Page 51 - The Indian EYE 102326

IMMIGRATION OCTOBER 23, 2026 | The Indian Eye 51

ends without another lawful basis Administrative Procedure Act, the ble with the beneficiary’s intentions. explain the intention to comply with
to remain. The beneficiary need not USCIS may feel that it is bound by The relevant inquiry is whether the the authorized period of stay if per-
abandon the pursuit of permanent this regulation and so this distinc- evidence supports the temporary as- manent residence or another lawful
residence upon departure. For ex- tion ought to be addressed: dual in- signment and subsequent transfer, basis to remain has not been ob-
ample, the beneficiary could return tent does not automatically dispense rather than whether the beneficiary tained.
to an assignment abroad and sub- with the requirement to document also hopes to obtain permanent res- This approach gives effect to
sequently complete immigrant-vi- temporary U.S. services and a sub- idence. both provisions: it addresses the ev-
sa processing when a visa number sequent assignment abroad. The Thus, petitioners should sup- idence required for an owner’s tem-
becomes available and all other re- two provisions should, however, be port the owner-specific requirement porary assignment while preserving
quirements are satisfied. Converse- read together. USCIS may examine with concrete evidence describing the lawful pursuit of permanent res-
ly, if permanent residence is grant- whether the proposed temporary the duration and purpose of the U.S. idence that L-1 dual intent permits.
ed during the authorized stay, the assignment and transfer abroad are assignment, the anticipated role
beneficiary may remain in the Unit- genuine, but it should not treat an abroad, and the company’s arrange- *Manjeeta Chowdhary is
ed States as a permanent resident. approved I-140 alone as proof that ments for the subsequent transfer. an Associate at Cyrus D. Mehta &
These possible outcomes demon- those arrangements are incompati- The beneficiary’s declaration should Partners PLLC.
strate why pursuing permanent resi- ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
dence does not necessarily make the Cyrus D. Mehta, a graduate of Cambridge University and Columbia Law School, is the Managing Partner of Cyrus D. Mehta
present L-1 assignment permanent.
USCIS could nevertheless argue & Partners PLLC in New York City. Mr. Mehta is a member of AILA’s Administrative Litigation Task Force; AILA’s EB-5 Com-
that the owner-specific provision im- mittee; former chair of AILA’s Ethics Committee; special counsel on immigration matters to the Departmental Disciplinary
poses an evidentiary requirement Committee, Appellate Division, First Department, New York; member of the ABA Commission on Immigration; board member
separate from the general protec- of Volunteers for Legal Services and board member of New York Immigration Coalition. Mr. Mehta is the former chair of the
tion for dual intent. On the one
hand, a petitioner could contest Board of Trustees of the American Immigration Council and former chair of the Committee on Immigration and Nationality
the RFE or NOID by arguing that Law of the New York City Bar Association. He is a frequent speaker and writer on various immigration-related issues, including
the dual intent for L-1 beneficiaries on ethics, and is also an adjunct professor of law at Brooklyn Law School, where he teaches a course entitled Immigration and
enshrined in INA 214(b) overrides
the earlier promulgated regulation Work. Mr. Mehta received the AILA 2018 Edith Lowenstein Memorial Award for advancing the practice of immigration law
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(3)(vii) and and the AILA 2011 Michael Maggio Memorial Award for his outstanding efforts in providing pro bono representation in the
that the USCIS ought to disregard immigration field. He has also received two AILA Presidential Commendations in 2010 and 2016. Mr. Mehta is ranked among
it. On the other hand, while this ar-
gument may succeed potentially in the most highly regarded lawyers in North America by Who’s Who Legal – Corporate Immigration Law 2019 and is also ranked
an action in federal court under the in Chambers USA and Chambers Global 2019 in immigration law, among other rankings.

www.TheIndianEYE.com