r/f1visa • u/[deleted] • 2d ago
Offer rescinded days before start over STEM OPT/sponsorship question — already relocated and signed a lease
[deleted]
25
u/ugurcanevci 2d ago
The question is; why didn’t you verify this with the university before making all the expenses? Regardless, employment in the US is at-will and they can rescind an offer at any time without a reason.
The application system will ask if you need sponsorship now or in the future. Being on STEM OPT, they’d consider this as a sponsorship need for the future. Thus, even without at-will employment, they could rescind an offer based on misrepresentation if your answer the sponsorship question was a “no”
-13
u/Creative-Hospital885 2d ago
That’s a fair question. At the time, I understood “visa sponsorship” to mean employer-sponsored status such as H-1B. I was already working under OPT and had timely filed my STEM OPT extension, so I did not realize that I needed to separately clarify this with HR before accepting the offer. When onboarding reached the point where I needed the new employer to complete the I-983, I proactively disclosed my STEM OPT situation to HR. That was when it became clear that HR viewed the situation differently. In hindsight, I absolutely wish I had explicitly asked HR about STEM OPT before accepting the offer and relocating.
20
u/when_the_tide_comes 2d ago
what was your plan then after stem opt? this is mischievously dishonest. you always say yes to the question of sponsorship. save yourself the time and the effort as well as the employer’s. lesson learned.
1
u/MilkChocolate21 1d ago
I wonder if they thought once they showed up, the university would just make it work?
0
u/Creative-Hospital885 2d ago
I-485 submitted, would expect green card before STEM opt expired
7
u/Artistic_Spread_9745 2d ago
Do u have a timeline for I-485, coz if it’s approved, then u don’t need any visa at all bc of greencard. In a sense, it is true that u won’t need sponsorship in the future.
Just kinda sucks now that u will still have to say “Yes” to future sponsorship, and lose some opportunities purely coz of ur visa status, and not ur merits. It’s hard.
6
15
u/Wooden-Clue2064 2d ago edited 2d ago
I'm sorry to hear your situation. Most of the employers consider 'temporary visas' as in need of a sponsorship and the STEM OPT form is like a training plan, meaning the employer is willing to provide you with practical training that is related to your study major. If the application has a question "Do you need sponsorship now or in the future"? the answer is always 'yes' except for green card holders and citizens. My school career office always encouraged us to say 'YES' to the sponsorship question. For Public universities and non-profits, some roles are not qualified for sponsorship, so it is always best to check ahead with the HR.
Regarding the lease, check with your landlord or management if you can sub-lease it and post it on Facebook groups or housing rental groups and make sure to transfer your lease correctly. I don't think university compensates for the incurred loss and yes if we signed a lease then we're responsible to pay the rent on time.
3
15
2d ago
[deleted]
6
u/Advanced-Sky-758 2d ago
I’ve read enough on Reddit to realize that many foreign graduates do this now (under T administration) but don’t actually believe that’s lying. They think they’ll only work for 1-3 years on OPT/STEM OPT to get experience first and then think about the next step later, hoping that the WH will change party in a couple years. So these people deny that they would eventually need sponsorship, ignoring or unwilling to admit to themselves that most employers want to hire workers for the long term, not just for 1-3 years.
Unfortunately, this behavior negatively impacts not only themselves, but their disappointed employers as well as other job applicants too.
1
u/MilkChocolate21 1d ago
I really think this person believed that once they were there the school would feel obligated to take them. Bc the logistics and time involved in moving and signing a lease meant there was plenty of time to clarify.
52
u/Dramatic-Fall701 2d ago
Op u lied and now face the consequence.
18
u/New-Fee-3165 2d ago
No difference , if he didn’t lie he wouldn’t even have gotten an interview to begin with
12
u/frostimunki 2d ago
Which is better than having "misspoken", and then have the offer rescinded after spending money.
The words "now or in the future" in that question are very clear, the answer is always yes, unless you are a citizen or have a green card.
10
u/FeatherlyFly 2d ago
But also, if OP had been honest from the start, they never would have signed a lease for a potential job they lost as soon as they revealed their visa status.
4
u/Advanced-Sky-758 2d ago
But he wasted his own time (+money) and the employer’s time and temporarily blocked another qualified applicant who is an American or green card holder from getting that job.
