Page 50 - The Indian EYE 102326
P. 50
IMMIGRATION OCTOBER 23, 2026 | The Indian Eye 50
When Dual Intent Meets
the Duty to Depart:
L-1 Owners Pursuing
EB-1C Permanent Residence
BY CYRUS D. MEHTA AND residence in the EB-1C cate- those services end. How can
MANJEETA CHOWDHARY * gory under INA § 203(b)(1) an owner-beneficiary intend
(C). Yet when the L-1 ben- to immigrate permanently
he L-1 visa classifica- eficiary owns or is a major while also demonstrating an
tion appears to pull
Towner-beneficiaries in stockholder of the petition- anticipated transfer abroad?
ing entity, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)
The answer lies in distin-
two directions. INA § 214(b) (3)(vii) requires evidence guishing the beneficiary’s
permits an L-1 nonimmi- that the beneficiary’s services lawful long-term objective of
grant to pursue permanent in the United States will be permanent residence from
residence without forfeiting temporary and that the ben- the temporary character of
L-1 eligibility, and an L-1 eficiary will be transferred to the present L-1 assignment
manager or executive may an assignment abroad when and the beneficiary’s obliga-
be sponsored for permanent
tion to depart if no lawful
basis to remain has been
secured when that as-
signment ends. statutory protection through to depart voluntarily at the
The owner-specific section 205(b)(1) of the Im- end of the authorized stay.
temporary-services re- migration Act of 1990, which The provision further states
quirement appeared in amended INA § 214(b) to that the filing or approval
the Legacy INS’s 1987 exempt L nonimmigrants of an immigrant preference
regulations and there- from the presumption of im- petition cannot be the sole
fore predates Congress’s migrant intent. That amend- basis for denying an L-1 peti-
express statutory rec- ment took effect on October tion, an extension request, or
ognition of L-1 dual in- 1, 1991. The owner-specific an application for admission.
tent. See 52 Fed. Reg. requirement should there- An approved I-140 therefore
5,738 (Feb. 26, 1987). fore be interpreted consis- does not stand alone provide
Although the 1987 pre- tently with this statutory pro- a sufficient basis to deny L-1
amble did not separate- tection. classification.
ly explain the provision To the extent it is con- Anecdotal evidence sug-
or cite Matter of Iso- strued to demand an in- gests that the USCIS might
vic, 18 I. & N. Dec. 361 tention incompatible with issue a Request for Evidence
(Comm’r 1982), the reg- lawful pursuit of permanent or a Notice of Intent to Deny
ulation is consistent with residence, the subsequent- when it notices that the ben-
Isovic’s earlier require- ly enacted statute should eficiary is also the subject of
m of ment of greater proof control. Seeking permanent an EB-1C petition question-
CYRUS D. MEHTA & PARTNERS PLLC of temporariness when residence does not, by itself, ing whether there is an intent
the beneficiary owned
establish that the beneficia-
to depart the US at the end
or controlled the peti- ry’s present L-1 assignment of the L-1 stay if there is al-
tioner. The provision is is inconsistent with a tempo- ready a desire to stay in the
therefore best under- rary stay. US permanently.
stood as a heightened Under 8 C.F.R. § The intention to depart
evidentiary safeguard in 214.2(l)(16), a beneficia- must be understood in this
owner-controlled cases, ry may come to the United context. A beneficiary may
not as a restriction tar- States temporarily in L-1 intend to become a perma-
geting small businesses status while lawfully seeking nent resident if legally eligi-
2 6th Floor or ownership itself. Con- permanent residence, pro- ble while also intending to
gress provided express vided the beneficiary intends leave if the authorized stay
www.TheIndianEYE.com
