1014-00002 · Optiwave Semiconductor Corp · H-1B Extensions & Transfers

ac21-portability-240-day-advisory-memo.docx DOCUMENT Labor & Employment

23 / 35 ← → ✕

Contract analysis Extract to table

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP

Immigration & Global Mobility Practice

555 South Grand Avenue, 38th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071

101 California Street, 27th Floor San Francisco, California 94111

ADVISORY MEMORANDUM

FROM: Dr. Lena Marchetti, Of Counsel, Calderwood & Harkness LLP, Immigration & Global Mobility Practice

TO: Patricia Langford, General Counsel, Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.; Rajesh Anand, Immigration Program Manager, Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.

CC: Nathaniel Bower, Responsible Partner, Calderwood & Harkness LLP; Megan Chu, Lead Associate, Calderwood & Harkness LLP

DATE: June 5, 2025

RE: Advisory Memorandum — AC21 Portability Provisions (INA § 214(n)) and 240-Day Automatic Extension Rule (8 CFR § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(H)) — Practical Implications for Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.

ENGAGEMENT REFERENCE: SC-OWS-2025-0520-IMM

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION. This memorandum is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine. It is intended solely for the use of the individuals and entity to whom it is addressed. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is strictly prohibited.

Right-click to update Table of Contents

I. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS MEMORANDUM

This memorandum provides a comprehensive legal advisory to Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. ("OWS" or the "Company") regarding two critical provisions governing continued employment authorization for H-1B nonimmigrant workers during periods when petitions for extension of stay, amendment of petition, or change of employer are pending before U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"). Calderwood & Harkness LLP ("C&H" or the "Firm") prepares this memorandum in its capacity as immigration counsel to OWS, pursuant to the engagement letter dated May 20, 2025, under engagement reference SC-OWS-2025-0520-IMM.

The two principal provisions addressed in this memorandum are:

(1) The AC21 portability rule under the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000, codified at Section 214(n) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), 8 U.S.C. § 1184(n), which permits an H-1B beneficiary to begin employment with a new petitioning employer upon the filing of a new H-1B petition, without awaiting USCIS adjudication; and

(2) The 240-day automatic extension rule under 8 CFR § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(H), which authorizes continued employment for up to 240 days beyond the expiration of the beneficiary's I-94 authorized period of admission, where a timely and non-frivolous extension petition has been filed by the same petitioning employer.

This advisory is directly relevant to OWS's current nonimmigrant visa portfolio, which comprises eighteen (18) active holders: fourteen (14) H-1B nonimmigrants, three (3) O-1A nonimmigrants (Extraordinary Ability in Science), and one (1) O-1B nonimmigrant (Extraordinary Ability in the Arts). The memorandum is of particular and immediate relevance to the current situation of Takeshi Nakamura, Signal Integrity Engineer, whose I-94 authorized period of admission expired on May 31, 2025, with an H-1B extension petition pending before USCIS since March 15, 2025. That petition was filed by OWS's prior immigration counsel, Whitfield & Parekh LLP ("W&P"), under the direction of Kavita Parekh, prior to the transition of OWS's immigration legal matters to Calderwood & Harkness.

In addition to addressing Mr. Nakamura's circumstances, this memorandum is intended to inform OWS's broader workforce planning and immigration compliance posture as the Company manages upcoming extensions and prospective transfers for the following individuals:

• Jae-Won Park, Analog IC Designer — I-94 expiration date of March 31, 2026;

• Arjun Krishnamurthy, Power Management IC Designer — I-94 expiration date of November 30, 2025;

• Chen Xiaoming, Reliability Engineer — I-94 expiration date of August 14, 2025;

• Dr. Kenji Watanabe, prospective H-1B transfer from Northfield University Research Lab, with a target filing date of August 1, 2025; and

• Dr. Ingrid Halvorsen, prospective H-1B transfer from Cascade Institute of Technology, with a target filing date of September 30, 2025.

This memorandum addresses the legal framework, practical application, interaction between the two provisions, employment verification (I-9 and E-Verify) considerations, risk factors, and recommended next steps for each of the foregoing individuals. It is intended to serve as a reference document for OWS's General Counsel, Immigration Program Manager, and Human Resources leadership and should be consulted in conjunction with Calderwood & Harkness's separate RFE Response Strategy Memorandum (regarding Mr. Nakamura's pending specialty occupation challenge), the Firm's FDNS Site Visit Preparedness Guide, and the Quarterly Immigration Program Status Report.

II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

For the convenience of OWS leadership, the key points of this advisory are summarized below. Each point is discussed in greater detail in the sections that follow.

The 240-Day Automatic Extension Rule. Under 8 CFR § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(H), an H-1B worker whose petition for extension of stay has been timely filed — that is, filed before the current I-94 expiration date — may continue employment with the same petitioning employer for up to 240 days beyond the I-94 expiration date, or until USCIS adjudicates the petition, whichever comes first. The petition must be non-frivolous and must seek extension of the same nonimmigrant classification with the same employer. This rule is not discretionary; it operates automatically upon proper filing.

The AC21 Portability Rule. Under INA § 214(n), as enacted by Section 105(a) of the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000, a nonimmigrant worker in valid H-1B status — or in a period of authorized stay by virtue of a timely-filed pending extension — may begin employment with a new employer upon the filing of a new H-1B petition by that new employer. The beneficiary need not await USCIS approval before commencing work. This provision is limited to H-1B nonimmigrants and is subject to specific conditions, including the requirement that the new employer file a valid Labor Condition Application ("LCA") and Form I-129 petition.

Operational Significance for OWS. Both provisions are essential tools for OWS to maintain operational continuity and avoid disruption to critical engineering roles, particularly in the semiconductor and photonics engineering space where specialized talent is difficult — and in many cases, practically impossible — to replace on short notice. OWS's workforce includes individuals with deep expertise in signal integrity, analog IC design, power management, and reliability engineering, all of which are mission-critical to the Company's product roadmap and contractual obligations.

Takeshi Nakamura — Current Status. Mr. Nakamura currently has lawful employment authorization under the 240-day rule. His extension petition was timely filed on March 15, 2025, approximately 77 days prior to his I-94 expiration date of May 31, 2025 — well within the permissible 180-day advance filing window established by 8 CFR § 214.2(h)(15)(ii)(B). His 240-day window extends through approximately January 26, 2026 (calculated as 240 days from the May 31, 2025 I-94 expiration). USCIS has issued a Request for Evidence ("RFE") challenging the specialty occupation classification of the Signal Integrity Engineer position; however, the issuance of an RFE does not terminate the 240-day extension, and Mr. Nakamura remains authorized to continue working for OWS while the RFE response is prepared and while the petition remains pending.

Key Recommendation. OWS should continue Mr. Nakamura's employment without interruption. However, the Company must monitor the pending petition closely, and Calderwood & Harkness must prepare a robust and timely RFE response. The Firm further recommends that OWS consider filing a request for premium processing (Form I-907, filing fee of $2,805 per petition) if premium processing was not elected at the time of the original filing, in order to obtain a definitive decision before the 240-day window closes.

III. LEGAL FRAMEWORK: THE 240-DAY AUTOMATIC EXTENSION RULE

A. Statutory and Regulatory Basis

The 240-day automatic extension rule is codified in the federal regulations at 8 CFR § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(H). The regulation provides, in pertinent part:

"An H-1B, H-2A, H-2B, H-3, L-1, O-1, O-2, P-1, P-2, P-3, or Q-1 alien shall not be considered to have failed to maintain nonimmigrant status solely on the basis of a brief interruption in the employment or engagement if such alien is in the United States, if the employer or petitioner has filed a nonfrivolous petition to extend the alien's stay that was received by the Service prior to the date of the alien's expiration of authorized stay, and if the alien's employment authorization shall continue for the same employer for a period not to exceed 240 days beginning on the date of the expiration of the authorized period of stay."

This regulation applies broadly across several nonimmigrant classifications, including H-1B, H-2A, H-2B, H-3, L-1A, L-1B, O-1, O-2, P-1, P-2, P-3, and Q nonimmigrants. For purposes of this memorandum, the analysis focuses principally on H-1B nonimmigrants, as that classification encompasses fourteen of OWS's eighteen active nonimmigrant workers.

The regulatory basis for the 240-day rule is grounded in the recognition that USCIS processing times frequently exceed the time between an employer's filing of an extension petition and the expiration of the beneficiary's authorized period of stay. Without the 240-day rule, an employer that timely filed an extension petition could nonetheless be forced to terminate the employment of a critical worker simply because USCIS had not yet adjudicated the petition — a result that would be both economically disruptive and contrary to the statutory purpose of the H-1B program.

It is important to note that the 240-day rule is a regulatory provision, not a statutory one. While its legal authority is well-established and it has been consistently applied by USCIS since its promulgation, it could theoretically be modified or rescinded through the rulemaking process. Calderwood & Harkness monitors all proposed and final rules affecting the H-1B program and will alert OWS to any regulatory changes that could impact the 240-day rule.

B. Requirements for Triggering the 240-Day Extension

The 240-day automatic extension is not unconditional. Five requirements must be satisfied for the extension to take effect:

1. Timely Filing. The extension petition (Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker) must be filed before the expiration of the beneficiary's current authorized period of stay, as reflected on the I-94 Arrival/Departure Record. There is no requirement that USCIS receive the petition on or before the expiration date in the sense of issuing a receipt notice; rather, the requirement is that the petition be properly filed — i.e., dispatched to the appropriate USCIS Service Center with all required forms, supporting documentation, and filing fees — before the I-94 expiration date. In practice, the Firm recommends filing extension petitions no later than 60 to 90 days before the I-94 expiration date, and where possible, within the 180-day advance filing window, to provide adequate time for USCIS processing and to allow for any corrections or supplemental filings that may be required.

It is important to emphasize that the standard governing "timely filing" looks to the date the petition is filed, not the date on which USCIS issues the I-797C receipt notice. USCIS receipt notices are typically generated several days to several weeks after the physical receipt of the petition by the Service Center. So long as the petition is submitted to USCIS (or its designated lockbox facility) before the I-94 expiration date, the timeliness requirement is met. The Firm recommends retaining proof of filing (e.g., USPS or Severin Partners LLC tracking confirmation, USCIS online filing receipts for electronically filed petitions) to establish the filing date in the event of any dispute.

2. Same Employer. The extension petition must be filed by the same petitioning employer that sponsored the beneficiary's current H-1B status. The 240-day rule does not apply to petitions filed by a new or different employer seeking to transfer the beneficiary's H-1B status. That scenario — involving a new employer — is governed by the separate AC21 portability provision discussed in Section IV below. The "same employer" requirement is straightforward where the petitioning employer has not undergone any corporate restructuring, merger, or change of ownership. In cases involving corporate successors-in-interest, separate analysis under 8 CFR § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(I) would be required.

3. Non-Frivolous Petition. The extension petition must not be frivolous. USCIS interprets this requirement to mean that the petition must have a legitimate basis and must not be filed solely for the purpose of extending the beneficiary's physical presence in the United States without a genuine need for the beneficiary's continued services. In practice, this requirement is rarely an issue for employers like OWS that file bona fide extension petitions supported by genuine employment offers and proper LCA certifications. The frivolousness standard is a relatively low threshold, and the Firm is not aware of any case in which a timely-filed extension petition for a worker performing genuine services was deemed frivolous for purposes of the 240-day rule.

4. Same Classification. The extension petition must request an extension in the same nonimmigrant classification as the beneficiary's current status. For OWS's purposes, this means that an H-1B extension petition triggers the 240-day rule for an H-1B beneficiary, but a petition to change the beneficiary's status to a different classification (e.g., from H-1B to O-1A) would not qualify. Where a change of classification is contemplated — for example, if OWS were to seek reclassification of an H-1B worker to O-1A based on extraordinary ability — the change-of-status petition would not trigger the 240-day extension for the prior H-1B classification. The worker's H-1B status would expire on the I-94 expiration date, and the worker would be authorized only in the new classification (if and when the change-of-status petition is approved).

5. No Gaps in Employment Authorization Upon Denial. If USCIS denies the pending extension petition, the beneficiary's employment authorization terminates immediately upon denial. There is no grace period. The beneficiary must cease employment at OWS, and depending on the circumstances, may need to depart the United States or pursue other options (such as filing a motion to reopen or reconsider, or filing a new petition if eligible). This is a critical risk factor that OWS must be prepared to address, and it underscores the importance of ensuring that every extension petition is thoroughly prepared and supported by robust documentation.

