Skip links

Main navigation

DHS proposes pre-registration requirement and Merit-Based Rule for cap-subject H-1B Visa Program

Washington, DC. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is going to propose a merit-based rule to benefit graduates (master’s and PhDs) of U.S. institutions of higher education and a mandatory online pre-registration requirement for cap-subject H-1B programs. In month of November, USCIS Director had said they were proposing this new rule.

On December 3rd, USCIS published a notice of proposed rule making. The proposed rule would require petitioners seeking to file H-1B cap-subject petitions to first electronically register with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) during a designated registration period. Under the proposed rule, USCIS would reverse the order by which USCIS selects H-1B petitions under the H-1B cap and the advanced degree exemption, it would count all registrations or petitions towards the number projected as needed to reach the H-1B cap first. Once a sufficient number of registrations or petitions have been selected for the H-1B cap, USCIS would then select registrations or petitions towards the advanced degree exemption. This change will increase the number of beneficiaries with a master’s or higher degree from a U.S. institution of higher education to be selected for an H-1B cap number, and the rule will also introduce a more meritorious selection of beneficiaries.

Foreign students with Master’s or PhD degree from U.S. public or private (not-for-profit) colleges and universities will benefit in lottery process

For the last several years, H-1B cap and the advanced degree exemption quotas are both reached within the first five business days that H-1B cap petitions may be filed, the advanced degree exemption is selected prior to the H-1B cap. The proposed rule would reverse the selection order and count all registrations or petitions towards the number projected as needed to reach the H-1B cap first. USCIS claims that this proposed change would increase the chances that beneficiaries with a master’s or higher degree from a U.S. institution of higher education would be selected under the H-1B cap and that H-1B visas would be awarded to the most-skilled and highest-paid beneficiaries. It states that the proposed process would result in an estimated increase of up to 16 percent (or 5,340 workers) in the number of selected H-1B beneficiaries with a master’s degree or higher from a U.S. institution of higher education.

USCIS expects that shifting to electronic registration would reduce overall costs for petitioners and create a more efficient and cost-effective H-1B cap petition process for USCIS. The proposed rule would help alleviate administrative burdens on USCIS since the agency would no longer need to physically receive and handle hundreds of thousands of H-1B petitions and supporting documentation before conducting the cap selection process. This would help reduce wait times for cap selection notifications. The proposed rule also limits the filing of H-1B cap-subject petitions to the beneficiary named on the original selected registration.

How the pre-registration will be conducted?

DHS proposes to establish a registration period that would begin at least fourteen calendar days before the first day of filing in each fiscal year. The registration period would last for a minimum period of fourteen calendar days. USCIS states that it would give the public at least 30 days advance notice of the opening of the initial registration period for the upcoming fiscal year via
the USCIS website. USCIS will also separately announce the final registration date in any fiscal year on the USCIS website. If USCIS determines that it is necessary to re-open the registration period, it would announce the start of the re-opened registration period on its website before the start of the re-opened registration period. With respect to the initial registration period, DHS states that it is also considering announcing the opening date of the first registration period in the final rule resulting from this proposed rule to allow for maximum visibility for the regulated public.

The proposed rule includes a provision that would enable USCIS to temporarily suspend the registration process during any fiscal year in which USCIS may experience technical challenges with the H-1B registration process and/or the new electronic system. The proposed temporary suspension provision would also allow USCIS to up-front delay the implementation of the H-1B registration process past the fiscal year (FY) 2020 cap season, if necessary to complete all requisite user testing and vetting of the new H-1B registration system and process. USCIS states it has been actively working to develop and test the electronic registration system, if the rule is finalized as proposed, but there is insufficient time to implement the registration system for the FY 2020 cap selection process, it would likely suspend the registration requirement for the FY 2020 cap season.

About H-1B Program

The H-1B program allows companies in the United States to temporarily employ foreign workers in specialty occupations that require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and a bachelors or higher degree in the specific specialty, or its equivalent. When USCIS receives more than enough petitions to reach the congressionally mandated H-1B cap, a computer-generated random selection process, or lottery, is used to select the petitions that are counted towards the number of petitions projected as needed to reach the cap.

