in nature. Consequently, visas must be denied 

to alien executive personnel who are transferred to the United States to continue 

249 
Interim Decision #2758 

employment with a domestic corporation or firm, or a domestic affiliate or subsidiary 

of a foreign corporation. 

This interchange of personnel is important since it an opportunity for an individual to 

advance within the worldwide organizations without regard to nationality, it enables 

foreign nationals to learn American management techniques by placing them in key 

positions in the United States and thus more> effectively manage the affiliate operations in the U. S. companies when they return overseas. Experience has demonstrated 

that a real contribution in the conduct of international business results from the 

cross-fertilization of ideas through the use of special skills of personnel of different 

nationalities." 

Page 5 of the report added: 

"This amendment would help eliminate problems now faced by American companies 

having offices abroad in transferring key personnel freely within the organization. 

This proposal would meet the objective of American industry which has been seriously 

hampered in transferring personnel, particularly from Canada. 

Testimony before the committee established that the present immigration law and its 

administration have restricted the exchange and development of managerial personnel from other nations vital to American companies competing in modern-day world 

trade. Executives of American companies detailed for assignments in foreign branch 

offices, or subsidiaries and affiliate companies abroad, find little difficulty in being 

admitted to foreign countries - as noninmmigrants_for duty tours of several years 

duration. Such intra-company transfers have contributed immeasurably to the 

growth of American enterprise throughout the world and to the international trade of 

the United States.".. 

In the ease before me, the beneficiary is a graduate teacher trained 

in the French Educational System. She is qualified by experience to 

continue the French-required system of education here in the United 

States. According to the petitioner, such education is necessary in 

order that the children of their French employees will not retrogress 

in their studies upon their return to France. In a sense, the beneficiary 

can be said to possess a specialized knowledge, that of the requirements of the educational system in France. 

The educational opportunities offered by the petitioner to its French 

employees is a fringe benefit, offered to induce certain foreign employees to come to the United States temporarily. This inducement is 

not concerned with the expansion of commerce, or with the movement 

of key personnel within an international corporation, as cited in the 

House Report, supra. The specialized knowledge required by the statute must directly concern the expansion of commerce or it must allow 

an American business to be competitive in overseas markets. Such an 

interpretation, I believe, is consistent with the purpose and intent of 

this legislation. Accordingly, I find that the proposed employment does 

not meet the statutory requirement of specialized knowledge, and the 

decision of the District Director was correct and proper. 

ORDER* The decision of the District Director is affirmed, and the 

appeal is dismissed. 

250