C. Duration and Limitations

The 240-day extension is limited to a maximum of 240 days from the I-94 expiration date, or until USCIS renders a decision on the pending extension petition, whichever is sooner. The 240-day clock begins running on the day after the I-94 expiration date and runs continuously thereafter, regardless of any intervening events such as the issuance of an RFE, a request for additional evidence, or a transfer of the petition between USCIS Service Centers.

If USCIS has not adjudicated the petition within 240 days of the I-94 expiration, the beneficiary's employment authorization expires. The employee must cease working for OWS even if the petition remains pending before USCIS. This situation — while uncommon when premium processing is elected — can occur in cases of extended processing delays, particularly at the California Service Center or when petitions are subject to multiple rounds of evidence requests, administrative processing, or inter-agency security checks.

Premium processing (Form I-907, Request for Premium Processing Service) is the primary tool for mitigating the risk of the 240-day clock expiring before adjudication. The current filing fee for premium processing is $2,805 per petition. When premium processing is elected, USCIS guarantees an initial action (approval, denial, RFE, or notice of intent to deny) within 15 business days of receipt of the premium processing request. Calderwood & Harkness strongly recommends that OWS elect premium processing for all H-1B extension petitions to minimize the risk of exceeding the 240-day window.

It is important to note that an RFE issued during premium processing does not stop or reset the 240-day clock. If USCIS issues an RFE within the 15-business-day premium processing window, the premium processing clock is paused while the petitioner prepares its response, but the 240-day extension clock continues to run. The petitioner typically has 60 to 87 days to respond to an RFE (unless a shorter deadline is specified), and upon receipt of the RFE response, USCIS has an additional 15 business days to adjudicate the petition. Throughout this entire period, the 240-day clock continues running without interruption.

D. Practical Note on Receipt Notices

The I-797C receipt notice issued by USCIS serves as the primary documentary evidence that an extension petition has been filed and that the 240-day extension has been triggered. OWS and its Immigration Program Manager, Rajesh Anand, should ensure that the I-797C receipt notice for every extension petition is obtained promptly and placed in two locations:

(a) The employee's personnel file, maintained by OWS's Human Resources department under the direction of Samantha Kowalski, Director of Human Resources; and

(b) The Public Access File ("PAF") maintained for each H-1B worker at the employee's designated worksite, as required by 20 CFR § 655.760. The PAF for OWS's San Jose worksite employees is maintained at Site A: 4820 Veltrano Parkway, Suite 300, San Jose, CA 95134.

The receipt notice should be readily accessible in the event of a USCIS Fraud Detection and National Security ("FDNS") site visit, a Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division investigation, or an internal audit. Calderwood & Harkness recommends that copies also be maintained electronically in OWS's immigration case management system, with access limited to authorized personnel.

IV. LEGAL FRAMEWORK: AC21 PORTABILITY (INA § 214(n))

A. Statutory Basis

The AC21 portability rule is codified at Section 214(n) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(n). It was enacted as Section 105(a) of the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 ("AC21"), Pub. L. 106-313, 114 Stat. 1251, which was signed into law on October 17, 2000. The portability provision was a key component of AC21's broader effort to promote labor market flexibility and reduce the bureaucratic barriers that inhibited the movement of skilled H-1B workers between employers.

Prior to AC21, an H-1B beneficiary who wished to change employers was required to wait until the new employer's H-1B petition was approved by USCIS (then the Immigration and Naturalization Service) before commencing employment with the new employer. This process could take months, during which the beneficiary was unable to work for the new employer and the new employer was unable to benefit from the beneficiary's services. The portability provision eliminated this waiting period by permitting the beneficiary to begin working for the new employer immediately upon the filing of the new petition, subject to the conditions discussed below.

The legislative history of AC21 reflects Congress's recognition that the H-1B program serves the interests of U.S. employers in accessing highly skilled talent, and that unnecessary delays in the transfer process impede the efficient functioning of the labor market — particularly in technology-intensive industries such as semiconductor design and manufacturing, which is precisely the industry in which OWS operates.

B. Key Provisions

The AC21 portability rule contains the following key provisions:

1. Immediate Employment Upon Filing. A nonimmigrant alien who is the beneficiary of a new H-1B petition filed by a new employer may commence employment with the new petitioning employer upon the filing of such petition. The statute provides that the alien "may accept the employment described" in the new petition "as of the date of the filing of [the] petition." INA § 214(n)(1). This means that the beneficiary does not need to wait for USCIS to issue a receipt notice, much less an approval notice, before beginning work for the new employer. The filing itself triggers the employment authorization.

In practice, however, Calderwood & Harkness recommends that the beneficiary wait until at least the filing date (and ideally until receipt of the I-797C receipt notice) before commencing employment, to ensure that there is documentary evidence of the filing and that any filing deficiencies (such as an incorrect fee payment or missing form) are identified and corrected before the beneficiary begins work.

2. Eligible Filing Basis. The new H-1B petition that triggers portability may take several forms. It may be an initial petition (subject to the H-1B annual cap or cap-exempt, depending on the new employer's classification), a transfer petition (seeking to change the H-1B employer), or an amendment petition (seeking to modify the terms of the existing H-1B, such as the worksite location or job duties), so long as it is filed by the new or prospective employer. The portability provision is not limited to any specific subcategory of H-1B petition.

3. Authorized Stay Requirement. The beneficiary must be in a "period of authorized stay" at the time the new petition is filed. INA § 214(n)(1). This is a critical requirement. A beneficiary whose I-94 has expired and who does not have a timely-filed extension pending (and thus is not within the 240-day extension window) is not in a period of authorized stay and is not eligible for portability.

Importantly, however, the period of authorized stay includes periods covered by the 240-day extension rule discussed in Section III above. Thus, a beneficiary whose I-94 has expired but who is within the 240-day window by virtue of a timely-filed extension petition from the current employer is considered to be in a period of authorized stay and is eligible for portability. This interaction between the 240-day rule and AC21 portability is discussed further in Section VI below.

4. No Need to Wait for Approval. Unlike traditional petition processing, in which the beneficiary cannot begin employment until USCIS approves the petition, the AC21 portability rule permits the beneficiary to begin working for the new employer upon filing. This is the core innovation of the portability provision and is what makes it such a valuable tool for employers seeking to hire H-1B workers from other employers.

C. Conditions and Limitations

While the AC21 portability provision is a powerful tool, it is subject to several important conditions and limitations:

Denial Risk. If the new H-1B petition filed by the new employer is ultimately denied by USCIS, the beneficiary's employment authorization with the new employer terminates. The beneficiary's immigration status reverts to whatever status (if any) existed before the portability petition was filed. If the beneficiary had valid H-1B status with the prior employer at the time the portability petition was filed, the beneficiary may be able to return to that prior employment (assuming the prior petition remains valid). If the beneficiary did not have any underlying status (e.g., because the prior employer's petition had expired), the beneficiary may need to depart the United States.

Portability Does Not Create New Status. It is important to understand that AC21 portability authorizes employment with the new employer, but it does not confer approved H-1B status with the new employer. The beneficiary is in an "authorized period of stay" and is authorized to work, but is not in fully approved H-1B status until USCIS approves the new petition. This distinction has implications for travel — a beneficiary who departs the United States while the portability petition is pending may face difficulties in re-entering the country, as there is no approved petition to support a visa stamp or admission. Calderwood & Harkness generally advises H-1B portability workers to avoid international travel while the transfer petition is pending, unless the worker has an existing valid H-1B visa stamp and the prior employer's petition remains valid.

LCA and I-129 Requirements. The new employer must file a valid Labor Condition Application ("LCA") with the U.S. Department of Labor, certified for the appropriate metropolitan statistical area ("MSA"), Standard Occupational Classification ("SOC") code, and prevailing wage level, before filing the I-129 petition with USCIS. The employer must also pay all applicable filing fees, including the base I-129 filing fee, the ACWIA training fee (currently $1,500 for employers with 26 or more full-time equivalent employees, or $750 for employers with 25 or fewer), the Fraud Prevention and Detection Fee ($500), and, if applicable, the Public Law 114-113 fee ($4,000 for employers with 50 or more employees in the United States where more than 50% of the workforce holds H-1B or L-1 status — which does not apply to OWS).

H-1B Only. The AC21 portability provision applies exclusively to H-1B nonimmigrants. It does not extend to O-1, L-1, or other nonimmigrant classifications, each of which has its own procedures for employer transfers. For OWS's O-1A and O-1B holders, a new employer seeking to employ the beneficiary must file a new O-1 petition and await USCIS approval before the beneficiary may begin work for the new employer (unless the beneficiary has a concurrent or supplemental employment arrangement under a separate petition). This distinction is relevant because OWS currently holds three O-1A petitions and one O-1B petition, and those workers are not eligible for AC21 portability.

D. Relevance to OWS Transfer Petitions

The AC21 portability provision is directly relevant to two prospective new hires that OWS intends to bring on board through H-1B transfer petitions:

Dr. Kenji Watanabe. Dr. Watanabe is currently employed at Northfield University Research Lab on a cap-exempt H-1B petition. OWS plans to file an H-1B transfer petition with a target filing date of August 1, 2025. Under AC21 portability, Dr. Watanabe may immediately commence employment at OWS's San Jose worksite upon the filing of the transfer petition, without awaiting USCIS approval. This is contingent upon Dr. Watanabe being in valid H-1B status (or a valid 240-day extension period) at the time of filing.

Because Dr. Watanabe's current H-1B status is cap-exempt (granted through a qualifying institution of higher education under INA § 212(n)(3)), his transfer to OWS — a for-profit, non-academic employer — raises the question of whether the cap-exempt basis carries over to the new petition. Under current USCIS guidance, a beneficiary who has previously been counted against the H-1B cap or who holds cap-exempt status is not required to go through the H-1B lottery for a subsequent petition, provided the petition is filed while the beneficiary is in valid H-1B status or within the six-year H-1B validity period (including any time spent outside the United States). Dr. Watanabe's transfer to OWS does not require a new lottery registration. However, a new LCA must be filed and certified for the San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara MSA, at the appropriate prevailing wage level for the applicable SOC code.

Dr. Ingrid Halvorsen. Dr. Halvorsen is currently employed at Cascade Institute of Technology on a cap-exempt H-1B petition. OWS plans to file an H-1B transfer petition with a target filing date of September 30, 2025. The same portability and cap-exemption analysis applicable to Dr. Watanabe applies to Dr. Halvorsen. A new LCA must be filed and certified for the San Jose MSA under the applicable SOC code (SOC 17-2199, Engineers, All Other, or such other SOC code as may be appropriate based on Dr. Halvorsen's specific position and duties at OWS).

For both Dr. Watanabe and Dr. Halvorsen, Calderwood & Harkness recommends that OWS coordinate start dates carefully to ensure that the transfer petition is filed concurrently with or before the beneficiary's first day of work at OWS. While AC21 portability technically permits employment to begin on the date of filing, practical considerations — including the need for documentary proof of filing, the completion of I-9 verification, and the avoidance of any gap between filing and commencement — counsel in favor of synchronizing the filing date and start date. In both cases, OWS should elect premium processing ($2,805 per petition) to minimize the period between filing and approval and to provide certainty regarding the beneficiary's status.

V. APPLICATION TO CURRENT OWS SITUATIONS

This section applies the legal framework discussed in Sections III and IV to each of the OWS employees and prospective employees identified in Section I.

A. Takeshi Nakamura — Signal Integrity Engineer (Priority Matter)

Background. Takeshi Nakamura is an H-1B nonimmigrant worker employed by OWS as a Signal Integrity Engineer, classified under Standard Occupational Classification code 17-2072 (Electronics Engineers, Except Computer). Mr. Nakamura is assigned to OWS's San Jose worksite at Site A: 4820 Veltrano Parkway, Suite 300, San Jose, CA 95134. His current H-1B petition covers a validity period of June 1, 2022, through May 31, 2025.

I-94 Expiration. Mr. Nakamura's I-94 Arrival/Departure Record expired on May 31, 2025.