(last updated December 4, 2018)


If you or your employer want to learn more about this and other immigration law topics do contact us at (+1) 888 820 4430 (toll free), or (+1) 202 459 2105, or email us at info@adhikarilaw.com

Note: This is a blog post by Adhikari Law PLLC and should NOT be construed as a legal advice. 

USCIS Clarifies the STEM OPT Extension Reporting Responsibilities and Training Obligations allowing off-site placement so long as long as all of the training obligations are met

Adhikari Law PLLC, Washington, DC, August 17, 2018. USCIS has said it is going to update the Optional Practical Training Extension for STEM Students (STEM OPT) page of their website to clarify the reporting responsibilities for participating in the STEM OPT program. STEM OPT participants may engage in a training experience that takes place at a site other than the employer’s principal place of business as long as all of the training obligations are met, including that the employer has and maintains a bona fide employer-employee relationship with the student. USCIS further maintains that the certain types of arrangements, including multiple employer arrangements, sole proprietorship, employment through ‘‘temp’’ agencies, employment through consulting firm arrangements that provide labor for hire, and other similar relationships may not be able to demonstrate a bona fide employer-employee relationship and, therefore, may not meet the requirements of the STEM OPT extension.

Furthermore, Students and employers must report material changes to the Designated School Official (DSO) at the earliest opportunity by submitting a modified Form I-983. Employers must report the STEM OPT student’s termination of employment or departure to the DSO within five business days. Students must report certain changes, such as changes to their employer’s name and address, to their DSO within 10 business days. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) requires prompt reporting to ensure that  it is able to exercise effective oversight of the program. Additionally, USCIS is clarifying that

Earlier USCIS had taken the position that STEM employment may not assign or contract out students to work for one of their customers or clients, and assign, or otherwise delegate, their training responsibilities to the customer or client. It had maintained that employer who signs the Form I-983 must be the same entity that provides the practical training experience to the student. It had taken the position that the student’s practical training experience must be provided by the employer’s own trained or supervisory personnel at the employer’s own place of business or worksite(s), to which ICE has authority to conduct employer site visits to ensure that the employer is meeting program requirements.

With the changed policy, the  STEM OPT participants may engage in a training experience that takes place at a site other than the employer’s principal place of business as long as all of the training obligations are met, including that the employer has and maintains a bona fide employer-employee relationship with the student.

Any employer who employs a student participating in the STEM OPT extension program must ensure that:

  • The employer will have and maintain a bona fide employer-employee relationship with the student.
  • The employer has sufficient resources and personnel available to provide appropriate training in connection with the specified opportunity at the location(s) specified in the Form I-983, Training Plan for STEM OPT Students.
  • The STEM OPT student will not replace a full- or part-time, temporary or permanent U.S. worker.
  • The training opportunity will assist the student in attaining his or her training goals.

DHS may, at its discretion, conduct a site visit of the employer to ensure that program requirements are being met, including that the employer possesses and maintains the ability, personnel, and resources to provide structured and guided work-based learning experiences consistent with the Training Plan.

The Employer’s Training Obligation

To be eligible to employ a STEM OPT student, an employer must have and maintain a bona fide employer-employee relationship with the student. The employer must attest to this fact by signing the Form I-983, Training Plan for STEM OPT Students. To establish a bona fide relationship, the employer may not be the student’s “employer” in name only, nor may the student work for the employer on a “volunteer” basis. Moreover, the employer that signs the Form I-983 must be the same entity that provides the practical training experience to the student. 

An employer must have sufficient resources and trained or supervisory personnel available to provide appropriate training in connection with the specified training opportunity at the location(s) where the student’s practical training experience will take place, as specified in the Form I-983. The “personnel” who may provide and supervise the training experience may be either employees of the employer, or contractors who the employer has directly retained to provide services to the employer; they may not, however, be employees or contractors of the employer’s clients or customers.  Additionally, under no circumstances would another F-1 student with OPT or a STEM OPT extension (who is undergoing training in their own right) be qualified to train another F-1 student with a STEM OPT extension.

