Please help: Can I switch jobs in H1B (beyond 6 years) when 485 is pending?

L

latbsol

Registered Users (C)
Hi,

Here is my current status:

Current visa: H1B - currently in my 9th year (current H1B valid until 2012)
I-485 applied and pending (EB3 India, PD: Dec 2003)
I-140 approved
I am still working with the employer who sponsored for my GC.

Given my above status and considering the fact that I am in my 9th year of H1B, can I switch my job to another employer under H1B and *NOT* using EAD?

Appreciate if you could share your insights about this.

Thanks

P.S. The reason I would like to switch jobs in H1B and *NOT* use EAD arises from the fact that I haven't yet applied for 485 for my wife and she is under a H4 dependent visa. I can't apply for her 485 immediately due to retrogression. Switching jobs in H1B is the only choice since using EAD will put my wife out of status. So I would like to know if that is possible.
 
Thanks for the quick reply. It is encouraging to see your 'sure' reply.

But how sure are you? Could you please provide some more detailed information about the rule/law/publication that shows this clause? Are there any links that could provide more information about this?

Thanks
 
Ah, the AC21, of course I know that it allows H1B extension beyond 6 years and that is how I am in the 9th year of my H1B. So there is no surprise about that.

But what I want to know is if one can switch to another employer on H1B beyond the 6th year if the 485 is pending. I know you are saying that it doesn't mention about the employer.

But there should be some rule that covers this case. Anyone out there, do you know more about this? Thanks.
 
latbsol said:
But there should be some rule that covers this case. Anyone out there, do you know more about this? Thanks.
Click to expand...

Jackolantern has helpfully provided a USCIS FAQ, but it's important to note that in many situations, there is no specific rule authorizing something - the absence of any statutory language requiring or prohibiting something is all that is needed, like this case.

If you seek positive affirmation for a situation you are likely to be disappointed.
 
Thanks Jackolantern for the link. Yes, Section II, question #8 clearly seems to point out this clause - exactly what I was looking for. Thanks again. But of course now it is 2009 and who knows if all this is valid now or not (given these rules change regularly). Nevertheless this is a good pointer/reference to hold onto. Also thanks realcanadian for the feedback.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top