Extension Filing. An H-1B extension petition (Form I-129) was filed on March 15, 2025, by Whitfield & Parekh LLP, OWS's prior immigration counsel. The filing was made under the direction of Kavita Parekh, the lead attorney at W&P responsible for OWS's immigration matters prior to the transition to Calderwood & Harkness. The petition was filed approximately 77 days in advance of the I-94 expiration date, which is well within the permissible 180-day advance filing window established by 8 CFR § 214.2(h)(15)(ii)(B) and consistent with best practices. Calderwood & Harkness has confirmed that the petition was properly received by USCIS and that an I-797C receipt notice was issued. The receipt notice should be in Mr. Nakamura's personnel file and the San Jose PAF; the Firm requests that Mr. Anand confirm this and, if the receipt notice is not in both locations, take immediate steps to obtain and file copies.

Status as of June 5, 2025. Mr. Nakamura's I-94 has expired. However, because the extension petition was timely filed before the May 31, 2025 expiration, the 240-day automatic extension rule under 8 CFR § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(H) is triggered. Accordingly, Mr. Nakamura's employment authorization with OWS is automatically extended for up to 240 days from the I-94 expiration date — i.e., through approximately January 26, 2026 — or until USCIS adjudicates the pending extension petition, whichever is earlier. As of the date of this memorandum, Mr. Nakamura is five (5) days into the 240-day extension period and remains fully authorized to continue employment at OWS.

Pending Request for Evidence (RFE). USCIS has issued a Request for Evidence in connection with Mr. Nakamura's pending extension petition. The RFE challenges the specialty occupation classification of the Signal Integrity Engineer position, questioning whether the position satisfies the requirements of 8 CFR § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) — specifically, whether a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty (or its equivalent) is the normal minimum requirement for entry into the occupation. This type of RFE has become increasingly common in H-1B adjudications, particularly for positions classified under broad SOC codes such as 17-2072. Calderwood & Harkness has prepared a separate RFE Response Strategy Memorandum addressing the substance of the RFE and the Firm's recommended response strategy, which has been provided to Ms. Langford and Mr. Anand under separate cover.

For purposes of this memorandum, the critical point is that the issuance of an RFE does not terminate the 240-day extension. Mr. Nakamura remains authorized to work for OWS while the RFE response is being prepared, while the response is pending before USCIS, and throughout the period that the extension petition remains pending (subject to the 240-day limitation). The RFE response must be filed within the deadline specified in the RFE notice (typically 60 to 87 days from issuance); failure to timely respond will result in denial of the petition and immediate termination of employment authorization.

Green Card Processing. Mr. Nakamura has a pending EB-1B (Outstanding Researcher or Professor) immigrant petition (Form I-140) with a priority date of September 10, 2022. This immigrant petition is relevant to Mr. Nakamura's long-term immigration trajectory and, importantly, to the question of whether he may be eligible for extensions of H-1B status beyond the standard six-year maximum.

Under INA § 106(a), as added by AC21, an H-1B worker who is the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition (or, under certain circumstances, a pending I-140 that has been filed for at least 365 days) may be eligible for one-year extensions of H-1B status beyond the six-year maximum, provided the worker is unable to file an adjustment of status application (Form I-485) due to visa number unavailability. Mr. Nakamura's EB-1B petition was filed on September 10, 2022 — more than 365 days ago — and his current H-1B validity period reflects three years of status (June 1, 2022, to May 31, 2025). However, if Mr. Nakamura had prior H-1B periods with other employers, the total time in H-1B status may be approaching the six-year limit, which would make the seventh-year extension analysis under INA § 106(a) directly relevant. Calderwood & Harkness is reviewing Mr. Nakamura's complete immigration history to determine his exact H-1B clock and will advise OWS and Mr. Nakamura regarding seventh-year extension eligibility in a supplemental memorandum.

Recommendations for Mr. Nakamura:

(i) Continue employment without interruption. Mr. Nakamura is fully authorized to work under the 240-day extension rule. There is no legal basis for suspending or terminating his employment at this time.

(ii) Confirm receipt notice documentation. Mr. Anand should confirm that the I-797C receipt notice for the pending extension petition (filed March 15, 2025) is on file in both Mr. Nakamura's personnel file and the San Jose PAF. If not, copies should be obtained immediately from W&P or from USCIS case status records.

(iii) Prepare and file the RFE response promptly. Calderwood & Harkness has assumed responsibility from Whitfield & Parekh for the preparation and filing of the RFE response. The Firm will file the response well within the USCIS-specified deadline and will coordinate with Mr. Anand and Mr. Nakamura regarding any additional documentation required from OWS.

(iv) Evaluate premium processing. The Firm recommends determining whether premium processing (Form I-907, $2,805) was elected at the time of the original filing by W&P. If premium processing was not elected, Calderwood & Harkness recommends that OWS authorize the filing of an I-907 immediately to upgrade the pending petition to premium processing. This will ensure that USCIS renders a decision within 15 business days of the premium processing upgrade, well before the January 26, 2026 expiration of the 240-day window.

(v) Monitor EB-1B petition status. Calderwood & Harkness will monitor the status of Mr. Nakamura's pending EB-1B petition and assess his eligibility for seventh-year H-1B extensions under INA § 106(a).

B. Chen Xiaoming — Reliability Engineer

Background. Chen Xiaoming is an H-1B nonimmigrant worker employed by OWS as a Reliability Engineer, classified under SOC code 17-2072 (Electronics Engineers, Except Computer). Mr. Chen is assigned to the San Jose worksite. His current H-1B petition covers a validity period of August 15, 2023, through August 14, 2025. Mr. Chen has a pending EB-2 (Advanced Degree Professional) labor certification (PERM) with a priority date of April 5, 2024.

Extension Filing Timeline. Mr. Chen's I-94 expires on August 14, 2025. Under the 180-day advance filing window, OWS may file the extension petition as early as approximately February 15, 2025. Calderwood & Harkness recommends a target filing date of no later than June 15, 2025 — approximately 60 days before the I-94 expiration — to ensure timely filing with adequate buffer for any filing issues. While the legal requirement is simply that the petition be filed before August 14, 2025, earlier filing reduces risk and allows for premium processing adjudication before the I-94 expiration, potentially avoiding the need to invoke the 240-day rule entirely.

240-Day Analysis. Once the extension petition is filed, the 240-day clock will begin running from August 14, 2025, the I-94 expiration date. Assuming the petition is filed by mid-June 2025 and premium processing is elected, USCIS should render a decision well before the I-94 expiration. If standard processing is used, the 240-day window would extend through approximately April 11, 2026. However, Calderwood & Harkness strongly recommends premium processing ($2,805) to avoid reliance on the 240-day extension period and to provide certainty regarding Mr. Chen's continued authorization.

Recommendation: File extension petition no later than June 15, 2025. Elect premium processing. Ensure updated LCA is filed and certified for the San Jose MSA prior to filing the I-129 petition.

C. Arjun Krishnamurthy — Power Management IC Designer

Background. Arjun Krishnamurthy is an H-1B nonimmigrant worker employed by OWS as a Power Management IC Designer, classified under SOC code 17-2072 (Electronics Engineers, Except Computer). Mr. Krishnamurthy is assigned to the San Jose worksite. His current H-1B petition covers a validity period of December 1, 2022, through November 30, 2025. Mr. Krishnamurthy has a pending EB-2 (Advanced Degree Professional) labor certification (PERM) with a priority date of July 22, 2023. A PERM audit is currently pending, arising from documentation prepared and filed by OWS's prior immigration counsel.

Extension Filing Timeline. Mr. Krishnamurthy's I-94 expires on November 30, 2025. Calderwood & Harkness recommends filing the extension petition by late summer or early fall 2025 — ideally by September 2025 — to allow for timely adjudication. As with Mr. Chen, the legal requirement is filing before the I-94 expiration, but earlier filing is strongly recommended.

240-Day Analysis. Once the extension petition is timely filed, the 240-day clock will begin running from November 30, 2025. The 240-day window would extend through approximately July 28, 2026. Premium processing is recommended to obtain a decision before the I-94 expiration and avoid reliance on the 240-day extension.

PERM Audit Complication. The pending PERM audit does not directly affect the H-1B extension petition or the 240-day extension analysis. The PERM audit is a separate proceeding before the U.S. Department of Labor relating to the labor certification application filed in support of Mr. Krishnamurthy's EB-2 immigrant petition. However, the outcome of the PERM audit may indirectly impact Mr. Krishnamurthy's immigration timeline in two respects:

(a) If the PERM audit results in a denial of the labor certification, the I-140 petition cannot be filed, and Mr. Krishnamurthy will not be able to establish eligibility for seventh-year H-1B extensions under INA § 106(a) or (b) based on that labor certification. OWS would need to either refile the PERM application or pursue an alternative immigrant visa category.

(b) If the PERM audit results in approval but with significant delay, the I-140 filing timeline will be pushed back, which may affect Mr. Krishnamurthy's ability to obtain seventh-year H-1B extensions in a timely manner.

Calderwood & Harkness is monitoring the PERM audit as part of the broader PERM case portfolio and will advise OWS on next steps upon receipt of the audit result.

Recommendation: File extension petition by early fall 2025. Elect premium processing. Continue monitoring PERM audit status and coordinate with Calderwood & Harkness on I-140 filing timeline.

D. Jae-Won Park — Analog IC Designer

Background. Jae-Won Park is an H-1B nonimmigrant worker employed by OWS as an Analog IC Designer, classified under SOC code 17-2072 (Electronics Engineers, Except Computer). Mr. Park is assigned to the San Jose worksite. His current H-1B petition covers a validity period of April 1, 2023, through March 31, 2026. Mr. Park has a pending EB-2 (Advanced Degree Professional) labor certification (PERM) with a priority date of November 20, 2023.

Extension Filing Timeline. Mr. Park's I-94 does not expire until March 31, 2026, which is approximately ten months from the date of this memorandum. The extension filing is not imminently due but should be calendared for filing in late 2025 or early 2026 — ideally no later than January 2026 — to ensure timely filing within the 180-day advance window.

240-Day Analysis. The 240-day rule will apply upon timely filing of the extension petition. The 240-day window will extend approximately 240 days from March 31, 2026 (i.e., through approximately late November 2026). However, premium processing should render this analysis largely academic.

Recommendation: Begin extension preparation in Q4 2025. Calendar filing deadline for no later than early Q1 2026. Elect premium processing at the time of filing.

E. Transfer Petitions — Dr. Watanabe and Dr. Halvorsen

Dr. Kenji Watanabe. Dr. Watanabe is currently employed at Northfield University Research Lab on a cap-exempt H-1B petition. OWS intends to file an H-1B transfer petition with a target filing date of August 1, 2025. Under AC21 portability, as discussed in Section IV above, Dr. Watanabe may begin employment at OWS upon the filing of the transfer petition, without awaiting USCIS approval. The key prerequisite is that Dr. Watanabe be in valid H-1B status (or within a valid 240-day extension period) at the time of filing. Calderwood & Harkness will verify Dr. Watanabe's current status and I-94 validity prior to filing.

The cap-exempt basis under which Dr. Watanabe's current H-1B was granted (through Northfield University Research Lab, a qualifying institution of higher education) carries over in the sense that Dr. Watanabe is not required to go through the H-1B cap lottery for the OWS transfer petition. However, a new LCA must be filed and certified for the San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara MSA at the appropriate prevailing wage level and SOC code. Calderwood & Harkness will prepare and file the LCA as part of the transfer petition preparation.

Dr. Ingrid Halvorsen. Dr. Halvorsen is currently employed at Cascade Institute of Technology on a cap-exempt H-1B petition. OWS intends to file an H-1B transfer petition with a target filing date of September 30, 2025. The same portability and cap-exemption analysis applicable to Dr. Watanabe applies to Dr. Halvorsen. A new LCA must be filed and certified for the San Jose MSA under the applicable SOC code — which Calderwood & Harkness anticipates will be SOC 17-2199 (Engineers, All Other), based on preliminary review of the intended position duties, though the final SOC code determination will be made upon completion of the position analysis.

Recommendation for Both Transfers:

(i) Coordinate start dates with Calderwood & Harkness to ensure that the transfer petition is filed concurrently with or before the beneficiary's first day of work at OWS. Under AC21 portability, the beneficiary may begin working on the date of filing, but the petition must be filed on or before the first day of employment.

