Access alone does not establish the employee’s actual special or advanced knowledge.
Explain capability rather than permission to log in
Identify the tasks the employee performs and the relevant expertise. A broad access level should not be used to imply mastery of every function available in the system.
Inventory what the employee actually knows, how the company developed that knowledge, where it was applied, and why the U.S. assignment needs it. An account-permission report may corroborate access, but L-1B requires a special grasp of the organization’s products or interests, or advanced command of procedures and processes belonging to that company—not ordinary occupational skill. Prove an uninterrupted qualifying foreign-employment year from the applicable three-year lookback, the required parent, branch, subsidiary, or affiliate link, and ongoing business abroad plus either U.S. business or compliance with the initial new-office requirements. For client-site work, contracts and supervision must show petitioner control rather than labour-for-hire. New-office approval starts at one year, while total L-1B time is generally capped at five years.
Hypothetical example: a Magog ski-binding manufacturer gives its product-configuration engineer administrator access to an internal testing platform. Her case should instead explain the calibration logic she helped refine, unusual failure patterns she resolves, internal training completed, and the American rollout tasks needing that company-specific method. Technical reports, course records, and supervisor declarations can support those facts. A screenshot showing every menu she can open proves permission, not the depth or relevance of her knowledge.