Techie Blasts Google Over Job Offer Withdrawn During H-1B Grace Period

A Reddit user said Google withdrew a verbal job offer on the fifth day of the H-1B 60-day grace period, after completing the company’s interview process and submitting requested documents.

The candidate said the offer came about a week before the grace period began. Google’s immigration team then reviewed the situation.

The company ultimately told the candidate it could not proceed because the worker had already entered the grace period. The account described the offer as verbal, not written.

The candidate called the experience deeply disappointing.

“It is incredibly disappointing.”

The Reddit user said Google had first paused the hiring process while its immigration team examined the candidate’s status. The worker also said all documents requested by the company had been provided.

That sequence placed an informal hiring commitment against a deadline that immigration rules calculate from the end of the previous job. The candidate had finished the interview process and received an offer, but the company’s review continued after the job-loss window began.

The job-loss window preserves status, not immediate work authorization

Current rules give an eligible H-1B worker up to 60 consecutive days after employment ends, or until the worker’s I-94 expires, whichever is shorter. The earlier deadline controls.

The worker may remain in the United States during that period and look for a new employer. The window does not itself permit work.

A person cannot resume employment with the former company or begin with a new one solely because time remains. Work requires a new petition and compliance with the conditions governing the worker’s eligibility to start.

The grace period follows the end of employment. It does not follow a promise of future employment, including an offer discussed but never reduced to writing.

That distinction is central to the reported case. The candidate had completed interviews and received an offer, yet the company’s immigration review focused on the worker’s status when the proposed job would begin.

A new employer must move before work begins

A prospective company hiring someone in the window usually must file a change-of-employer H-1B petition before assigning work. The filing must also meet the applicable eligibility requirements.

The sequence typically turns on four steps:

1. The worker’s previous H-1B employment ends, starting the limited period.
2. The prospective employer prepares a new H-1B petition.
3. The company submits the petition before the worker starts the new position.
4. A timely filed petition may permit work to begin after receipt, subject to the applicable conditions.

The employer handles the petition. The employee must track the employment termination date, the I-94 expiration date and the filing’s progress.

USCIS guidance described in the account permits eligible H-1B workers to remain for up to 60 days after termination, subject to conditions. It also allows work to begin after receipt when a new petition is timely filed and the worker qualifies.

That route does not make every hiring conversation immediately usable. The company must still agree to sponsor the transfer, prepare the filing and submit it on time. A verbal offer can leave the worker waiting while the deadline advances.

Physical presence in the United States is separate from permission to work. The employee may remain during the allowable period without having authorization to start the proposed position.

A proposed rule could remove the time cushion

The reported hiring dispute emerged as the Trump administration advanced a proposal to eliminate the 60-day job-search period for H-1B workers after job loss.

The proposal went through White House review, followed by approval from a key White House office in late August 2026. The policy backdrop has focused attention on workers trying to secure a transfer while their current status window runs down.

Under the current framework, the clock begins when employment ends. Removing that period would leave less time to identify a sponsor, prepare a filing and complete the transfer process.

It would also sharpen the gap between an informal hiring commitment and a filed petition. The reported candidate’s offer came before the window opened, but the immigration review continued after the worker entered it.

The account did not describe a written offer. It described a hiring discussion, requested documents and an immigration review that ended with the company deciding not to proceed.

The candidate reached the fifth day of the period before receiving that decision. Any replacement employer would still have needed to file a petition before work could begin, while the worker’s I-94 deadline remained an independent limit.