Do not assume the original proposal covers materially different duties or placement conditions.
Review the actual change
A related business relationship or customer request does not expand permission by itself. Assess the real assignment before relying on earlier authorization.
Build a dated review file around the assignment dates, aggregate L time, customer worksite facts, supervision terms, and any changed duties. Prepare a placement timeline showing remaining L-1B time, assignment dates, client location, petitioner supervision, deliverables, and every change from the approved duties. Its practical purpose is to decide whether the remaining period and actual placement fit the requested specialized assignment, rather than to collect papers with no stated issue. Hypothetical example: a maker of concert-hall acoustics software moves a specialist from its own office to an unaffiliated client site after approval. Compare the client-site arrangement with the petitioner’s control and the specialist’s approved functions before accepting the customer’s requested move. Calculate remaining L time first, map supervision and control at the worksite second, and then test whether specialized duties continue throughout placement. A recurring problem is assuming that a customer request automatically preserves the same supervision and placement analysis. The transfer normally calls for a full qualifying year with the related foreign organization during the three-year lookback. L-1B time has a five-year aggregate ceiling, and a new office needs premises plus ability to pay the worker and start business operations. Reassess before any move, extension, or client-task change that could alter petitioner control, specialized functions, or the five-year aggregate limit.