Read the general business expansion overview
A new office relying on function management needs to identify the essential function, the transferee’s authority and who performs its underlying work. A small workforce does not answer the issue by itself. The plan must demonstrate a qualifying future role through actual organisational resources and responsibilities.
Define the function concretely
Describe the function’s place in the business, decisions within its scope and why it matters to operations. Avoid broad labels such as strategy without an explanation of what is managed. Ask counsel to evaluate the legal criteria using this description and the transferee’s actual foreign experience, rather than choosing a title first.
Locate the people performing the work
Map the operational tasks within the function to employees or other genuine resources. If the transferee will personally carry out those tasks, state that accurately. Managing an essential function is different from primarily performing it, and an unsupported claim that everything is outsourced should not conceal the person’s real daily responsibilities.
Show the first-year organisation
Connect the function to staffing, funding and the proposed U.S. business activity as it develops. Explain the transferee’s senior decision-making position and the evidence that supports it. Keep the initial launch responsibilities separate from the organisation expected within a year, so the plan can be assessed without pretending the mature structure already exists.
Name the function in a document, then find its workers
A function-management case depends on two records prepared in order. The first defines the essential function: what it is, where it sits in the organisation, which decisions fall within it, and why the business needs it managed rather than merely performed. Write that before any staffing chart, because a function described after the chart tends to be shaped to fit the people available. The second maps the underlying work of that function to the people or genuine resources performing it. If the transferee would personally perform most of it, the record shows that plainly, and the case is then about something other than function management. A new-office L-1A is generally approved for one year initially, so the second record should describe the first year as it will actually be resourced rather than as the organisation is expected to look eventually.
Hypothetical example: a function with no one beneath it
Hypothetical example: a Canadian equine equipment business opens a U.S. office and proposes that a transferee manage its supply and distribution function. The function definition is clear enough. The mapping record then shows that in the first year the transferee will personally place the orders, arrange the shipments and handle customer queries, supported by one part-time administrator. That record does not defeat the plan, but it shows what the plan actually is, and it should be filed rather than smoothed over. Where genuine resources exist, name them: a contracted logistics provider performing operational work under the transferee direction is a resource, and the contract evidences it. The classification requires one continuous year of qualifying employment abroad within the three preceding years, in a managerial or executive capacity for L-1A, and the first-year organisation is what the plan must make credible.
What else is on your mind?
Does being a business owner or director qualify me for L-1A?What employment history should an L-1 transfer review cover?What makes a new-office L-1A case different?Why does an L-2 spouse’s admission record matter for work?Editorial source review: 2026-09-07. General preparation guidance, not an individual assessment.