F-1 to H-1B: Six Critical Steps to Protect Your Immigration Status
Every year, thousands of international students are selected in the H-1B cap lottery, but selection alone does not guarantee a smooth transition from F-1 status to H-1B status. Maintaining valid F-1 status throughout the process is essential to avoid disruptions in employment or immigration status.
Here are six important steps every F-1 student should follow:
1. File the H-1B Petition Before Your OPT Ends:
Whenever possible, your employer should file your H-1B petition while you are still in valid Optional Practical Training (OPT). If the petition requests a change of status and is filed before your OPT expires, you may qualify for the cap-gap extension, allowing you to remain in F-1 status and, in many cases, continue working until your H-1B takes effect or USCIS issues a decision.
2. Monitor Your Unemployment Days:
Maintaining F-1 status requires compliance with OPT unemployment limits.
- Regular OPT: Maximum of 90 days of unemployment.
- STEM OPT: Maximum of 150 cumulative days of unemployment.
Even during the cap-gap period, unemployment limits continue to apply if your H-1B petition was filed while you were on OPT.
3. Complete All STEM OPT Reporting Requirements:
Students on STEM OPT must continue to comply with all reporting obligations, including submitting required self-evaluations and obtaining employer signatures on Form I-983. Missing these deadlines can jeopardize your F-1 status even if your H-1B petition is pending.
4. Be Careful with International Travel:
Traveling outside the United States while your H-1B change of status petition is pending may result in the change of status request being considered abandoned. Before making any international travel plans, consult your immigration attorney to understand the potential impact on your case.
5. Coordinate with Your Designated School Official (DSO):
Stay in close communication with your DSO and request an updated Form I-20 reflecting your cap-gap extension if needed. An updated I-20 may be necessary for employment verification, driver’s license renewals, or other government documentation.
6. Keep Your SEVIS Record Current:
Federal regulations require students to promptly report changes in employment, residential address, legal name, or periods of unemployment. STEM OPT students must also complete required six-month validations with their DSO. Failure to maintain an accurate SEVIS record may result in termination of F-1 status.
Final Thoughts:
The transition from F-1 to H-1B involves more than simply being selected in the lottery. Careful planning, maintaining valid F-1 status, complying with OPT and STEM OPT requirements, and avoiding common mistakes can help ensure a successful transition to H-1B status.
Because every case is unique, students and employers should work closely with experienced immigration counsel throughout the process to minimize risks and maintain compliance with U.S. immigration laws.
DHS Proposes 75% Increase in U.S. Citizenship Filing Fee, Eliminates Fee Waivers
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has proposed sweeping changes to the filing fees for U.S. naturalization and related applications, including a substantial increase in the cost of becoming a U.S. citizen.
Under a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published in the Federal Register, the filing fee for Form N-400, Application for Naturalization, would increase from $760 to $1,330 for paper filings—a 75% increase. DHS states that the proposed fee adjustments are intended to better align filing fees with the actual cost of adjudicating these applications.
If finalized, the proposal would also eliminate several long-standing forms of financial relief available to applicants, including:
- The elimination of all fee waivers for Form N-400 (Application for Naturalization);
- The elimination of fee waivers for Form N-336, the Request for a Hearing on a Decision in Naturalization Proceedings;
- The elimination of the reduced naturalization filing fee currently available to applicants whose household income is below 400% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines; and
- An increase in the filing fee for Form N-336 from $830 to $1,475, representing approximately a 78% increase.
The proposed changes are expected to have a significant impact on lawful permanent residents seeking U.S. citizenship, particularly lower-income applicants who have historically relied on reduced fees or fee waivers to make the naturalization process more affordable.
Immigration advocates have expressed concern that the proposed increases could discourage eligible lawful permanent residents from applying for citizenship by substantially increasing the financial burden. They argue that naturalization provides important benefits, including the right to vote, eligibility for certain federal jobs, protection from deportation, and the ability to petition for family members.
At this stage, the proposal does not immediately change any filing fees. DHS is accepting public comments for 60 days following publication of the proposed rule in the Federal Register. After reviewing public feedback, the agency may revise the proposal before issuing a final rule. Any new fees would become effective only after publication of a final regulation with an effective date.
Individuals planning to apply for U.S. citizenship should continue using the current filing fees until any final rule takes effect. Applicants who are eligible and prepared to file may wish to submit their applications under the existing fee schedule before any increases become effective.
FDNS Site Visit Preparedness & Response Plan
H-1B, L-1, and Employment-Based Immigration Compliance:The Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNS) Directorate of USCIS routinely conducts unannounced worksite inspections to verify the accuracy of information contained in immigration petitions. A site visit can occur at any time after filing or approval of an H-1B or L-1 petition and may result from:
- Initial H-1B petitions
- H-1B extensions
- H-1B amendments
- H-1B change of employer (transfer) petitions
- L-1A and L-1B petitions
- L-1 extensions
- Blanket L petitions
- Consular notification petitions
- USCIS referrals
- Department of Labor referrals
- Information received from other government agencies
- Random compliance verification
These inspections are unannounced and may occur at the employer’s office, branch office, remote work location, or third-party client site.