(ii) Elect premium processing ($2,805 per petition) for both transfer petitions to minimize the period between filing and approval and to provide the beneficiaries with approved H-1B status as quickly as possible.

(iii) Prepare new LCAs for the San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara MSA well in advance of the filing dates, allowing for DOL certification processing time (typically 5–7 business days for electronic filing via FLAG).

(iv) Coordinate with the beneficiaries regarding their transition from their current employers, including any notice periods, non-compete or non-solicitation obligations, and the logistics of relocation to the San Jose area.

VI. INTERACTION BETWEEN THE 240-DAY RULE AND AC21 PORTABILITY

The 240-day automatic extension rule and the AC21 portability provision, while distinct in their statutory and regulatory origins, interact in an important way that OWS should understand.

A beneficiary who is within the 240-day extension period — because a timely extension petition was filed by the current employer before the I-94 expiration — is considered to be in a "period of authorized stay" for purposes of AC21 portability. INA § 214(n)(1). This means that a new employer could, during the 240-day window, file a transfer petition for the beneficiary, and the beneficiary could begin working for the new employer upon filing under AC21 portability. The beneficiary need not have approved H-1B status; the authorized stay conferred by the 240-day rule is sufficient to support portability eligibility.

For OWS, this interaction is primarily relevant in two scenarios:

Scenario 1: Outbound transfers. If any of OWS's current H-1B employees who are in the 240-day extension period were to seek employment with a different employer, that employee's authorization under the 240-day rule would support portability eligibility. The new employer could file a transfer petition during the 240-day window, and the employee could begin working for the new employer upon filing. From OWS's perspective, this is a potential risk factor — a key employee in the 240-day period could, in theory, leave OWS for a competitor by invoking AC21 portability. However, this is an inherent feature of the H-1B program's portability framework and is not unique to the 240-day context.

Scenario 2: Inbound transfers. If OWS is the new employer — as in the case of Dr. Watanabe and Dr. Halvorsen — the critical question is whether the beneficiary is in valid H-1B status or within a 240-day window at the time OWS files the transfer petition. If the beneficiary's I-94 has expired and the beneficiary is not within a 240-day extension period (because no timely extension was filed by the current employer), the beneficiary is not in a period of authorized stay and is not eligible for portability. In such a case, OWS could not file a portability-based transfer petition, and the beneficiary would likely need to depart the United States and apply for a new H-1B visa at a U.S. consulate abroad (consular processing).

Calderwood & Harkness will verify the current status and 240-day eligibility of each prospective transferee before filing a transfer petition on behalf of OWS. For the two prospective transfers currently planned (Dr. Watanabe and Dr. Halvorsen), both individuals are expected to be in valid, approved H-1B status at the time of the planned filing dates, and the 240-day interaction is not anticipated to be a factor. However, if either beneficiary's current employer fails to file a timely extension petition (in the event that the beneficiary's I-94 expires before the planned transfer filing date), the interaction between the 240-day rule and portability would become directly relevant.

VII. EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZATION DOCUMENTATION AND I-9 CONSIDERATIONS

Proper employment verification documentation is essential throughout both the 240-day extension period and the AC21 portability period. Errors in I-9 compliance can result in civil penalties imposed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") and, in severe cases, criminal liability. OWS must maintain appropriate documentation for each employee whose employment authorization is based on a pending petition.

240-Day Extension Period — I-9 Documentation

During the 240-day extension period, the employee remains authorized to work, and OWS is not required to take any adverse employment action. For I-9 purposes, the employee may present the following documentation:

(a) The I-797C receipt notice for the pending extension petition, which serves as evidence that the petition was timely filed and that the 240-day extension has been triggered; combined with

(b) The expired I-94 Arrival/Departure Record, which establishes the expiration date of the prior authorized period of stay and confirms that the 240-day window is running from that date.

OWS should not reverify the Form I-9 solely because the employee's I-94 has expired, so long as a timely extension petition has been filed. Reverification in this context could give rise to a claim of unfair immigration-related employment practices under INA § 274B, as it could be viewed as discriminatory document abuse. The employer's obligation is to note the 240-day extension in the I-9 records and to reverify only when the 240-day period expires (if the petition has not yet been adjudicated) or when the petition is approved (at which point the employee should present the I-797A approval notice with the new I-94).

OWS uses E-Verify for employment verification purposes. The Company's E-Verify Company ID is 1487623. E-Verify is managed by Samantha Kowalski, Director of Human Resources, with support from Sentinel Background Verification Corp., with Tyler Ng serving as Account Lead. For employees in the 240-day extension period, E-Verify does not require a new case to be created; the existing case should reflect the pending extension. If a Tentative Non-Confirmation ("TNC") is issued through E-Verify for an employee in the 240-day period, OWS should contact Calderwood & Harkness immediately for guidance, as TNCs in this context may be the result of USCIS system delays in updating the employee's records.

AC21 Portability — I-9 Documentation

When a new employer files a transfer petition under AC21 portability, the beneficiary may use the I-797C receipt notice from the new petition to establish employment authorization for I-9 purposes. The receipt notice, combined with other acceptable List A or List B/C documents, satisfies the employer's I-9 obligations. As with the 240-day scenario, OWS should create a new I-9 for each portability hire (Dr. Watanabe and Dr. Halvorsen) at the time they commence employment, using the I-797C receipt notice as the basis for employment authorization. Upon approval of the transfer petition, the I-9 should be updated to reflect the approved I-797A notice with the new I-94.

Training Recommendation

OWS's Director of Human Resources, Samantha Kowalski, and Immigration Program Manager, Rajesh Anand, should be trained on the specific documentation requirements that apply during 240-day extension periods and AC21 portability situations. Calderwood & Harkness recommends that this training be incorporated into the Firm's annual immigration compliance training program for OWS, which also covers LCA posting requirements, PAF maintenance, H-1B dependent employer analysis, FDNS site visit preparedness, and general I-9/E-Verify best practices. The training should also extend to hiring managers, including Dr. Yun-Sheng Chen, who supervises several of the H-1B workers identified in this memorandum.

VIII. RISK FACTORS AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES

While the 240-day rule and AC21 portability provide substantial protections for OWS and its nonimmigrant workforce, they are not without risks. This section identifies the principal risk factors and recommends mitigation strategies for each.

A. Denial of a Pending Extension Petition

Risk. If USCIS denies a pending extension petition, the beneficiary's employment authorization terminates immediately. There is no grace period, and the employee must cease work on the date of denial. OWS would face an immediate loss of a critical engineering resource, and the employee may need to depart the United States unless an alternative immigration pathway is available.

Mitigation. The primary mitigation strategy is to ensure that every extension petition is thoroughly prepared, supported by robust documentation, and accompanied by a comprehensive legal brief (where appropriate) addressing any potential issues. The use of premium processing ($2,805 per petition) is also critical, as it allows OWS and Calderwood & Harkness to receive a decision quickly and, if the decision is adverse, to pursue a motion to reopen or reconsider or to file a new petition before the employee's situation becomes untenable. For the specific case of Takeshi Nakamura, whose petition is subject to a pending RFE challenging the specialty occupation classification, Calderwood & Harkness is preparing a robust RFE response that will include:

• A detailed analysis of the Signal Integrity Engineer position and its minimum educational requirements;

• Expert declarations from industry professionals attesting to the specialized nature of the role;

• Evidence of Mr. Nakamura's qualifications, including his academic credentials and professional experience;

• DOL Occupational Outlook Handbook excerpts and industry salary surveys supporting the specialty occupation classification; and

• Case law and USCIS precedent decisions supporting the classification of similar positions as specialty occupations.

The Firm is confident that a well-documented RFE response will result in approval of Mr. Nakamura's extension petition.

B. Exceeding the 240-Day Window

Risk. If USCIS does not adjudicate the extension petition within 240 days of the I-94 expiration, the employee's work authorization lapses. The employee must stop working even if the petition remains pending. This can occur in cases of extended processing delays, particularly at congested USCIS Service Centers.

Mitigation. Premium processing is the primary and most effective mitigation tool. When premium processing is elected, USCIS must take initial action within 15 business days, making it virtually impossible for the 240-day window to expire before adjudication (absent extraordinary circumstances such as multiple rounds of RFEs). For cases in which premium processing is not available or was not elected at the time of filing, OWS and Calderwood & Harkness should monitor processing times at the relevant USCIS Service Center:

• California Service Center (24000 Avila Road, Laguna Niguel, CA 92677): Handles most H-1B petitions for employers located in the western United States, including California. As of the date of this memorandum, average processing times for H-1B extension petitions at the California Service Center range from approximately 3 to 8 months for standard processing.

• Vermont Service Center (75 Lower Welden Street, St. Albans, VT 05479): Handles O-1 petitions and certain other classifications. Average processing times for O-1 petitions range from approximately 2 to 6 months for standard processing.

If processing times suggest that the 240-day window may expire before adjudication, the Firm recommends filing a premium processing upgrade (Form I-907) at the earliest possible opportunity.

C. Gap Between Counsel Transition and Pending Matters

Risk. Calderwood & Harkness assumed representation of OWS from Whitfield & Parekh LLP effective May 20, 2025, with the prior engagement concluding April 30, 2025. There was a 20-day gap between the end of W&P's engagement (April 30, 2025) and the commencement of C&H's engagement (May 20, 2025) during which OWS did not have active immigration counsel. During this period, no new filings were made, but matters that were already pending — including Mr. Nakamura's extension petition and its associated RFE — continued to be subject to USCIS deadlines.

The file transfer from W&P to C&H has a target completion date of June 15, 2025. Until the complete files are transferred, Calderwood & Harkness's ability to review and respond to pending matters is constrained. For matters with pending RFEs (specifically, Mr. Nakamura's specialty occupation RFE), the Firm must ensure continuity of representation and, if necessary, request extensions of RFE response deadlines from USCIS.

Mitigation. Calderwood & Harkness has taken the following steps to mitigate this risk:

(i) Contacted W&P directly to obtain copies of all pending matter files, including the Nakamura extension petition file, the RFE notice, and all supporting documentation;

(ii) Filed a notice of attorney appearance (Form G-28) with USCIS for all pending OWS immigration matters, designating Calderwood & Harkness as the attorney of record;

(iii) Reviewed the RFE deadline and confirmed that sufficient time remains for the preparation and filing of a comprehensive response; and

(iv) Established a file transfer protocol with W&P to ensure complete and orderly transfer of all physical and electronic files by the June 15, 2025 target date.

D. FDNS Site Visits During Pending Petitions

Risk. USCIS's Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate ("FDNS") may conduct unannounced site visits to the petitioning employer's worksite in connection with pending H-1B petitions. These visits are designed to verify the accuracy of the information submitted in the petition, including the beneficiary's job duties, the worksite location, and the employer-employee relationship. During a site visit, FDNS officers may interview the beneficiary, the supervisor, and other company personnel.

For employees on 240-day extensions, a site visit may raise questions about the employee's current authorization status, particularly if the FDNS officer is not immediately familiar with the 240-day rule or if the employee is unable to produce documentation of the timely-filed extension petition.

Historical Context. OWS has experienced two prior FDNS site visits:

• November 8, 2023: Site visit at the San Jose worksite. FDNS officer interviewed two H-1B employees and the site supervisor. No adverse findings were reported.

• February 12, 2025: Site visit at the San Jose worksite. FDNS officer interviewed one H-1B employee and reviewed the PAF. No adverse findings were reported.

Both visits were handled smoothly, and OWS received no notices of violation or adverse actions. This positive track record is an asset to the Company's immigration compliance posture.

Mitigation. Calderwood & Harkness has prepared a comprehensive FDNS Site Visit Preparedness Guide for OWS, which has been distributed to the San Jose worksite. The guide includes protocols for receiving FDNS officers, identifying authorized contacts, and responding to interview questions. For employees on 240-day extensions, the guide specifically instructs the employee to have the I-797C receipt notice readily accessible and to explain, if asked, that an extension petition is pending before USCIS and that the employee is authorized to continue working under the 240-day automatic extension rule.

OWS's Immigration Program Manager, Rajesh Anand, should ensure that all H-1B employees — particularly those in the 240-day extension period — are aware of FDNS site visit protocols and have copies of their I-797C receipt notices at their desks or readily accessible on their company devices.

