No. Reconstruct the actual employment and travel chronology and apply the relevant rules to the specific dates and activities. Time on a company payroll alone does not explain where the applicant worked or the capacity served. Do not count or exclude periods mechanically without the required analysis. The qualifying U.S. and foreign organizations must both remain active. A new-office petition is initially approved for no more than one year and requires sufficient premises and capacity to support the managerial or executive role. Total L-1A stay is generally limited to seven years.
Prepare a reconciled timeline
Compare employment records, travel history and role changes. Explain genuine discrepancies and preserve accurate source records. This review should happen before a transfer deadline is promised, because a planned US start cannot supply a qualifying employment period that the evidence does not establish.
The maximum period in L-1A status is seven years. Test the dates in this order: qualifying foreign employment, corporate relationship, U.S. role readiness, filing or admission step and intended start.
The first review should produce an exception list for job changes, long absences or a business that may be a new office. Employment agreements, payroll, travel records and operating documents settle those points. Hypothetical example: A specialty-tea importer plans to move its Canadian operations director to a California subsidiary after a new lease begins.
The director changed from manager to consultant during part of the three-year lookback, and the U.S. office will not open for two months. The parties must decide whether the qualifying period and planned role are sufficiently documented before promising a transfer date.
A calendar invitation cannot fill a missing employment period. Treat role changes during preparation as material facts to review. A postponed launch, new reporting line or revised staffing plan may affect whether the operation is established or new.
Update the supporting evidence promptly so the chronology describes the case being pursued, not the plan from months earlier.