A poorly handled FDNS inspection can lead to Requests for Evidence (RFEs), Notices of Intent to Revoke (NOIRs), petition revocation, future petition denials, or referral for additional investigation.
Designate an FDNS Response Team:
Every employer should designate at least two to three trained employees to serve as FDNS coordinators.
Recommended personnel include:
- Operations Manager
- Human Resources Manager
- Immigration Compliance Manager
- Direct Supervisor
- Office Manager
These individuals should receive periodic training regarding:
- USCIS site visit procedures
- Company immigration policies
- H-1B and L-1 compliance requirements
- Proper interaction with government officials
- Document location and retrieval
If the primary contact is unavailable, another trained employee must immediately assume responsibility.
Immediate Response When FDNS Arrives:
When an FDNS officer arrives:
- Remain professional and courteous.
- Request government identification.
- Obtain the officer’s name, title, and contact information.
- Notify the designated FDNS response team immediately.
- Notify immigration counsel as soon as possible.
- Escort the officer to a conference room whenever feasible.
- Never leave the officer unattended in non-public work areas without authorization.
- Cooperate professionally while protecting confidential business information.
Documents That Should Be Immediately Available:
Maintain an immigration compliance file containing:
Immigration Records:
- Complete H-1B or L-1 petition
- Certified Labor Condition Application (H-1B)
- USCIS approval notice
- Job description
- Organizational chart
- Support letter
- Client letters
- Work orders
- Statements of Work
- Purchase Orders
- End-client documentation (when applicable)
Employment Records:
- Payroll records
- Recent pay statements
- W-2s
- I-9 records
- Employment agreement
- Performance evaluations
- Time records (if maintained)
Business Records:
- Company organizational chart
- Office lease
- Business licenses
- Tax filings
- Payroll summaries
- Company website information
- Marketing materials
Employee Interview Preparation:
Foreign national employees should receive periodic compliance training.
Employees should always answer truthfully.
They should be familiar with:
- Employer name
- Job title
- Actual job duties
- Supervisor
- Salary
- Work location
- Work schedule
- Department
- Educational background
- How their degree relates to their position
- Current projects
Employees should never guess if they do not know an answer.
Supervisor Preparation:
Direct supervisors should understand:
- Employee’s actual duties
- Percentage of time spent on duties
- Reporting structure
- Salary
- Work location
- Business purpose of the position
- Projects currently assigned
Supervisors should be able to explain why the employee requires specialized knowledge.
Third-Party Placement Compliance:
Employers placing H-1B workers at third-party client sites face increased scrutiny.
The following three parties must provide consistent information:
- Petitioning employer
- Foreign national employee
- End client or vendor
Any significant inconsistency may trigger:
- Request for Evidence
- Notice of Intent to Revoke
- Petition revocation
- Fraud investigation
Examples of inconsistencies include:
- Different job duties
- Different work locations
- Different supervisors
- Incorrect project descriptions
- Different reporting relationships
- Different work schedules
- Different salary information
Prior to placement, employers should conduct periodic compliance meetings with:
- Employee
- Client manager
- Vendor manager (if applicable)
- Immigration counsel
Everyone should understand the information contained in the filed petition.
Remote Employees:
Remote workers should maintain:
- Dedicated workspace
- Updated home work address
- Company-issued equipment
- Supervisor contact information
Remote employees should know how to participate in a virtual FDNS inspection if requested.
Internal Compliance Audits:
Employers should perform periodic audits to verify:
- Job duties remain consistent.
- Salary matches the LCA.
- Worksite remains accurate.
- Supervisors remain accurate.
- Organizational structure has not materially changed.
- Client assignments remain consistent.
- Public Access Files are complete.
Material changes should be reviewed promptly to determine whether an amended petition is required.
Annual FDNS Training:
Employers should conduct annual immigration compliance training covering:
- H-1B compliance
- L-1 compliance
- FDNS procedures
- Public Access File requirements
- Wage obligations
- Material changes
- Third-party placement rules
- Employee interview preparation
After the Site Visit:
Immediately after the inspection:
- Prepare a written summary.
- Record all questions asked.
- Record all documents reviewed.
- Identify any follow-up requests.
- Notify immigration counsel.
- Preserve all notes and correspondence.
- Respond promptly to any USCIS requests.
Conclusion:
An FDNS site visit is not merely a routine inspection—it is an important compliance review that can significantly affect an employer’s immigration program. Advance preparation, ongoing training, accurate documentation, and consistent communication among the employer, employee, and third-party client are essential to maintaining compliance. Organizations that proactively establish written procedures, train key personnel, and regularly audit their immigration records are far better positioned to respond successfully to an unannounced FDNS inspection and minimize the risk of adverse immigration consequences.