IX. SUMMARY TABLE: CURRENT H-1B HOLDERS WITH UPCOMING EXTENSION/TRANSFER DEADLINES AND 240-DAY IMPLICATIONS

The following table summarizes the st

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION
CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP
Immigration & Global Mobility Practice
555 South Grand Avenue, 38th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071
101 California Street, 27th Floor San Francisco, California 94111
ADVISORY MEMORANDUM
FROM: Dr. Lena Marchetti, Of Counsel, Calderwood & Harkness LLP, Immigration & Global Mobility Practice
TO: Patricia Langford, General Counsel, Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.; Rajesh Anand, Immigration Program Manager, Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.
CC: Nathaniel Bower, Responsible Partner, Calderwood & Harkness LLP; Megan Chu, Lead Associate, Calderwood & Harkness LLP
DATE: June 5, 2025
RE: Advisory Memorandum — AC21 Portability Provisions (INA § 214(n)) and 240-Day Automatic Extension Rule (8 CFR § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(H)) — Practical Implications for Optiwave Semiconductor Corp.
ENGAGEMENT REFERENCE: SC-OWS-2025-0520-IMM
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION. This memorandum is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine. It is intended solely for the use of the individuals and entity to whom it is addressed. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is strictly prohibited.
Right-click to update Table of Contents
I. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS MEMORANDUM
This memorandum provides a comprehensive legal advisory to Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. ("OWS" or the "Company") regarding two critical provisions governing continued employment authorization for H-1B nonimmigrant workers during periods when petitions for extension of stay, amendment of petition, or change of employer are pending before U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"). Calderwood & Harkness LLP ("C&H" or the "Firm") prepares this memorandum in its capacity as immigration counsel to OWS, pursuant to the engagement letter dated May 20, 2025, under engagement reference SC-OWS-2025-0520-IMM.
The two principal provisions addressed in this memorandum are:
(1) The AC21 portability rule under the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000, codified at Section 214(n) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), 8 U.S.C. § 1184(n), which permits an H-1B beneficiary to begin employment with a new petitioning employer upon the filing of a new H-1B petition, without awaiting USCIS adjudication; and
(2) The 240-day automatic extension rule under 8 CFR § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(H), which authorizes continued employment for up to 240 days beyond the expiration of the beneficiary's I-94 authorized period of admission, where a timely and non-frivolous extension petition has been filed by the same petitioning employer.
This advisory is directly relevant to OWS's current nonimmigrant visa portfolio, which comprises eighteen (18) active holders: fourteen (14) H-1B nonimmigrants, three (3) O-1A nonimmigrants (Extraordinary Ability in Science), and one (1) O-1B nonimmigrant (Extraordinary Ability in the Arts). The memorandum is of particular and immediate relevance to the current situation of Takeshi Nakamura, Signal Integrity Engineer, whose I-94 authorized period of admission expired on May 31, 2025, with an H-1B extension petition pending before USCIS since March 15, 2025. That petition was filed by OWS's prior immigration counsel, Whitfield & Parekh LLP ("W&P"), under the direction of Kavita Parekh, prior to the transition of OWS's immigration legal matters to Calderwood & Harkness.
In addition to addressing Mr. Nakamura's circumstances, this memorandum is intended to inform OWS's broader workforce planning and immigration compliance posture as the Company manages upcoming extensions and prospective transfers for the following individuals:
• Jae-Won Park, Analog IC Designer — I-94 expiration date of March 31, 2026;
• Arjun Krishnamurthy, Power Management IC Designer — I-94 expiration date of November 30, 2025;
• Chen Xiaoming, Reliability Engineer — I-94 expiration date of August 14, 2025;
• Dr. Kenji Watanabe, prospective H-1B transfer from Northfield University Research Lab, with a target filing date of August 1, 2025; and
• Dr. Ingrid Halvorsen, prospective H-1B transfer from Cascade Institute of Technology, with a target filing date of September 30, 2025.
This memorandum addresses the legal framework, practical application, interaction between the two provisions, employment verification (I-9 and E-Verify) considerations, risk factors, and recommended next steps for each of the foregoing individuals. It is intended to serve as a reference document for OWS's General Counsel, Immigration Program Manager, and Human Resources leadership and should be consulted in conjunction with Calderwood & Harkness's separate RFE Response Strategy Memorandum (regarding Mr. Nakamura's pending specialty occupation challenge), the Firm's FDNS Site Visit Preparedness Guide, and the Quarterly Immigration Program Status Report.
II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
For the convenience of OWS leadership, the key points of this advisory are summarized below. Each point is discussed in greater detail in the sections that follow.
The 240-Day Automatic Extension Rule. Under 8 CFR § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(H), an H-1B worker whose petition for extension of stay has been timely filed — that is, filed before the current I-94 expiration date — may continue employment with the same petitioning employer for up to 240 days beyond the I-94 expiration date, or until USCIS adjudicates the petition, whichever comes first. The petition must be non-frivolous and must seek extension of the same nonimmigrant classification with the same employer. This rule is not discretionary; it operates automatically upon proper filing.
The AC21 Portability Rule. Under INA § 214(n), as enacted by Section 105(a) of the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000, a nonimmigrant worker in valid H-1B status — or in a period of authorized stay by virtue of a timely-filed pending extension — may begin employment with a new employer upon the filing of a new H-1B petition by that new employer. The beneficiary need not await USCIS approval before commencing work. This provision is limited to H-1B nonimmigrants and is subject to specific conditions, including the requirement that the new employer file a valid Labor Condition Application ("LCA") and Form I-129 petition.
Operational Significance for OWS. Both provisions are essential tools for OWS to maintain operational continuity and avoid disruption to critical engineering roles, particularly in the semiconductor and photonics engineering space where specialized talent is difficult — and in many cases, practically impossible — to replace on short notice. OWS's workforce includes individuals with deep expertise in signal integrity, analog IC design, power management, and reliability engineering, all of which are mission-critical to the Company's product roadmap and contractual obligations.
Takeshi Nakamura — Current Status. Mr. Nakamura currently has lawful employment authorization under the 240-day rule. His extension petition was timely filed on March 15, 2025, approximately 77 days prior to his I-94 expiration date of May 31, 2025 — well within the permissible 180-day advance filing window established by 8 CFR § 214.2(h)(15)(ii)(B). His 240-day window extends through approximately January 26, 2026 (calculated as 240 days from the May 31, 2025 I-94 expiration). USCIS has issued a Request for Evidence ("RFE") challenging the specialty occupation classification of the Signal Integrity Engineer position; however, the issuance of an RFE does not terminate the 240-day extension, and Mr. Nakamura remains authorized to continue working for OWS while the RFE response is prepared and while the petition remains pending.
Key Recommendation. OWS should continue Mr. Nakamura's employment without interruption. However, the Company must monitor the pending petition closely, and Calderwood & Harkness must prepare a robust and timely RFE response. The Firm further recommends that OWS consider filing a request for premium processing (Form I-907, filing fee of $2,805 per petition) if premium processing was not elected at the time of the original filing, in order to obtain a definitive decision before the 240-day window closes.
III. LEGAL FRAMEWORK: THE 240-DAY AUTOMATIC EXTENSION RULE
A. Statutory and Regulatory Basis
The 240-day automatic extension rule is codified in the federal regulations at 8 CFR § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(H). The regulation provides, in pertinent part:
"An H-1B, H-2A, H-2B, H-3, L-1, O-1, O-2, P-1, P-2, P-3, or Q-1 alien shall not be considered to have failed to maintain nonimmigrant status solely on the basis of a brief interruption in the employment or engagement if such alien is in the United States, if the employer or petitioner has filed a nonfrivolous petition to extend the alien's stay that was received by the Service prior to the date of the alien's expiration of authorized stay, and if the alien's employment authorization shall continue for the same employer for a period not to exceed 240 days beginning on the date of the expiration of the authorized period of stay."
This regulation applies broadly across several nonimmigrant classifications, including H-1B, H-2A, H-2B, H-3, L-1A, L-1B, O-1, O-2, P-1, P-2, P-3, and Q nonimmigrants. For purposes of this memorandum, the analysis focuses principally on H-1B nonimmigrants, as that classification encompasses fourteen of OWS's eighteen active nonimmigrant workers.
The regulatory basis for the 240-day rule is grounded in the recognition that USCIS processing times frequently exceed the time between an employer's filing of an extension petition and the expiration of the beneficiary's authorized period of stay. Without the 240-day rule, an employer that timely filed an extension petition could nonetheless be forced to terminate the employment of a critical worker simply because USCIS had not yet adjudicated the petition — a result that would be both economically disruptive and contrary to the statutory purpose of the H-1B program.
It is important to note that the 240-day rule is a regulatory provision, not a statutory one. While its legal authority is well-established and it has been consistently applied by USCIS since its promulgation, it could theoretically be modified or rescinded through the rulemaking process. Calderwood & Harkness monitors all proposed and final rules affecting the H-1B program and will alert OWS to any regulatory changes that could impact the 240-day rule.
B. Requirements for Triggering the 240-Day Extension
The 240-day automatic extension is not unconditional. Five requirements must be satisfied for the extension to take effect:
1. Timely Filing. The extension petition (Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker) must be filed before the expiration of the beneficiary's current authorized period of stay, as reflected on the I-94 Arrival/Departure Record. There is no requirement that USCIS receive the petition on or before the expiration date in the sense of issuing a receipt notice; rather, the requirement is that the petition be properly filed — i.e., dispatched to the appropriate USCIS Service Center with all required forms, supporting documentation, and filing fees — before the I-94 expiration date. In practice, the Firm recommends filing extension petitions no later than 60 to 90 days before the I-94 expiration date, and where possible, within the 180-day advance filing window, to provide adequate time for USCIS processing and to allow for any corrections or supplemental filings that may be required.
It is important to emphasize that the standard governing "timely filing" looks to the date the petition is filed, not the date on which USCIS issues the I-797C receipt notice. USCIS receipt notices are typically generated several days to several weeks after the physical receipt of the petition by the Service Center. So long as the petition is submitted to USCIS (or its designated lockbox facility) before the I-94 expiration date, the timeliness requirement is met. The Firm recommends retaining proof of filing (e.g., USPS or Severin Partners LLC tracking confirmation, USCIS online filing receipts for electronically filed petitions) to establish the filing date in the event of any dispute.
2. Same Employer. The extension petition must be filed by the same petitioning employer that sponsored the beneficiary's current H-1B status. The 240-day rule does not apply to petitions filed by a new or different employer seeking to transfer the beneficiary's H-1B status. That scenario — involving a new employer — is governed by the separate AC21 portability provision discussed in Section IV below. The "same employer" requirement is straightforward where the petitioning employer has not undergone any corporate restructuring, merger, or change of ownership. In cases involving corporate successors-in-interest, separate analysis under 8 CFR § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(I) would be required.
3. Non-Frivolous Petition. The extension petition must not be frivolous. USCIS interprets this requirement to mean that the petition must have a legitimate basis and must not be filed solely for the purpose of extending the beneficiary's physical presence in the United States without a genuine need for the beneficiary's continued services. In practice, this requirement is rarely an issue for employers like OWS that file bona fide extension petitions supported by genuine employment offers and proper LCA certifications. The frivolousness standard is a relatively low threshold, and the Firm is not aware of any case in which a timely-filed extension petition for a worker performing genuine services was deemed frivolous for purposes of the 240-day rule.
4. Same Classification. The extension petition must request an extension in the same nonimmigrant classification as the beneficiary's current status. For OWS's purposes, this means that an H-1B extension petition triggers the 240-day rule for an H-1B beneficiary, but a petition to change the beneficiary's status to a different classification (e.g., from H-1B to O-1A) would not qualify. Where a change of classification is contemplated — for example, if OWS were to seek reclassification of an H-1B worker to O-1A based on extraordinary ability — the change-of-status petition would not trigger the 240-day extension for the prior H-1B classification. The worker's H-1B status would expire on the I-94 expiration date, and the worker would be authorized only in the new classification (if and when the change-of-status petition is approved).
