H1 transfer approved, i-94 extension denied, reason given


Recommended Posts


My H-1 transfer petition to new employer was approved, but the i-94 extension was denied.

My visa stamp for 1st employer is expired, and the i-94 is expired as well.

The decision letter indicates that my 1st employer's petition indicates working on in-house project, but resume indicates working for different clients at different locations. Pasting below parts of the Decision letter, hiding the client names and some dates.

The questions I have are:

1) Can an i-94 extension not be filed?

2) Do I have to go out of country to get new visa stamped? If yes, can it be to Canada/Mexico? Or it has to be my native country (India)?

3) Is there a high likelihood of a denial?

Appreciate your help and guidance.

Excerpts from Decision letter -

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) records indicate that the beneficiary was previously approved for employment on October 01, 2013 pursuant to an in-house project for Employer_1 located at <Employer_1 address>. However, the initial record provided a letter of support that states "[t]he beneficiary, Mr. , has been working on the project at <Client3> [End Client] located at <Client3 address> since March 2016." Additionally, the record contained a copy of the beneficiary's resume that indicated the beneficiary had been previously working at <Client1> from July 2014 to September 20 I 5, <Client2> from September 201 5 to February 20 I 6 and <Client3> located at <Client3 address>, since March 2016. On September 06,2016, USCIS informed you in a Request for Evidence (RFE) that the initial evidence did not establish the beneficiary had been maintaining his previously approved H-l B status until August 04,2016, the date the present petition was filed.


The evidence in the record demonstrates the beneficiary has been providing services at multiple locations as indicated in the RFE; such as, Austin, TX for <Client1>, Round Rock, TX for <Client2> and Princeton, NJ for <Client3>. Based on the evidence in the record, it is not apparent that the beneficiary has been employed as a Computer Programmer working on an in-house project pursuant to the terms and conditions of petition WAC<#>. Therefore, the beneficiary is ineligible for an extension of stay pursuant to 8 CFR 214.2(h) or a change of nonimmigrant status pursuant to section 248 of the INA. In Matter of Lee. I I I. & N. Dec. 601 (Reg. Comm. 1966), it was held that failure to continue in the temporary employment which formed the basis for admission as an H-l constitutes a failure to maintain status. This decision may not be appealed.

Link to comment


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.