While employers may rely on their existing training programs or policies to satisfy the requirements relating to performance evaluation and oversight and supervision, the student’s Training Plan must nevertheless be customized for the individual student. For instance, every Training Plan must describe the direct relationship between the STEM OPT opportunity and the student’s qualifying STEM degree, as well as the relationship between the STEM OPT opportunity and the student’s goals and objectives for work-based learning. Moreover, a STEM OPT employer may not assign, or otherwise delegate, its training responsibilities to a non-employer third party (e.g., a client/customer of the employer, employees of the client/customer, or contractors of the client/customer). 

DHS, at its discretion, may conduct a site visit of any STEM OPT employer to ensure that the employer possesses and maintains the ability and resources to provide structured and guided work-based learning experiences consistent with the Form I-983. DHS will review on a case-by-case basis whether the student will be a bona fide employee of the employer signing the Training Plan, and verify that the employer that signs the Training Plan is the same entity that employs the student and provides the practical training experience.

How to show a bona fide employer-employee relationship? 

Generally, a bona fide employer-employee relationship means the employee is a direct employee of  the Employer at all times regardless of the client location or the project the employee is assigned. Following are some of the ways one can maintain a valid employer-employee relationship:

  • Has the sole and exclusive authority to hire, pay, fire, supervise or otherwise control the work of employee.
  • Tax Treatment is such that the employer pays as well as deducts/withholds all applicable taxes (i.e. the employee is a W-2 employee)
  • Pays salary
  • Supervises
  • Has the right to control over terms and conditions of employment.
  • Administers Employment Term & Conditions.
  • Conducts supervision and performance review.
  • Provides all tools and instrumentality for the job.
  • Designs project and work schedules and activities to be performed.

If you want to learn more about this and other immigration law topics do contact us at (+1) 888 820 4430 (toll free), or (+1) 202 459 2105, or email us at info@adhikarilaw.com

Note: This is a blog post by Adhikari Law PLLC and should NOT be construed as a legal advice. 

House Committee passed FY 2019 DHS Appropriations bill that included elimination of per country caps for all employment-based immigrant visa categories

Washington, D.C. Adhikari Law PLLC sees a silver lining in a much needed reform in skilled immigration programs under Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. On July 25th the House Appropriations Committee passed the Fiscal Year 2019 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Appropriations bill that included an amendment from Kansas Congressman Kevin Yoder that proposes to eliminate per country caps for all employment-based immigrant visa categories (EB-1, EB-2, EB-4, EB-4 and EB-5). 
According to sources, the chances of the Homeland Security funding bill, which includes the Yoder amendment, of passing before the new fiscal year is very low.
 
——————————————————————————————————————
Adhikari Law PLLC is closely following this bill and other bill in Congress, and will update readers as these pass through both chambers of the Congress.  If you want to learn more about this and other immigration law topics do contact us at (+1) 888 820 4430 (toll free), or (+1) 202 459 2105, or email us at info@adhikarilaw.com
Note: This is a blog post by Adhikari Law PLLC and should NOT be construed as a legal advice. 

USCIS Issues Revised Final Guidance on Unlawful Presence for Students and Exchange Visitors

Washington, D.C. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has published a revised final Policy Memorandum related to unlawful presence after considering feedback received during a 30-day public comment period that ended June 11, 2018. F, J, or M nonimmigrants who failed to maintain their nonimmigrant status before August 9, 2018 start accruing unlawful presence based on that failure on August 9, 2018, unless the non-national (“alien”) had already started accruing unlawful presence.

An F, J, or M nonimmigrant begins accruing unlawful presence, due to a failure to maintain his or her status on or after August 9, 2018, on the earliest of any of the following:

  • The day after the F, J, or M nonimmigrant no longer pursues the course of study or the authorized activity, or the day after he or she engages in an unauthorized activity;
  • The day after completing the course of study or program (including any authorized practical training plus any authorized grace period, as outlined in 8 CFR 214.2);
  • The day after the Form I-94 expires, if the F, J, or M nonimmigrant was admitted for a date certain; or
  • The day after an immigration judge orders the alien excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision is appealed).

Please do note, F-1 students are eligible for Practical Training (OPT/CPT/STEM OPT) under F-1 visa status if the eligibility criteria for practical training is met. F, J, M students also have 60 days and 30 days grace period, respectively, after completion of study program or after the completion of Practical Training in case of F-1.

