Immigration Attorney Nearby in New York Assisted a Chilean Architect with H-1B1 Employment and H-4 Family Visa Planning

The client is a Chilean national and professionally trained architect who was offered a position with a New York–based design firm for an initial six month assignment.

The employer sponsored the client under the H-1B1 specialty occupation category pursuant to INA §101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b1) and 8 C.F.R. §214.2(h)(1)(ii)(E), which permits employment of qualified Chilean professionals in specialty occupations.

At the time of filing, the employer represented that the position was project based and temporary in nature.

After approval, the employer informally asked whether the client would be willing to remain in the United States for a period exceeding three years, prompting concerns about lawful intent and compliance.

Unlike the standard H-1B category, H-1B1 status is granted in increments of up to one year and requires the maintenance of nonimmigrant intent under INA §214(b).

The immigration attorney nearby explained that repeated extensions are permissible if each period of employment remains temporary and properly documented.

However, the attorney also advised that employer discussions suggesting indefinite or permanent employment must be carefully managed to avoid inconsistencies during future visa applications or consular processing.

This guidance allowed the client to make informed decisions while preserving eligibility for lawful extensions.

Under New York Education Law Article 145, architectural services must be performed by individuals authorized to practice or under appropriate supervision structures.

The immigration attorney nearby coordinated with the employer to ensure that the client’s job duties were consistent with both immigration representations and New York professional standards.

This alignment reduced the risk of unauthorized practice issues that could indirectly affect immigration status.

The case highlights how immigration strategy and state regulatory compliance must be addressed together in New York.

Pursuant to INA §101(a)(15)(H) and 8 C.F.R. §214.2(h)(9)(iv), the spouse and unmarried child under 21 were eligible for H-4 dependent classification.

The immigration attorney nearby developed a consular processing strategy through the U.S. Embassy in Santiago, ensuring that supporting documentation clearly reflected the principal H-1B1 approval and temporary nature of stay.

The attorney also advised on common consular interview issues, including proof of family relationships and consistency of intent.

As a result, the family visa applications were positioned for efficient and lawful processing.

The final stage of representation focused on preserving flexibility for the client’s future.

The attorney emphasized compliance while allowing room for professional growth.

With guidance from an immigration attorney nearby, the client continued employment in New York under valid H-1B1 status while remaining eligible for annual renewals.

The attorney also discussed alternative long term options, including a potential transition to standard H-1B classification or employment based immigrant pathways if circumstances changed.

By addressing these issues early, the client avoided common pitfalls related to intent and overstays.

This case demonstrates the value of localized, proactive legal counsel for foreign professionals working in New York.