H-1B Bridge Route Faces Scrutiny as Rfes and Noids Surge for Laid-Off Workers

(UNITED STATES) — U.S. immigration authorities have intensified scrutiny of the H-1B bridge route, issuing more Requests for Evidence and Notices of Intent to Deny to laid-off workers who switched to B-1 or B-2 status while trying to stay in the country and find new jobs.

The tougher review hits a pathway USCIS publicly recognized in 2023 and 2024 as a lawful option for nonimmigrant workers after mass layoffs, especially in tech. For workers and employers, the change raises the risk that a pending bridge case could later unravel a new H-1B filing.

At issue is a strategy used by laid-off H-1B workers during the 60-day grace period that follows a job loss. They file a change of status to B-1 or B-2 to remain in the United States while seeking new employment, then ask a new employer to file a fresh H-1B petition before that visitor application is decided.

USCIS built the policy framework for that approach through its guidance on options for nonimmigrant workers following termination of employment, which officials updated in 2023 and 2024 as layoffs spread through the tech sector.

On March 20, 2023, the agency said: “When many nonimmigrant workers are laid off, they may not be aware of their options. [including] filing an application to change nonimmigrant status (such as to B-1 or B-2) to stay in the U.S. legally while looking for a new employer.”

That acknowledgment helped turn the H-1B bridge route into a common fallback for workers trying to preserve lawful presence without leaving the country. It also gave employers a way to pursue a new H-1B filing while a worker remained in the United States.

The route depends on a narrow legal sequence. A worker is laid off, files Form I-539 within 60 days to request a change to B-1 or B-2, finds a new job, and then has the new employer file Form I-129 before the visitor application is adjudicated.

Federal rules give workers limited time to make that move. Under 8 CFR 214.1(l)(2), H-1B workers have a grace period of up to 60 consecutive days or until their current I-94 expires, whichever is shorter, after employment ends.

USCIS has also said timely filings can protect workers from falling into unlawful presence while their case is pending. The agency’s policy says that “if you timely file a non-frivolous application to change status, you do not accrue unlawful presence while that application is pending, even if the 60-day grace period expires.”

That protection, however, does not guarantee approval. Recent scrutiny has centered on whether the underlying B-1 or B-2 filing was approvable in the first place, a question that can later determine whether a new H-1B petition filed on top of the bridge survives.

Requests for Evidence have focused on three points. Officers are asking for proof that the worker maintained status through the day of layoff, evidence that the B-1 or B-2 application reflected a bona fide visitor purpose, and documentation showing the filing came before the 60-day grace period ended.

Those Requests for Evidence can be document-heavy. Workers may need bank statements, travel itineraries and job search logs to answer questions about whether they truly intended to use B-1 or B-2 status for visitor purposes rather than as an open-ended substitute for employment status.

The intent question has become one of the sharpest pressure points. Searching for work is allowed, but staying indefinitely is not, and officers are increasingly testing that distinction when they review bridge filings.

Notices of Intent to Deny pose a more severe threat because they often come after a worker has already lined up a new employer. If USCIS denies the B-1 or B-2 filing, the chain of lawful status can break, and a later H-1B petition that relied on that bridge may also be denied.

Agency policy in Volume 2, Part A, Chapter 4 of the USCIS Policy Manual says a bridge works only if the underlying change of status is approvable. A denied B-1 or B-2 can therefore affect the later H-1B filing because the worker may no longer qualify for a change of status inside the United States.

That creates a retroactive risk for workers who believed they had preserved their footing. If the B-1 or B-2 is denied months later, the person is treated as having fallen out of status after the grace period ended, which can undermine a later extension of stay or change of status request.

Processing times add another layer of uncertainty. B-1 and B-2 adjudications can take 6–12 months, leaving many workers in limbo even after a new employer files an H-1B petition.

During that period, the later H-1B cannot be approved as a change of status until USCIS also approves the pending B-1 or B-2 filing. The delay can postpone start dates and complicate onboarding for employers that believed they had found a quick path to hire a laid-off worker.

Portability can also become harder to use when status maintenance is under review. Without an approved bridge, workers often cannot move as easily to a new employer through H-1B portability if USCIS questions whether they remained in valid status after the layoff.

For some workers, a denied bridge shifts the process out of the country altogether. Many people who receive Notices of Intent to Deny must leave the United States and activate the new H-1B at a consulate abroad because the domestic change of status request cannot go forward after the bridge breaks.

That possibility has raised the stakes for employers as well as workers. A company may file a new H-1B petition in good faith, only to find the case delayed or redirected to consular processing because the earlier B-1 or B-2 filing draws a challenge.

The result is more legal expense on both sides. Workers face longer responses to Requests for Evidence, and employers may need additional legal work to address whether the bridge preserved a valid chain of status.

The government’s own guidance still frames the route as a lawful option after job loss. USCIS has continued to point displaced workers to the same set of alternatives, including a change of status filing during the grace period.

That is why the recent scrutiny matters. The pathway remains available on paper, but its practical value now depends more heavily on whether the worker can document every step of status maintenance, filing timing and visitor intent.

The policy foundation itself has not disappeared. USCIS continues to recognize that a laid-off worker may seek to stay in the United States legally while searching for another employer, and the pending application rule still protects against accrual of unlawful presence while a timely, non-frivolous filing remains undecided.

Yet the standard for proving that the bridge was proper has become more consequential as officers issue more Requests for Evidence and more Notices of Intent to Deny. Each challenge can ripple into a later H-1B petition, even when the worker found a new job before the visitor case was resolved.

For workers considering the route, timing remains central. They must act within the 60-day grace period, or before the I-94 expires if that comes sooner, and the bridge filing must be in place before that window closes.

For employers, the sequence matters just as much. The new Form I-129 must arrive before USCIS decides the B-1 or B-2 case, but approval of the H-1B as a change of status may still wait until the bridge application is approved.

Those mechanics have pushed regulatory guidance into the foreground. USCIS points workers and employers to its clarification on grace periods and employment authorization and to the Policy Manual sections governing change of status.

The route grew out of a period of mass layoffs and became a legal stopgap for foreign workers who wanted to avoid a forced departure while looking for a new role. Its appeal was simple: preserve lawful presence, keep the possibility of a domestic H-1B change of status alive, and avoid interrupting life in the United States.

Now, that same route sits under closer review. For laid-off H-1B workers, the bridge remains open, but each filing may now depend on how convincingly they answer the agency’s questions before a pending case turns into a denial that breaks the chain.