Under the revised final policy memorandum, effective Aug. 9, 2018, F and M nonimmigrants who fall out of status and timely file for reinstatement of that status will have their accrual of unlawful presence suspended while their application is pending.

On May 10, 2018, USCIS had posted a policy memorandum changing the way the agency calculates unlawful presence for those who were in student (F nonimmigrant), exchange visitor (J nonimmigrant), or vocational student (M nonimmigrant) status. The revised final memorandum published today supersedes that memorandum and describes the rules for counting unlawful presence for F and M nonimmigrants with timely-filed or approved reinstatement applications, as well as for J nonimmigrants who were reinstated by the Department of State.

Foreign students who are no longer properly enrolled in school are violating the terms of their student visa would incur unlawful presence ground of inadmissibility. For purposes of counting unlawful presence, a timely reinstatement application for F or M status is one where the student has not been out of status for more than five months at the time of filing. Under the revised final policy memorandum, the accrual of unlawful presence is suspended when the F or M nonimmigrant files a reinstatement application within the five month window and while the application is pending with USCIS.

If the reinstatement application is denied, the accrual of unlawful presence resumes on the day after the denial. It is incumbent on the nonimmigrant to voluntarily leave the United States to avoid accruing more unlawful presence that could result in later inadmissibility under section 212(a)(9) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Whether or not the application for reinstatement is timely-filed, an F, J, or M nonimmigrant whose application for reinstatement is ultimately approved will generally not accrue unlawful presence while out of status.

The Department of State administers the J-1 exchange visitor program, to include reinstatement requests. If the Department of State approves the reinstatement application of a J nonimmigrant, the individual will generally not accrue unlawful presence from the time the J nonimmigrant fell out of status from the time he or she was reinstated.

An F-2, J-2, or M-2 nonimmigrant’s period of stay authorized ends when the F-1, J-1, or M-1 nonimmigrant’s period of stay authorized ends. In addition, an F-2, J-2, or M-2 nonimmigrant’s period of stay authorized may end due to the F-2, J2, or M-2 nonimmigrant dependent’s own conduct or circumstances.

 

In addition, the revised final policy memorandum references to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) issuing orders of removal in the first instance.


Note: This is a blog post by Adhikari Law PLLC and should NOT be construed as a legal advice. 

If you want to learn more about this and other immigration law topics do contact us at (+1) 888 820 4430 (toll free), or (+1) 202 459 2105, or email us at info@adhikarilaw.com

News flash: USCIS updates Policy Memorandum which provides guidance to USCIS adjudicators regarding their discretion to deny an application, petition without first issuing a RFE or NOID

Washington, D.C. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today posted a policy memorandum (PM) that provides guidance to USCIS adjudicators regarding their discretion to deny an application, petition, or request without first issuing a Request for Evidence (RFE) or Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) when required initial evidence was not submitted or the evidence of record fails to establish eligibility.

This updated guidance will be effective from September 11, 2018 and applies to all applications, petitions, and requests, except for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) adjudications, received after that date.

In its release, USCIS claims “for too long, our immigration system has been bogged down with frivolous or merit-less claims that slow down processing for everyone, including legitimate petitioners. Through this long overdue policy change, USCIS is restoring full discretion to our immigration officers to deny incomplete and ineligible applications and petitions submitted for immigration benefits,”. The release further notes, “Doing so will discourage frivolous filings and skeletal applications used to game the system, ensure our resources are not wasted, and ultimately improve our agency’s ability to efficiently and fairly adjudicate requests for immigration benefits in full accordance with our laws.”  The policy implemented in this guidance restores to the adjudicator full discretion to deny applications, petitions, and requests without first issuing an RFE or a NOID, when appropriate.

The 2013 PM addressed policies for the issuance of RFEs and NOIDs when the evidence submitted at the time of filing did not establish eligibility. In practice, the 2013 PM limited denials without RFEs or NOIDs to statutory denials by providing that RFEs should be issued unless there was “no possibility” of approval. This “no possibility” policy limited the application of an adjudicator’s discretion.