U.S. Supreme Court Upholds DHS Authority to Terminate TPS for Haitians and Syrians
In a landmark immigration ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Trump administration has broad authority to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for nationals of Haiti and Syria, significantly limiting the ability of federal courts to review those decisions.
The 6-3 decision is expected to have far-reaching consequences for the estimated 1.3 million individuals currently living and working in the United States under TPS, while also strengthening the federal government’s authority to end protections for other designated countries.
Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito concluded that Congress intentionally gave the Department of Homeland Security broad discretion to determine when conditions in a foreign country no longer justify Temporary Protected Status.
“The TPS statute plainly bars consideration of respondents’ non-constitutional claims. It allows ‘no judicial review of any determination … with respect to the … termination of a TPS designation,’” Justice Alito wrote.
Limited Judicial Review:
The Court held that federal courts generally may not second-guess DHS decisions regarding the designation or termination of TPS for a country. According to the majority, the statutory language clearly restricts judicial review of these executive determinations, except for certain constitutional challenges.
TPS was established by Congress to provide temporary humanitarian protection to nationals of countries experiencing armed conflict, natural disasters, epidemics, or other extraordinary conditions that make a safe return impossible. Individuals granted TPS are protected from removal and are authorized to work in the United States for the duration of the designation.
Broader Implications:
Although the case specifically involved TPS designations for Haiti and Syria, the decision effectively gives the Trump administration greater legal authority to terminate TPS designations for other countries as well. The administration has already announced or implemented TPS terminations affecting nationals from 13 countries, and the Supreme Court’s ruling is expected to make future legal challenges significantly more difficult.
Immigration attorneys and advocacy organizations warned that the decision could ultimately place hundreds of thousands of long-term TPS beneficiaries at risk of losing their work authorization and becoming subject to removal proceedings if their country’s designation is terminated.
What TPS Holders Should Know:
The ruling does not automatically terminate TPS for every beneficiary. Instead, it confirms that DHS has broad statutory authority to end a country’s TPS designation with limited judicial interference. Each termination must still follow applicable statutory procedures and effective dates announced by DHS.
TPS beneficiaries should closely monitor future DHS announcements regarding their country’s designation and consult qualified immigration counsel to explore alternative immigration options, including family-based petitions, employment-based visas, asylum, adjustment of status, or other forms of relief that may be available.
The decision marks one of the most significant Supreme Court rulings on the TPS program since its creation and is expected to shape U.S. humanitarian immigration policy for years to come.
U.S. Supreme Court Allows Government to Turn Away Asylum Seekers at Border Ports of Entry
In a major immigration decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Trump administration may lawfully deny asylum seekers who present themselves at official ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border without first allowing them to apply for asylum.
The Court, in a 6-3 decision, held that a foreign national standing on the Mexican side of the border has not legally “arrived in the United States” simply by attempting to enter through a port of entry. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito stated:
“We hold that an alien who is standing in Mexico does not ‘arrive in the United States’ by attempting, and failing, to set foot in the country. An alien ‘arrives in the United States’ only when he crosses the border.”
The ruling reverses a lower federal court decision that had concluded the policy likely conflicted with the asylum provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the United States’ obligations under international refugee treaties.
Significant Impact on Asylum Processing:
Federal immigration law generally provides that individuals who “arrive in” the United States or are physically present in the country may apply for asylum. The Supreme Court’s interpretation narrows that language by concluding that a person waiting at a port of entry outside U.S. territory has not yet “arrived” for purposes of invoking those statutory protections.
As a result, border officials may refuse entry to asylum seekers at ports of entry without processing an asylum application, effectively limiting access to the U.S. asylum system before an individual physically crosses the border.
Policy Could Return:
Although the policy was discontinued in 2021 after unprecedented migration overwhelmed border facilities, the Court’s decision means a future administration now has clear legal authority to reinstate the practice if it chooses.
The Trump administration has relied on other legal authorities in implementing its current border enforcement policies, but this decision provides an additional legal foundation for restricting asylum access at ports of entry.
What This Means:
The ruling represents one of the most consequential Supreme Court decisions affecting asylum law in recent years. It strengthens the federal government’s discretion over border admissions and could significantly alter how future administrations manage asylum claims at the southern border.
Immigration advocates argue the decision will make it more difficult for individuals fleeing persecution to access humanitarian protection in the United States, while supporters contend it reinforces the government’s authority to control its borders and regulate the admission of foreign nationals.
Sincerely, Keshab Raj Seadie, Esq. Law Offices of Keshab Raj Seadie, P.C. Disclaimer: This newsletter is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always consult an attorney for personalized advice.