5. No Gaps in Employment Authorization Upon Denial. If USCIS denies the pending extension petition, the beneficiary's employment authorization terminates immediately upon denial. There is no grace period. The beneficiary must cease employment at OWS, and depending on the circumstances, may need to depart the United States or pursue other options (such as filing a motion to reopen or reconsider, or filing a new petition if eligible). This is a critical risk factor that OWS must be prepared to address, and it underscores the importance of ensuring that every extension petition is thoroughly prepared and supported by robust documentation.
C. Duration and Limitations
The 240-day extension is limited to a maximum of 240 days from the I-94 expiration date, or until USCIS renders a decision on the pending extension petition, whichever is sooner. The 240-day clock begins running on the day after the I-94 expiration date and runs continuously thereafter, regardless of any intervening events such as the issuance of an RFE, a request for additional evidence, or a transfer of the petition between USCIS Service Centers.
If USCIS has not adjudicated the petition within 240 days of the I-94 expiration, the beneficiary's employment authorization expires. The employee must cease working for OWS even if the petition remains pending before USCIS. This situation — while uncommon when premium processing is elected — can occur in cases of extended processing delays, particularly at the California Service Center or when petitions are subject to multiple rounds of evidence requests, administrative processing, or inter-agency security checks.
Premium processing (Form I-907, Request for Premium Processing Service) is the primary tool for mitigating the risk of the 240-day clock expiring before adjudication. The current filing fee for premium processing is $2,805 per petition. When premium processing is elected, USCIS guarantees an initial action (approval, denial, RFE, or notice of intent to deny) within 15 business days of receipt of the premium processing request. Calderwood & Harkness strongly recommends that OWS elect premium processing for all H-1B extension petitions to minimize the risk of exceeding the 240-day window.
It is important to note that an RFE issued during premium processing does not stop or reset the 240-day clock. If USCIS issues an RFE within the 15-business-day premium processing window, the premium processing clock is paused while the petitioner prepares its response, but the 240-day extension clock continues to run. The petitioner typically has 60 to 87 days to respond to an RFE (unless a shorter deadline is specified), and upon receipt of the RFE response, USCIS has an additional 15 business days to adjudicate the petition. Throughout this entire period, the 240-day clock continues running without interruption.
D. Practical Note on Receipt Notices
The I-797C receipt notice issued by USCIS serves as the primary documentary evidence that an extension petition has been filed and that the 240-day extension has been triggered. OWS and its Immigration Program Manager, Rajesh Anand, should ensure that the I-797C receipt notice for every extension petition is obtained promptly and placed in two locations:
(a) The employee's personnel file, maintained by OWS's Human Resources department under the direction of Samantha Kowalski, Director of Human Resources; and
(b) The Public Access File ("PAF") maintained for each H-1B worker at the employee's designated worksite, as required by 20 CFR § 655.760. The PAF for OWS's San Jose worksite employees is maintained at Site A: 4820 Veltrano Parkway, Suite 300, San Jose, CA 95134.
The receipt notice should be readily accessible in the event of a USCIS Fraud Detection and National Security ("FDNS") site visit, a Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division investigation, or an internal audit. Calderwood & Harkness recommends that copies also be maintained electronically in OWS's immigration case management system, with access limited to authorized personnel.
IV. LEGAL FRAMEWORK: AC21 PORTABILITY (INA § 214(n))
A. Statutory Basis
The AC21 portability rule is codified at Section 214(n) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(n). It was enacted as Section 105(a) of the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 ("AC21"), Pub. L. 106-313, 114 Stat. 1251, which was signed into law on October 17, 2000. The portability provision was a key component of AC21's broader effort to promote labor market flexibility and reduce the bureaucratic barriers that inhibited the movement of skilled H-1B workers between employers.
Prior to AC21, an H-1B beneficiary who wished to change employers was required to wait until the new employer's H-1B petition was approved by USCIS (then the Immigration and Naturalization Service) before commencing employment with the new employer. This process could take months, during which the beneficiary was unable to work for the new employer and the new employer was unable to benefit from the beneficiary's services. The portability provision eliminated this waiting period by permitting the beneficiary to begin working for the new employer immediately upon the filing of the new petition, subject to the conditions discussed below.
The legislative history of AC21 reflects Congress's recognition that the H-1B program serves the interests of U.S. employers in accessing highly skilled talent, and that unnecessary delays in the transfer process impede the efficient functioning of the labor market — particularly in technology-intensive industries such as semiconductor design and manufacturing, which is precisely the industry in which OWS operates.
B. Key Provisions
The AC21 portability rule contains the following key provisions:
1. Immediate Employment Upon Filing. A nonimmigrant alien who is the beneficiary of a new H-1B petition filed by a new employer may commence employment with the new petitioning employer upon the filing of such petition. The statute provides that the alien "may accept the employment described" in the new petition "as of the date of the filing of [the] petition." INA § 214(n)(1). This means that the beneficiary does not need to wait for USCIS to issue a receipt notice, much less an approval notice, before beginning work for the new employer. The filing itself triggers the employment authorization.
In practice, however, Calderwood & Harkness recommends that the beneficiary wait until at least the filing date (and ideally until receipt of the I-797C receipt notice) before commencing employment, to ensure that there is documentary evidence of the filing and that any filing deficiencies (such as an incorrect fee payment or missing form) are identified and corrected before the beneficiary begins work.
2. Eligible Filing Basis. The new H-1B petition that triggers portability may take several forms. It may be an initial petition (subject to the H-1B annual cap or cap-exempt, depending on the new employer's classification), a transfer petition (seeking to change the H-1B employer), or an amendment petition (seeking to modify the terms of the existing H-1B, such as the worksite location or job duties), so long as it is filed by the new or prospective employer. The portability provision is not limited to any specific subcategory of H-1B petition.
3. Authorized Stay Requirement. The beneficiary must be in a "period of authorized stay" at the time the new petition is filed. INA § 214(n)(1). This is a critical requirement. A beneficiary whose I-94 has expired and who does not have a timely-filed extension pending (and thus is not within the 240-day extension window) is not in a period of authorized stay and is not eligible for portability.
Importantly, however, the period of authorized stay includes periods covered by the 240-day extension rule discussed in Section III above. Thus, a beneficiary whose I-94 has expired but who is within the 240-day window by virtue of a timely-filed extension petition from the current employer is considered to be in a period of authorized stay and is eligible for portability. This interaction between the 240-day rule and AC21 portability is discussed further in Section VI below.
4. No Need to Wait for Approval. Unlike traditional petition processing, in which the beneficiary cannot begin employment until USCIS approves the petition, the AC21 portability rule permits the beneficiary to begin working for the new employer upon filing. This is the core innovation of the portability provision and is what makes it such a valuable tool for employers seeking to hire H-1B workers from other employers.
C. Conditions and Limitations
While the AC21 portability provision is a powerful tool, it is subject to several important conditions and limitations:
Denial Risk. If the new H-1B petition filed by the new employer is ultimately denied by USCIS, the beneficiary's employment authorization with the new employer terminates. The beneficiary's immigration status reverts to whatever status (if any) existed before the portability petition was filed. If the beneficiary had valid H-1B status with the prior employer at the time the portability petition was filed, the beneficiary may be able to return to that prior employment (assuming the prior petition remains valid). If the beneficiary did not have any underlying status (e.g., because the prior employer's petition had expired), the beneficiary may need to depart the United States.
Portability Does Not Create New Status. It is important to understand that AC21 portability authorizes employment with the new employer, but it does not confer approved H-1B status with the new employer. The beneficiary is in an "authorized period of stay" and is authorized to work, but is not in fully approved H-1B status until USCIS approves the new petition. This distinction has implications for travel — a beneficiary who departs the United States while the portability petition is pending may face difficulties in re-entering the country, as there is no approved petition to support a visa stamp or admission. Calderwood & Harkness generally advises H-1B portability workers to avoid international travel while the transfer petition is pending, unless the worker has an existing valid H-1B visa stamp and the prior employer's petition remains valid.
LCA and I-129 Requirements. The new employer must file a valid Labor Condition Application ("LCA") with the U.S. Department of Labor, certified for the appropriate metropolitan statistical area ("MSA"), Standard Occupational Classification ("SOC") code, and prevailing wage level, before filing the I-129 petition with USCIS. The employer must also pay all applicable filing fees, including the base I-129 filing fee, the ACWIA training fee (currently $1,500 for employers with 26 or more full-time equivalent employees, or $750 for employers with 25 or fewer), the Fraud Prevention and Detection Fee ($500), and, if applicable, the Public Law 114-113 fee ($4,000 for employers with 50 or more employees in the United States where more than 50% of the workforce holds H-1B or L-1 status — which does not apply to OWS).
H-1B Only. The AC21 portability provision applies exclusively to H-1B nonimmigrants. It does not extend to O-1, L-1, or other nonimmigrant classifications, each of which has its own procedures for employer transfers. For OWS's O-1A and O-1B holders, a new employer seeking to employ the beneficiary must file a new O-1 petition and await USCIS approval before the beneficiary may begin work for the new employer (unless the beneficiary has a concurrent or supplemental employment arrangement under a separate petition). This distinction is relevant because OWS currently holds three O-1A petitions and one O-1B petition, and those workers are not eligible for AC21 portability.
D. Relevance to OWS Transfer Petitions
The AC21 portability provision is directly relevant to two prospective new hires that OWS intends to bring on board through H-1B transfer petitions:
Dr. Kenji Watanabe. Dr. Watanabe is currently employed at Northfield University Research Lab on a cap-exempt H-1B petition. OWS plans to file an H-1B transfer petition with a target filing date of August 1, 2025. Under AC21 portability, Dr. Watanabe may immediately commence employment at OWS's San Jose worksite upon the filing of the transfer petition, without awaiting USCIS approval. This is contingent upon Dr. Watanabe being in valid H-1B status (or a valid 240-day extension period) at the time of filing.
Because Dr. Watanabe's current H-1B status is cap-exempt (granted through a qualifying institution of higher education under INA § 212(n)(3)), his transfer to OWS — a for-profit, non-academic employer — raises the question of whether the cap-exempt basis carries over to the new petition. Under current USCIS guidance, a beneficiary who has previously been counted against the H-1B cap or who holds cap-exempt status is not required to go through the H-1B lottery for a subsequent petition, provided the petition is filed while the beneficiary is in valid H-1B status or within the six-year H-1B validity period (including any time spent outside the United States). Dr. Watanabe's transfer to OWS does not require a new lottery registration. However, a new LCA must be filed and certified for the San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara MSA, at the appropriate prevailing wage level for the applicable SOC code.
Dr. Ingrid Halvorsen. Dr. Halvorsen is currently employed at Cascade Institute of Technology on a cap-exempt H-1B petition. OWS plans to file an H-1B transfer petition with a target filing date of September 30, 2025. The same portability and cap-exemption analysis applicable to Dr. Watanabe applies to Dr. Halvorsen. A new LCA must be filed and certified for the San Jose MSA under the applicable SOC code (SOC 17-2199, Engineers, All Other, or such other SOC code as may be appropriate based on Dr. Halvorsen's specific position and duties at OWS).
For both Dr. Watanabe and Dr. Halvorsen, Calderwood & Harkness recommends that OWS coordinate start dates carefully to ensure that the transfer petition is filed concurrently with or before the beneficiary's first day of work at OWS. While AC21 portability technically permits employment to begin on the date of filing, practical considerations — including the need for documentary proof of filing, the completion of I-9 verification, and the avoidance of any gap between filing and commencement — counsel in favor of synchronizing the filing date and start date. In both cases, OWS should elect premium processing ($2,805 per petition) to minimize the period between filing and approval and to provide certainty regarding the beneficiary's status.
V. APPLICATION TO CURRENT OWS SITUATIONS
This section applies the legal framework discussed in Sections III and IV to each of the OWS employees and prospective employees identified in Section I.
A. Takeshi Nakamura — Signal Integrity Engineer (Priority Matter)
Background. Takeshi Nakamura is an H-1B nonimmigrant worker employed by OWS as a Signal Integrity Engineer, classified under Standard Occupational Classification code 17-2072 (Electronics Engineers, Except Computer). Mr. Nakamura is assigned to OWS's San Jose worksite at Site A: 4820 Veltrano Parkway, Suite 300, San Jose, CA 95134. His current H-1B petition covers a validity period of June 1, 2022, through May 31, 2025.