USCIS will continue issuing statutory denials when appropriate without first issuing an RFE or NOID when the applicant, petitioner, or requestor has no legal basis for the benefit/request sought, or submits a request for a benefit or relief under a program that has been terminated.
If all required initial evidence is not submitted with the benefit request, USCIS, in its discretion, may deny the benefit request for failure to establish eligibility based on lack of required initial evidence. Examples of filings that may be denied without sending an RFE or NOID include, but are not limited to:

This PM updates the USCIS Adjudicator’s Field Manual and contains an “additional considerations” section. The policy in this “additional considerations” section is not new, and is nearly identical to the policy contained in the superseded 2013 PM.


Note: This is a blog post by Adhikari Law PLLC and should NOT be construed as a legal advice. 

If you want to learn more about this and other immigration law topics do contact us at (+1) 888 820 4430 (toll free), or (+1) 202 459 2105, or email us at info@adhikarilaw.com

USCIS Updates Notice to Appear Policy Guidance to Support DHS Enforcement Priorities

Washington, DC. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services issued updated Guidance today that aligns its policy for issuing Form I-862, Notice to Appear, with the immigration enforcement priorities of the Department of Homeland Security.

A Notice to Appear (NTA) is a document given to an alien (non-nationals) that instructs them to appear before an immigration judge on a certain date. The issuance of an NTA commences removal proceedings against the alien. Under the new guidance, USCIS officers will now issue an NTA for a wider range of cases where the individual is removable and there is evidence of fraud, criminal activity, or where an applicant is denied an immigration benefit and is unlawfully present in the United States.

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients and requestors are exempted from this updated guidance when: (1) processing an initial or renewal DACA request or DACA-related benefit request; or (2) processing a DACA recipient for possible termination of DACA. As explained in the concurrently issued DACA-specific guidance, USCIS will continue to apply the 2011 NTA guidance to these cases. USCIS will also continue to follow the existing DACA information-sharing policy regarding any information provided by a DACA requestor in a DACA request or DACA-related benefit request.

USCIS, along with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), has legal authority under current immigration laws to issue NTAs. This Policy Memorandum updates the guidelines USCIS officers use to determine when to refer a case to ICE or to issue an NTA. The revised policy generally requires USCIS to issue an NTA in the following categories of cases in which the individual is removable:

The revised policy does not change the USCIS policy for issuing an NTA in the following categories:

Under separate policy guidance (PDF, 77 KB) issued concurrently, USCIS officers will continue to apply PM 602-0050, Revised Guidance for the Referral of Cases and Issuance of Notices to Appear (PDF, 77 KB) (NTAs) in Cases Involving Inadmissible and Removable Aliens, dated November 7, 2011, to the issuance of NTAs and Referrals to ICE for DACA recipients and requestors.

 


Note: This is a blog post by Adhikari Law PLLC and should NOT be construed as a legal advice. 

If you want to learn more about this and other immigration law topics do contact us at (+1) 888 820 4430 (toll free), or (+1) 202 459 2105, or email us at info@adhikarilaw.com

Practice Alert: STEM OPT at a Third-Party Location by a consulting company

In April 2018, USCIS updated the page on its website relating to Optional Practical Training Extension for STEM Students (STEM OPT) which seems to indicate its view that F-1 students in the STEM OPT program are not permitted to engage in OPT at third-party locations. Of particular concern is the following statement: “For instance, the training experience may not take place at the place of business or worksite of the employer’s clients or customers because ICE would lack authority to visit such sites.” However, this is directly contradicted by both the preamble of the STEM OPT Regulation and ICE FAQs on the matter. According to the Preamble of the March 11, 2016 STEM OPT Final Rule:

There are several aspects of the STEM OPT extension that do not make it apt for certain types of arrangements, including multiple employer arrangements, sole proprietorships, employment through ”temp” agencies, employment through consulting firm arrangements that provide labor for hire, and other relationships that do not constitute a bona fide employer-employee relationship…. Accordingly, DHS clarifies that students cannot qualify for STEM OPT extensions unless they will be bona fide employees of the employer signing the Training Plan, and the employer that signs the Training Plan must be the same entity that employs the student and provides the practical training experience.

In addition, in response to an FAQ relating to its policy on placement agencies, ICE states:

STEM OPT students are permitted to use staffing/placement agencies to find a training opportunity. However:

At the USCIS Open Forum at the 2018 American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) Annual Conference, USCIS reiterated its concern that if the training takes place at a third-party site, the “employer” who signed the training plan would not be the one to supervise the student.

