Read the general business expansion overview
Buying a U.S. company does not automatically make its existing operation a new office. Establish the business history, proposed employer and resulting qualifying relationship before choosing the petition approach. The acquisition documents, operating records and employee plan should explain what changes and what continues after closing.
Distinguish the entity from the transaction
Identify whether the proposal acquires shares, assets or another interest, and which entity will employ the transferee. Record the acquired operation’s actual history of doing business. A recent purchase date should not substitute for the new-office analysis when commercial activity has existed for longer under the relevant structure.
Examine control after closing
Use the transaction and governance documents to show the relationship between the foreign employer and proposed U.S. petitioner. Mark closing conditions and future rights clearly. Counsel should assess whether and when the qualifying relationship exists; an unsigned term sheet does not establish the same facts as a completed transaction.
Connect inherited operations to the role
Describe existing staff, customers and responsibilities alongside the transferee’s proposed duties. Explain which resources will remain and which changes are planned. An acquisition can offer operational substance but does not by itself prove an executive or managerial position, the required foreign experience or entitlement to new-office treatment.
The classification question a first review must answer
Before anything else, establish whether the acquired business is being treated as an established operation or as a new office, because almost everything downstream follows from that answer. A business newly acquired by a group is not automatically a new office, and an operating company with existing staff, customers and premises may not fit that framework at all. The first review should identify which characterisation the facts support, state the reasons, and list the evidence each would require. Where the new-office framework applies, note that approval is generally granted for one year initially and that the plan must show the office will support the proposed role within that period. Where the established-office framework applies, the operating history becomes the evidence and the plan matters less. Getting this wrong is expensive, because the two produce different filings supported by different records.
Hypothetical example: an operating laboratory described as a launch
Hypothetical example: a Canadian group acquires a small U.S. testing laboratory with existing technicians, an established client list and a lease, and prepares the case as a new-office launch because the group is new to the United States. The group is new; the office is not. The first review separates those, and the distinction changes both the framework and the evidence. Identify whether the transaction acquires shares, assets or another interest, and which entity will employ the transferee after closing, since an asset purchase may leave staff with the seller and turn an apparently continuing operation into something else. Then describe what continues and what changes: which staff, customers and responsibilities remain, and how the transferee proposed duties relate to them. The requirement remains one continuous year of qualifying employment abroad within the three preceding years. The proposed U.S. role must be managerial or executive; the foreign year must also have been managerial or executive when the new-office L-1A framework applies.
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.