I-94 Expiration. Mr. Nakamura's I-94 Arrival/Departure Record expired on May 31, 2025.
Extension Filing. An H-1B extension petition (Form I-129) was filed on March 15, 2025, by Whitfield & Parekh LLP, OWS's prior immigration counsel. The filing was made under the direction of Kavita Parekh, the lead attorney at W&P responsible for OWS's immigration matters prior to the transition to Calderwood & Harkness. The petition was filed approximately 77 days in advance of the I-94 expiration date, which is well within the permissible 180-day advance filing window established by 8 CFR § 214.2(h)(15)(ii)(B) and consistent with best practices. Calderwood & Harkness has confirmed that the petition was properly received by USCIS and that an I-797C receipt notice was issued. The receipt notice should be in Mr. Nakamura's personnel file and the San Jose PAF; the Firm requests that Mr. Anand confirm this and, if the receipt notice is not in both locations, take immediate steps to obtain and file copies.
Status as of June 5, 2025. Mr. Nakamura's I-94 has expired. However, because the extension petition was timely filed before the May 31, 2025 expiration, the 240-day automatic extension rule under 8 CFR § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(H) is triggered. Accordingly, Mr. Nakamura's employment authorization with OWS is automatically extended for up to 240 days from the I-94 expiration date — i.e., through approximately January 26, 2026 — or until USCIS adjudicates the pending extension petition, whichever is earlier. As of the date of this memorandum, Mr. Nakamura is five (5) days into the 240-day extension period and remains fully authorized to continue employment at OWS.
Pending Request for Evidence (RFE). USCIS has issued a Request for Evidence in connection with Mr. Nakamura's pending extension petition. The RFE challenges the specialty occupation classification of the Signal Integrity Engineer position, questioning whether the position satisfies the requirements of 8 CFR § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) — specifically, whether a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty (or its equivalent) is the normal minimum requirement for entry into the occupation. This type of RFE has become increasingly common in H-1B adjudications, particularly for positions classified under broad SOC codes such as 17-2072. Calderwood & Harkness has prepared a separate RFE Response Strategy Memorandum addressing the substance of the RFE and the Firm's recommended response strategy, which has been provided to Ms. Langford and Mr. Anand under separate cover.
For purposes of this memorandum, the critical point is that the issuance of an RFE does not terminate the 240-day extension. Mr. Nakamura remains authorized to work for OWS while the RFE response is being prepared, while the response is pending before USCIS, and throughout the period that the extension petition remains pending (subject to the 240-day limitation). The RFE response must be filed within the deadline specified in the RFE notice (typically 60 to 87 days from issuance); failure to timely respond will result in denial of the petition and immediate termination of employment authorization.
Green Card Processing. Mr. Nakamura has a pending EB-1B (Outstanding Researcher or Professor) immigrant petition (Form I-140) with a priority date of September 10, 2022. This immigrant petition is relevant to Mr. Nakamura's long-term immigration trajectory and, importantly, to the question of whether he may be eligible for extensions of H-1B status beyond the standard six-year maximum.
Under INA § 106(a), as added by AC21, an H-1B worker who is the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition (or, under certain circumstances, a pending I-140 that has been filed for at least 365 days) may be eligible for one-year extensions of H-1B status beyond the six-year maximum, provided the worker is unable to file an adjustment of status application (Form I-485) due to visa number unavailability. Mr. Nakamura's EB-1B petition was filed on September 10, 2022 — more than 365 days ago — and his current H-1B validity period reflects three years of status (June 1, 2022, to May 31, 2025). However, if Mr. Nakamura had prior H-1B periods with other employers, the total time in H-1B status may be approaching the six-year limit, which would make the seventh-year extension analysis under INA § 106(a) directly relevant. Calderwood & Harkness is reviewing Mr. Nakamura's complete immigration history to determine his exact H-1B clock and will advise OWS and Mr. Nakamura regarding seventh-year extension eligibility in a supplemental memorandum.
Recommendations for Mr. Nakamura:
(i) Continue employment without interruption. Mr. Nakamura is fully authorized to work under the 240-day extension rule. There is no legal basis for suspending or terminating his employment at this time.
(ii) Confirm receipt notice documentation. Mr. Anand should confirm that the I-797C receipt notice for the pending extension petition (filed March 15, 2025) is on file in both Mr. Nakamura's personnel file and the San Jose PAF. If not, copies should be obtained immediately from W&P or from USCIS case status records.
(iii) Prepare and file the RFE response promptly. Calderwood & Harkness has assumed responsibility from Whitfield & Parekh for the preparation and filing of the RFE response. The Firm will file the response well within the USCIS-specified deadline and will coordinate with Mr. Anand and Mr. Nakamura regarding any additional documentation required from OWS.
(iv) Evaluate premium processing. The Firm recommends determining whether premium processing (Form I-907, $2,805) was elected at the time of the original filing by W&P. If premium processing was not elected, Calderwood & Harkness recommends that OWS authorize the filing of an I-907 immediately to upgrade the pending petition to premium processing. This will ensure that USCIS renders a decision within 15 business days of the premium processing upgrade, well before the January 26, 2026 expiration of the 240-day window.
(v) Monitor EB-1B petition status. Calderwood & Harkness will monitor the status of Mr. Nakamura's pending EB-1B petition and assess his eligibility for seventh-year H-1B extensions under INA § 106(a).
B. Chen Xiaoming — Reliability Engineer
Background. Chen Xiaoming is an H-1B nonimmigrant worker employed by OWS as a Reliability Engineer, classified under SOC code 17-2072 (Electronics Engineers, Except Computer). Mr. Chen is assigned to the San Jose worksite. His current H-1B petition covers a validity period of August 15, 2023, through August 14, 2025. Mr. Chen has a pending EB-2 (Advanced Degree Professional) labor certification (PERM) with a priority date of April 5, 2024.
Extension Filing Timeline. Mr. Chen's I-94 expires on August 14, 2025. Under the 180-day advance filing window, OWS may file the extension petition as early as approximately February 15, 2025. Calderwood & Harkness recommends a target filing date of no later than June 15, 2025 — approximately 60 days before the I-94 expiration — to ensure timely filing with adequate buffer for any filing issues. While the legal requirement is simply that the petition be filed before August 14, 2025, earlier filing reduces risk and allows for premium processing adjudication before the I-94 expiration, potentially avoiding the need to invoke the 240-day rule entirely.
240-Day Analysis. Once the extension petition is filed, the 240-day clock will begin running from August 14, 2025, the I-94 expiration date. Assuming the petition is filed by mid-June 2025 and premium processing is elected, USCIS should render a decision well before the I-94 expiration. If standard processing is used, the 240-day window would extend through approximately April 11, 2026. However, Calderwood & Harkness strongly recommends premium processing ($2,805) to avoid reliance on the 240-day extension period and to provide certainty regarding Mr. Chen's continued authorization.
Recommendation: File extension petition no later than June 15, 2025. Elect premium processing. Ensure updated LCA is filed and certified for the San Jose MSA prior to filing the I-129 petition.
C. Arjun Krishnamurthy — Power Management IC Designer
Background. Arjun Krishnamurthy is an H-1B nonimmigrant worker employed by OWS as a Power Management IC Designer, classified under SOC code 17-2072 (Electronics Engineers, Except Computer). Mr. Krishnamurthy is assigned to the San Jose worksite. His current H-1B petition covers a validity period of December 1, 2022, through November 30, 2025. Mr. Krishnamurthy has a pending EB-2 (Advanced Degree Professional) labor certification (PERM) with a priority date of July 22, 2023. A PERM audit is currently pending, arising from documentation prepared and filed by OWS's prior immigration counsel.
Extension Filing Timeline. Mr. Krishnamurthy's I-94 expires on November 30, 2025. Calderwood & Harkness recommends filing the extension petition by late summer or early fall 2025 — ideally by September 2025 — to allow for timely adjudication. As with Mr. Chen, the legal requirement is filing before the I-94 expiration, but earlier filing is strongly recommended.
240-Day Analysis. Once the extension petition is timely filed, the 240-day clock will begin running from November 30, 2025. The 240-day window would extend through approximately July 28, 2026. Premium processing is recommended to obtain a decision before the I-94 expiration and avoid reliance on the 240-day extension.
PERM Audit Complication. The pending PERM audit does not directly affect the H-1B extension petition or the 240-day extension analysis. The PERM audit is a separate proceeding before the U.S. Department of Labor relating to the labor certification application filed in support of Mr. Krishnamurthy's EB-2 immigrant petition. However, the outcome of the PERM audit may indirectly impact Mr. Krishnamurthy's immigration timeline in two respects:
(a) If the PERM audit results in a denial of the labor certification, the I-140 petition cannot be filed, and Mr. Krishnamurthy will not be able to establish eligibility for seventh-year H-1B extensions under INA § 106(a) or (b) based on that labor certification. OWS would need to either refile the PERM application or pursue an alternative immigrant visa category.
(b) If the PERM audit results in approval but with significant delay, the I-140 filing timeline will be pushed back, which may affect Mr. Krishnamurthy's ability to obtain seventh-year H-1B extensions in a timely manner.
Calderwood & Harkness is monitoring the PERM audit as part of the broader PERM case portfolio and will advise OWS on next steps upon receipt of the audit result.
Recommendation: File extension petition by early fall 2025. Elect premium processing. Continue monitoring PERM audit status and coordinate with Calderwood & Harkness on I-140 filing timeline.
D. Jae-Won Park — Analog IC Designer
Background. Jae-Won Park is an H-1B nonimmigrant worker employed by OWS as an Analog IC Designer, classified under SOC code 17-2072 (Electronics Engineers, Except Computer). Mr. Park is assigned to the San Jose worksite. His current H-1B petition covers a validity period of April 1, 2023, through March 31, 2026. Mr. Park has a pending EB-2 (Advanced Degree Professional) labor certification (PERM) with a priority date of November 20, 2023.
Extension Filing Timeline. Mr. Park's I-94 does not expire until March 31, 2026, which is approximately ten months from the date of this memorandum. The extension filing is not imminently due but should be calendared for filing in late 2025 or early 2026 — ideally no later than January 2026 — to ensure timely filing within the 180-day advance window.
240-Day Analysis. The 240-day rule will apply upon timely filing of the extension petition. The 240-day window will extend approximately 240 days from March 31, 2026 (i.e., through approximately late November 2026). However, premium processing should render this analysis largely academic.
Recommendation: Begin extension preparation in Q4 2025. Calendar filing deadline for no later than early Q1 2026. Elect premium processing at the time of filing.
E. Transfer Petitions — Dr. Watanabe and Dr. Halvorsen
Dr. Kenji Watanabe. Dr. Watanabe is currently employed at Northfield University Research Lab on a cap-exempt H-1B petition. OWS intends to file an H-1B transfer petition with a target filing date of August 1, 2025. Under AC21 portability, as discussed in Section IV above, Dr. Watanabe may begin employment at OWS upon the filing of the transfer petition, without awaiting USCIS approval. The key prerequisite is that Dr. Watanabe be in valid H-1B status (or within a valid 240-day extension period) at the time of filing. Calderwood & Harkness will verify Dr. Watanabe's current status and I-94 validity prior to filing.
The cap-exempt basis under which Dr. Watanabe's current H-1B was granted (through Northfield University Research Lab, a qualifying institution of higher education) carries over in the sense that Dr. Watanabe is not required to go through the H-1B cap lottery for the OWS transfer petition. However, a new LCA must be filed and certified for the San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara MSA at the appropriate prevailing wage level and SOC code. Calderwood & Harkness will prepare and file the LCA as part of the transfer petition preparation.
Dr. Ingrid Halvorsen. Dr. Halvorsen is currently employed at Cascade Institute of Technology on a cap-exempt H-1B petition. OWS intends to file an H-1B transfer petition with a target filing date of September 30, 2025. The same portability and cap-exemption analysis applicable to Dr. Watanabe applies to Dr. Halvorsen. A new LCA must be filed and certified for the San Jose MSA under the applicable SOC code — which Calderwood & Harkness anticipates will be SOC 17-2199 (Engineers, All Other), based on preliminary review of the intended position duties, though the final SOC code determination will be made upon completion of the position analysis.
Recommendation for Both Transfers:
(i) Coordinate start dates with Calderwood & Harkness to ensure that the transfer petition is filed concurrently with or before the beneficiary's first day of work at OWS. Under AC21 portability, the beneficiary may begin working on the date of filing, but the petition must be filed on or before the first day of employment.
(ii) Elect premium processing ($2,805 per petition) for both transfer petitions to minimize the period between filing and approval and to provide the beneficiaries with approved H-1B status as quickly as possible.
(iii) Prepare new LCAs for the San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara MSA well in advance of the filing dates, allowing for DOL certification processing time (typically 5–7 business days for electronic filing via FLAG).
