tion. The statute states, “an alien who, within 3 years preceding the time of his application for admission to the United States, has been employed continuously for one year . . . .” (INA Sec. 101(a)(15)(L)) This is echoed in part of the regulations at 8 CFR Sec. 214.2(l)(1)(ii)(A). However, both 8 CFR 214.2(l)(3)(iii) and 8 CFR 214.2(l)(3)(v)(B) state that the employment abroad must have occurred prior to the filing of the petition. Because of this, there has been inconsistency in approvals of petitions where the one year of employment abroad was met prior to admission to the U.S., but not necessarily prior to the filing of the L-1 petition. The new policy also makes clear that any time spent in the U.S., while it will not break the continuous employment period, will be subtracted from the one-year requirement. This is a change in policy from precedent for the one year being met with 5 months of training in the U.S. and 7 months of employment abroad. Matter of Continental Grain Co., 14 I&N Dec. 140 (DD 1972). The new policy memo makes it more difficult to accumulate that one year of continuous employment if the individual has been in the U.S. working for a different company before applying for an L visa or was in a status that was not sponsored by the U.S. petitioner. The policy memo states: The usual reference point for determining the one year in three years requirement is the date the petitioner files the initial L-1 petition, not the date of admission. Time spent in the U.S. working for a qualifying organization in another employment-based nonimmigrant status results in an adjustment of the reference point back to initial date of entry in the other status. For example, if the person worked as an E-2 for the petitioner or a qualifying organization in the U.S. and filed the I-129 L-1 petition, the 3-year period would be the period prior to admission in E-2. Time spent working in the U.S. for an unassociated company does not adjust the reference point. Periods spent in the U.S. wor