E-Paper
H-1B Visa denied due to employer's attorney error: Redditor on STEM OPT shares experience, 'Would this affect...'
A Redditor's H-1B visa was denied due to a procedural blunder by their employer's attorney, resulting in a mismatched LCA.
A Reddit user revealed how their H-1B visa was denied after they were sent a Request for Evidence (RFE). They blamed their employer's attorney for a procedural blunder that led to the denial of their petition. Professionals negotiating the US work visa procedure have subsequently started talking about the post.
LCA inaccuracy caused procedural error and RFE
According to the Reddit post, there were two primary reasons why the person's H-1B petition ended up receiving an RFE. The user explained, “The LCA didn’t match the job—it was filed under the SOC (Mechanical Engineering Technologists & Technicians -17-3027) though my actual role is in Manufacturing Support – Cutting Tool Engineer, which more aligns with SOC Manufacturing Engineer-17-2112.”
According to them, this error most likely occurred “because [the] lawyer didn't understand my job correctly or prob because employer didn't want to pay to Manufacturing SOC level.”
Another issue that USCIS brought up was whether the job qualified as a specialized occupation, which is a regular problem for technical H-1B petitions.
New LCA was filed, but it wasn't certified
In an attempt to resolve the matter, the user claimed, their attorney filed a new Labor Condition Application (LCA) with a higher salary level and the appropriate SOC code. However, a procedural criterion was flouted when the updated LCA was submitted after the H-1B petition.
“Lawyer filed a new LCA with appropriate SOC code 17-112 and employer agreed to pay higher wage matching the SOC and built a specialty occupation argument. But she apparently didn’t know that the LCA must be certified before filing the petition, not after,” the user said.
Consequently, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) rejected the plea. The Reddit user acknowledged that the agency's justification was reasonable: USCIS rejected it on this procedural basis. According to the denial letter, the new LCA cannot be approved because eligibility was not determined at the time of filing since it was certified after the filing date, the user said, adding that they didn't query specialized occupation.
Lawyer filed Motion to Reopen or Reconsider
After the denial, the lawyer and employer resorted to the original LCA (17-3027) to submit a Motion to Reopen or Reconsider (MTR). However, the user voiced skepticism about this strategy's viability.
“Does my case have any chance for approval with MTR appeal? How long it can take for a decision? Would this affect next year’s lottery or petition? I’m on STEM OPT till 2027,” the user asked.
Disclaimer: The story is based on a Redditor's post and HT.com cannot independently verify the authenticity of the claims.