(iv) Coordinate with the beneficiaries regarding their transition from their current employers, including any notice periods, non-compete or non-solicitation obligations, and the logistics of relocation to the San Jose area.
VI. INTERACTION BETWEEN THE 240-DAY RULE AND AC21 PORTABILITY
The 240-day automatic extension rule and the AC21 portability provision, while distinct in their statutory and regulatory origins, interact in an important way that OWS should understand.
A beneficiary who is within the 240-day extension period — because a timely extension petition was filed by the current employer before the I-94 expiration — is considered to be in a "period of authorized stay" for purposes of AC21 portability. INA § 214(n)(1). This means that a new employer could, during the 240-day window, file a transfer petition for the beneficiary, and the beneficiary could begin working for the new employer upon filing under AC21 portability. The beneficiary need not have approved H-1B status; the authorized stay conferred by the 240-day rule is sufficient to support portability eligibility.
For OWS, this interaction is primarily relevant in two scenarios:
Scenario 1: Outbound transfers. If any of OWS's current H-1B employees who are in the 240-day extension period were to seek employment with a different employer, that employee's authorization under the 240-day rule would support portability eligibility. The new employer could file a transfer petition during the 240-day window, and the employee could begin working for the new employer upon filing. From OWS's perspective, this is a potential risk factor — a key employee in the 240-day period could, in theory, leave OWS for a competitor by invoking AC21 portability. However, this is an inherent feature of the H-1B program's portability framework and is not unique to the 240-day context.
Scenario 2: Inbound transfers. If OWS is the new employer — as in the case of Dr. Watanabe and Dr. Halvorsen — the critical question is whether the beneficiary is in valid H-1B status or within a 240-day window at the time OWS files the transfer petition. If the beneficiary's I-94 has expired and the beneficiary is not within a 240-day extension period (because no timely extension was filed by the current employer), the beneficiary is not in a period of authorized stay and is not eligible for portability. In such a case, OWS could not file a portability-based transfer petition, and the beneficiary would likely need to depart the United States and apply for a new H-1B visa at a U.S. consulate abroad (consular processing).
Calderwood & Harkness will verify the current status and 240-day eligibility of each prospective transferee before filing a transfer petition on behalf of OWS. For the two prospective transfers currently planned (Dr. Watanabe and Dr. Halvorsen), both individuals are expected to be in valid, approved H-1B status at the time of the planned filing dates, and the 240-day interaction is not anticipated to be a factor. However, if either beneficiary's current employer fails to file a timely extension petition (in the event that the beneficiary's I-94 expires before the planned transfer filing date), the interaction between the 240-day rule and portability would become directly relevant.
VII. EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZATION DOCUMENTATION AND I-9 CONSIDERATIONS
Proper employment verification documentation is essential throughout both the 240-day extension period and the AC21 portability period. Errors in I-9 compliance can result in civil penalties imposed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") and, in severe cases, criminal liability. OWS must maintain appropriate documentation for each employee whose employment authorization is based on a pending petition.
240-Day Extension Period — I-9 Documentation
During the 240-day extension period, the employee remains authorized to work, and OWS is not required to take any adverse employment action. For I-9 purposes, the employee may present the following documentation:
(a) The I-797C receipt notice for the pending extension petition, which serves as evidence that the petition was timely filed and that the 240-day extension has been triggered; combined with
(b) The expired I-94 Arrival/Departure Record, which establishes the expiration date of the prior authorized period of stay and confirms that the 240-day window is running from that date.
OWS should not reverify the Form I-9 solely because the employee's I-94 has expired, so long as a timely extension petition has been filed. Reverification in this context could give rise to a claim of unfair immigration-related employment practices under INA § 274B, as it could be viewed as discriminatory document abuse. The employer's obligation is to note the 240-day extension in the I-9 records and to reverify only when the 240-day period expires (if the petition has not yet been adjudicated) or when the petition is approved (at which point the employee should present the I-797A approval notice with the new I-94).
OWS uses E-Verify for employment verification purposes. The Company's E-Verify Company ID is 1487623. E-Verify is managed by Samantha Kowalski, Director of Human Resources, with support from Sentinel Background Verification Corp., with Tyler Ng serving as Account Lead. For employees in the 240-day extension period, E-Verify does not require a new case to be created; the existing case should reflect the pending extension. If a Tentative Non-Confirmation ("TNC") is issued through E-Verify for an employee in the 240-day period, OWS should contact Calderwood & Harkness immediately for guidance, as TNCs in this context may be the result of USCIS system delays in updating the employee's records.
AC21 Portability — I-9 Documentation
When a new employer files a transfer petition under AC21 portability, the beneficiary may use the I-797C receipt notice from the new petition to establish employment authorization for I-9 purposes. The receipt notice, combined with other acceptable List A or List B/C documents, satisfies the employer's I-9 obligations. As with the 240-day scenario, OWS should create a new I-9 for each portability hire (Dr. Watanabe and Dr. Halvorsen) at the time they commence employment, using the I-797C receipt notice as the basis for employment authorization. Upon approval of the transfer petition, the I-9 should be updated to reflect the approved I-797A notice with the new I-94.
Training Recommendation
OWS's Director of Human Resources, Samantha Kowalski, and Immigration Program Manager, Rajesh Anand, should be trained on the specific documentation requirements that apply during 240-day extension periods and AC21 portability situations. Calderwood & Harkness recommends that this training be incorporated into the Firm's annual immigration compliance training program for OWS, which also covers LCA posting requirements, PAF maintenance, H-1B dependent employer analysis, FDNS site visit preparedness, and general I-9/E-Verify best practices. The training should also extend to hiring managers, including Dr. Yun-Sheng Chen, who supervises several of the H-1B workers identified in this memorandum.
VIII. RISK FACTORS AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES
While the 240-day rule and AC21 portability provide substantial protections for OWS and its nonimmigrant workforce, they are not without risks. This section identifies the principal risk factors and recommends mitigation strategies for each.
A. Denial of a Pending Extension Petition
Risk. If USCIS denies a pending extension petition, the beneficiary's employment authorization terminates immediately. There is no grace period, and the employee must cease work on the date of denial. OWS would face an immediate loss of a critical engineering resource, and the employee may need to depart the United States unless an alternative immigration pathway is available.
Mitigation. The primary mitigation strategy is to ensure that every extension petition is thoroughly prepared, supported by robust documentation, and accompanied by a comprehensive legal brief (where appropriate) addressing any potential issues. The use of premium processing ($2,805 per petition) is also critical, as it allows OWS and Calderwood & Harkness to receive a decision quickly and, if the decision is adverse, to pursue a motion to reopen or reconsider or to file a new petition before the employee's situation becomes untenable. For the specific case of Takeshi Nakamura, whose petition is subject to a pending RFE challenging the specialty occupation classification, Calderwood & Harkness is preparing a robust RFE response that will include:
• A detailed analysis of the Signal Integrity Engineer position and its minimum educational requirements;
• Expert declarations from industry professionals attesting to the specialized nature of the role;
• Evidence of Mr. Nakamura's qualifications, including his academic credentials and professional experience;
• DOL Occupational Outlook Handbook excerpts and industry salary surveys supporting the specialty occupation classification; and
• Case law and USCIS precedent decisions supporting the classification of similar positions as specialty occupations.
The Firm is confident that a well-documented RFE response will result in approval of Mr. Nakamura's extension petition.
B. Exceeding the 240-Day Window
Risk. If USCIS does not adjudicate the extension petition within 240 days of the I-94 expiration, the employee's work authorization lapses. The employee must stop working even if the petition remains pending. This can occur in cases of extended processing delays, particularly at congested USCIS Service Centers.
Mitigation. Premium processing is the primary and most effective mitigation tool. When premium processing is elected, USCIS must take initial action within 15 business days, making it virtually impossible for the 240-day window to expire before adjudication (absent extraordinary circumstances such as multiple rounds of RFEs). For cases in which premium processing is not available or was not elected at the time of filing, OWS and Calderwood & Harkness should monitor processing times at the relevant USCIS Service Center:
• California Service Center (24000 Avila Road, Laguna Niguel, CA 92677): Handles most H-1B petitions for employers located in the western United States, including California. As of the date of this memorandum, average processing times for H-1B extension petitions at the California Service Center range from approximately 3 to 8 months for standard processing.
• Vermont Service Center (75 Lower Welden Street, St. Albans, VT 05479): Handles O-1 petitions and certain other classifications. Average processing times for O-1 petitions range from approximately 2 to 6 months for standard processing.
If processing times suggest that the 240-day window may expire before adjudication, the Firm recommends filing a premium processing upgrade (Form I-907) at the earliest possible opportunity.
C. Gap Between Counsel Transition and Pending Matters
Risk. Calderwood & Harkness assumed representation of OWS from Whitfield & Parekh LLP effective May 20, 2025, with the prior engagement concluding April 30, 2025. There was a 20-day gap between the end of W&P's engagement (April 30, 2025) and the commencement of C&H's engagement (May 20, 2025) during which OWS did not have active immigration counsel. During this period, no new filings were made, but matters that were already pending — including Mr. Nakamura's extension petition and its associated RFE — continued to be subject to USCIS deadlines.
The file transfer from W&P to C&H has a target completion date of June 15, 2025. Until the complete files are transferred, Calderwood & Harkness's ability to review and respond to pending matters is constrained. For matters with pending RFEs (specifically, Mr. Nakamura's specialty occupation RFE), the Firm must ensure continuity of representation and, if necessary, request extensions of RFE response deadlines from USCIS.
Mitigation. Calderwood & Harkness has taken the following steps to mitigate this risk:
(i) Contacted W&P directly to obtain copies of all pending matter files, including the Nakamura extension petition file, the RFE notice, and all supporting documentation;
(ii) Filed a notice of attorney appearance (Form G-28) with USCIS for all pending OWS immigration matters, designating Calderwood & Harkness as the attorney of record;
(iii) Reviewed the RFE deadline and confirmed that sufficient time remains for the preparation and filing of a comprehensive response; and
(iv) Established a file transfer protocol with W&P to ensure complete and orderly transfer of all physical and electronic files by the June 15, 2025 target date.
D. FDNS Site Visits During Pending Petitions
Risk. USCIS's Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate ("FDNS") may conduct unannounced site visits to the petitioning employer's worksite in connection with pending H-1B petitions. These visits are designed to verify the accuracy of the information submitted in the petition, including the beneficiary's job duties, the worksite location, and the employer-employee relationship. During a site visit, FDNS officers may interview the beneficiary, the supervisor, and other company personnel.
For employees on 240-day extensions, a site visit may raise questions about the employee's current authorization status, particularly if the FDNS officer is not immediately familiar with the 240-day rule or if the employee is unable to produce documentation of the timely-filed extension petition.
Historical Context. OWS has experienced two prior FDNS site visits:
• November 8, 2023: Site visit at the San Jose worksite. FDNS officer interviewed two H-1B employees and the site supervisor. No adverse findings were reported.
• February 12, 2025: Site visit at the San Jose worksite. FDNS officer interviewed one H-1B employee and reviewed the PAF. No adverse findings were reported.
Both visits were handled smoothly, and OWS received no notices of violation or adverse actions. This positive track record is an asset to the Company's immigration compliance posture.
Mitigation. Calderwood & Harkness has prepared a comprehensive FDNS Site Visit Preparedness Guide for OWS, which has been distributed to the San Jose worksite. The guide includes protocols for receiving FDNS officers, identifying authorized contacts, and responding to interview questions. For employees on 240-day extensions, the guide specifically instructs the employee to have the I-797C receipt notice readily accessible and to explain, if asked, that an extension petition is pending before USCIS and that the employee is authorized to continue working under the 240-day automatic extension rule.
OWS's Immigration Program Manager, Rajesh Anand, should ensure that all H-1B employees — particularly those in the 240-day extension period — are aware of FDNS site visit protocols and have copies of their I-797C receipt notices at their desks or readily accessible on their company devices.
IX. SUMMARY TABLE: CURRENT H-1B HOLDERS WITH UPCOMING EXTENSION/TRANSFER DEADLINES AND 240-DAY IMPLICATIONS
The following table summarizes the st