Nevertheless, it appears that the change in language on the USCIS website is overreaching, and that a STEM OPT employee could be placed at the worksite of an employer’s client or customer, as long as the STEM OPT student is a bona fide employee of the employer signing the training plan, and the employer that signs the training plan provides the practical training experience. In addition, “staffing agencies” may provide a training opportunity as long as they are an E-Verify employer and they directly employ the student and oversee the student’s training.

AILA has received reports (as recent as June 2018) of third party STEM placements being approved after responding to a request for evidence (RFE) where the bona fide employer/employee relationship was thoroughly documented. At the same time, AILA has received reports of RFEs on change of status to H-1B petitions seeking “a detailed explanation and evidence why the beneficiary is working at a different location than the STEM employer’s place of business.”

Lastly, one should note that if the new unlawful presence memo becomes effective on its terms on August 9, 2018, there is a risk that a finding that the employer was not properly supervising the student’s training could lead to a status violation determination, which would result in the retroactive accrual of unlawful presence.

 

(Source: American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) )


Note: This is a blog post by Adhikari Law PLLC and should NOT be construed as a legal advice. 

If you want to learn more about this and other immigration law topics do contact us at (+1) 888 820 4430 (toll free), or (+1) 202 459 2105, or email us at info@adhikarilaw.com

DHS Proposes to Remove the International Entrepreneur Rule (IER) which availed a temporary work authorization and lawful stay for foreign-born entrepreneurs

WASHINGTON, DC – The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is proposing a rule to end a program that allowed certain foreign entrepreneurs to be considered for parole to temporarily come to the United States to develop and build start-up businesses here, known as the International Entrepreneur Rule (IER Final Rule). Earlier a court decision had vacated USCIS’ final rule to delay the effective date. The current administration took the position that IER provided an unlimited number of international entrepreneurs a new avenue to apply for parole, enter the U.S., and use American investments to establish and grow start-up businesses. On Jan. 25, 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order 13767, Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements, which requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to ensure that parole authority is exercised only on a case-by-case basis, and only when an individual demonstrates urgent humanitarian reasons or a significant public benefit due to the parole.

DHS is now proposing to eliminate the IE Final Rule because the department under the current administration believes that it represents an overly broad interpretation of parole authority, lacks sufficient protections for U.S. workers and investors, and is not the appropriate vehicle for attracting and retaining international entrepreneurs.

By statute, DHS has discretionary authority to parole individuals into the United States temporarily, on a case-by-case basis, for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.

Despite this roll back from current administration in retaining foreign-born entrepreneurs, the Immigration and Nationality Act provides for visa classifications that enable certain entrepreneurs to start businesses and work in the United States, such as the E-2 nonimmigrant classificationL-1 (New Business) and the EB-5 immigrant classification.

To learn more about visa and immigration options for start-up companies athttps://adhikarilaw.com/visa-for-start-up-companies/ or

Call us at 888-820-4430 email at info@adhikarilaw.com

USCIS has completed data entry for all fiscal year 2019 H-1B cap-subject petitions

Washington, D.C. USCIS has completed data entry for all fiscal year 2019 H-1B cap-subject petitions selected in our computer-generated random selection process. USCIS will now begin returning all H-1B cap-subject petitions that were not selected. Due to the high volume of filings, USCIS cannot provide a definite time frame for returning unselected petitions. USCIS asks petitioners not to inquire about the status of their cap-subject petitions until they receive a receipt notice or an unselected petition is returned. USCIS will issue an announcement once all the unselected petitions have been returned.

Additionally, USCIS may transfer some Form I-129 H-1B cap subject petitions between the Vermont Service Center and the California Service Center to balance the distribution of cap cases. If your case is transferred, you will receive notification in the mail. After receiving the notification, please send all future correspondence to the center processing your petition.


Note: This is a blog post by Adhikari Law PLLC and should NOT be construed as a legal advice. 

If you want to learn more about H-1B, other immigration topics do contact us at (+1) 888 820 4430 (toll free), or (+1) 202 529 6946, or email us at info@adhikarilaw.com