4 ms·

What? No. H1B is a dual-intent visa. If it was strictly a non-immigrant visa, then you cannot get a green card. Ever. You need some other type of visa that's e

What? No. H1B is a dual-intent visa. If it was strictly a non-immigrant visa, then you cannot get a green card. Ever. You need some other type of visa that's either an immigrant visa(like marriage) or some other dual-intent visa. That's one thing that many americans don't understand. "He's lived in the US for 50 years, why didn't he become a citizen?!" Because, for most people, they have no path.

User23 4y ago
That’s not what the US government says: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/immigration/h1b https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/immigration/h1b and https://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors/visa-waiver-program/requirements-immigrant-and-nonimmigrant-visas https://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors/visa-waive... I have observed that this misunderstanding is widespread, for what it’s worth. Dual intent merely means intending to immigrate isn’t a disqualification, but that still requires getting some sort of additional immigrant visa.
- Ao7bei3s 4y ago
  You're right that they are formally non-immigrant visa (allowing dual intent), but it is a mostly meaningless distinction as far as H-1B's and L-1's go and it is incorrect to say that they are not dual-intent visa (as dual-intent visa can very well be a descriptive name rather than a proper name. In much the same way that one might refer to a Macbook as a laptop). There are even a few government sources that call them that: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22dual-intent+visa%22+site%3A.gov https://www.google.com/search?q=%22dual-intent+visa%22+site%... . It is a bit of a pain point because it is sometimes used in discussions by people who are against immigration to suggest that "those people" on H-1B's/L-1's should not immigrate, should not expect to immigrate, and should have known better because they "are on a non-immigrant visa" and should have simply chosen a different path. Nevermind that this _is_ more or less the only realistic way to do employment based immigration, and by far the most common one. One might consider it a bit of an anti-immigrant dog whistle. (I am not accusing you of this, just explaining why you may have gotten that reaction.) It is, however, entirely incorrect to say that immigrating _requires_ an immigrant visa. There are two ways of becoming an immigrant: 1. From outside the US, by applying for an immigrant visa at a consulate, and then presenting the immigrant visa at a port of entry. The officer may then admit the alien in the LPR (lawful permanent resident) status. 2. From inside the US, by petitioning USCIS to adjust the status to that of an LPR. There is no immigrant visa in this case. In general, a visa is used to legally enter the country, and status is used to legally be in the country. They are entirely separate, with different expiration dates, physically separate stamps/stickers and all (see https://www.google.com/search?q=visa+stamp+and+admission+stamp&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=visa+stamp+and+admission+sta...). For example, a person can present an H-1B visa (a sticker in the passport, plus a stack of paper) at a port of entry, then be admitted in H-1B status (and usually get a stamp over the sticker at that time). However, while using a visa is one way to gain a status, it is not the only way. And visa do not correspond 1:1 to statuses. The two different ways to become an LPR are very different in terms of process, which agency to petition, processing time, availability, conditions while waiting, options if denied, cost etc. So those really cannot be mixed up. And so, yes, one can immigrate with only a non-immigrant visa such as an H-1B. That is an officially supported function of the system. And for employment based immigration, that is the normal way to do it. Therefore the more descriptive name "dual-intent visa" is rather useful in the context of employment based immigration, even though the proper classification is "non-immigrant visa". Whereas even if it is formally a "non-immigrant visa", it can be useful to say that in practice it is not really a "non-immigrant visa" but a "dual-intent visa".

User23 4y ago

That’s not what the US government says: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/immigration/h1b https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/immigration/h1b and https://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors/visa-waiver-program/requirements-immigrant-and-nonimmigrant-visas https://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors/visa-waive... I have observed that this misunderstanding is widespread, for what it’s worth. Dual intent merely means intending to immigrate isn’t a disqualification, but that still requires getting some sort of additional immigrant visa.

Ao7bei3s 4y ago
You're right that they are formally non-immigrant visa (allowing dual intent), but it is a mostly meaningless distinction as far as H-1B's and L-1's go and it is incorrect to say that they are not dual-intent visa (as dual-intent visa can very well be a descriptive name rather than a proper name. In much the same way that one might refer to a Macbook as a laptop). There are even a few government sources that call them that: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22dual-intent+visa%22+site%3A.gov https://www.google.com/search?q=%22dual-intent+visa%22+site%... . It is a bit of a pain point because it is sometimes used in discussions by people who are against immigration to suggest that "those people" on H-1B's/L-1's should not immigrate, should not expect to immigrate, and should have known better because they "are on a non-immigrant visa" and should have simply chosen a different path. Nevermind that this _is_ more or less the only realistic way to do employment based immigration, and by far the most common one. One might consider it a bit of an anti-immigrant dog whistle. (I am not accusing you of this, just explaining why you may have gotten that reaction.) It is, however, entirely incorrect to say that immigrating _requires_ an immigrant visa. There are two ways of becoming an immigrant: 1. From outside the US, by applying for an immigrant visa at a consulate, and then presenting the immigrant visa at a port of entry. The officer may then admit the alien in the LPR (lawful permanent resident) status. 2. From inside the US, by petitioning USCIS to adjust the status to that of an LPR. There is no immigrant visa in this case. In general, a visa is used to legally enter the country, and status is used to legally be in the country. They are entirely separate, with different expiration dates, physically separate stamps/stickers and all (see https://www.google.com/search?q=visa+stamp+and+admission+stamp&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=visa+stamp+and+admission+sta...). For example, a person can present an H-1B visa (a sticker in the passport, plus a stack of paper) at a port of entry, then be admitted in H-1B status (and usually get a stamp over the sticker at that time). However, while using a visa is one way to gain a status, it is not the only way. And visa do not correspond 1:1 to statuses. The two different ways to become an LPR are very different in terms of process, which agency to petition, processing time, availability, conditions while waiting, options if denied, cost etc. So those really cannot be mixed up. And so, yes, one can immigrate with only a non-immigrant visa such as an H-1B. That is an officially supported function of the system. And for employment based immigration, that is the normal way to do it. Therefore the more descriptive name "dual-intent visa" is rather useful in the context of employment based immigration, even though the proper classification is "non-immigrant visa". Whereas even if it is formally a "non-immigrant visa", it can be useful to say that in practice it is not really a "non-immigrant visa" but a "dual-intent visa".