[北美] 澄清申請H-1B十月不下來的爭議
主旨如題,對於有關爭議疑問的部份再作說明:
資料來源網站: USCIS官方網站
http://tinyurl.com/5dd9ox
What were the prior cap-gap regulations for F-1 students?
The prior regulations addressed the cap-gap problem by authorizing an
extension of an F-1 student’s authorized stay, but they did not extend the
student’s employment authorization. This extension was not automatic; a
notice had to be published in the Federal Register announcing the extension.
Under the prior regulations, when this Federal Register notice was published,
the student’s authorized stay was extended, but not the employment
authorization. This meant the student could remain in the United States until
October 1, when the approved H-1B employment began, but could not work until
then.
If a Federal Register notice authorizing an extension was not published,
affected students would in many cases be required to leave the United States,
apply for an H-1B visa, and seek readmission to the United States in H-1B
status.
How is the cap-gap situation changed under the interim final rule?
F-1 academic students on post-completion OPT maintain valid F-1 status until
the expiration of their OPT. Once that OPT has ended, they are authorized to
remain in the United States for up to 60 days to prepare for departure.
Under this rule, the F-1 status of students is automatically extended when
the student is the beneficiary of an H-1B petition for the next fiscal year
(with an October 1 employment start date) filed on his or her behalf during
the period in which H-1B petitions are accepted for that fiscal year.
The automatic extension terminates when USCIS rejects, denies, or revokes the
H-1B petition.
If the H-1B petition filed on behalf of the student is selected, the student
may remain in the United States and, if on post-completion OPT, continue
working until the October 1 start date indicated on the approved H-1B
petition.
The student may benefit from this provision only if he or she has not
violated his or her status.
將舊制與修正後作個比較,答案就出來了
以上資料updated:04/10/2008
沒有必要去研判什麼保守不保守,抵觸法條等,你我都不是制定相關法規的人員
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 114.32.107.87
討論串 (同標題文章)
以下文章回應了本文：
完整討論串 (本文為第 1 之 3 篇)：