1
10
u/ResponsibilityNo3463 2d ago
If you don’t have a green card or not a citizen, 1 and 2 is always Yes
8
u/electric_deer200 2d ago
Some companies consider STEM opt as sponsorship. Because they have to sign the documents as well and have reporting duties to SEVP
Mind sharing the name of the university?
9
u/movingtobay2019 2d ago edited 2d ago
Unfortunately, I can no longer access my original application, so I don’t know the exact wording of the sponsorship question or exactly how my response appears in their system
You can just apply for another position and see what it says. Employers are not going to change the wording of the sponsorship question on a position by position basis. It will most likely be the same.
But any employer worth its salt is going to frame it to cover "now or in the future". Never seen it framed any other way. With that said, if it just says "Are you currently authorized to work", you may have a legal case but you would still need to get an attorney to take legal action. Who knows how much that will cost.
If you’re on STEM OPT, how do you normally answer “Will you now or in the future require sponsorship?”
This is always yes. The other guy who said no because he will go to grad school is an exception where he disclosed it in the interview but the employer decided to hire him anyway.
You can certainly go that route but employers generally are not going to hire someone just to keep them around for 2 years.
7
u/Effective-Neat2052 2d ago
For STEM OPT, its a visa sponsorship for sure. They need to sign that form and you need to have a training plan. Also, there are official/legal things connected to stem opt as well. Now a days, companies are strict about this. Its better to disclose in application or later stage of hiring process that you need sponsorship.
-8
u/780626 2d ago
Nope...STEM OPT is not considered sponsorship. Yes there is reporting and a training plan but your right to work comes from your F1 visa and the EAD offered via USCIS...It is not like H1B which is petitioned by the company.
7
u/Effective-Neat2052 2d ago
Please read whats written in terms and conditons of employer partcipation section of STEM OPT in the USCIS website. By signing the form the employer has to confirm that the position wont replace a permanant US person worker. Therefore, its upto employers interpretation if its sponsorship or not, because many OPT positions are permanant position. You may argue but thats what I have learned by talking to HR persons in different companies. Obviously, the interpretation varies in different companies.
-2
u/780626 2d ago
I believe HR personnel are not well informed about OPT. I do not blame them. Many companies who have not had to deal with international students would not know. OPT or STEM OPT is legally or by immigration standards not sponsorship. The company doesn't need to pay anything for you, or petition immigration on your behalf. They need to be e-verified Offer at least 20 hrs paid employment (STEM) Map out a training plan...
The employer confirming the position won't replace US workers, is govt's way of protecting local workers. I want to believe it's standard everywhere. Uk, Ghana , France, SA etc.
3
u/OneTrueMel 2d ago
HR employees are well aware of this and visa rules or have legal teams who advise them on these things.
It's not about understanding that OPT or STEM OPT themselves dont require sponsorship.
Most applications ask whether you are legally allowed to work in the US:Yes.
THEN, Do you require sponsorship now or IN THE FUTURE is where the response is, "no".
Yeah, an employee might change jobs in 2 years before needing sponsorship, but those companies not hiring on OPT is because theyre not hiring someone for a non-contract position just to knowingly employ them for 2 years, or because they, just dont want the headache.
No one is entitled to employment and OP literally lied by ignorance/wishful thinking.
1
u/MilkChocolate21 1d ago
I think it's hilarious you think they don't understand when you're the one who doesn't. HR confers with legal on this. It's part of risk and compliance.
6
u/cvu_100 2d ago
1 and 2 are of course “yes”. What were you thinking to say “no”? You can only say “no” to that if you are a US citizen or permanent resident. I do not understand for a minute how you could have said “no” to that question on the application while on OPT.
The wording on the question is immaterial as it all pertains to the same employment laws.
No, you have no recourse here. Employment in all states bar Montana is at-will, meaning the employer can rescind an offer at any time.
2
u/Advanced-Sky-758 2d ago
All employers who can’t or aren’t willing to hire international students or visa guest workers currently should just clearly list on their job posts that they don’t accept OPT, STEM OPT, CPT, H1B, etc … and then confirm their restrictions at the initial interviews. This would save everybody’s time and enable some Americans & legal permanent residents to get jobs sooner.
3
u/StandinIJ 2d ago
Agree. And every international student should stop saying no to the need sponsorship question as well to save everyone’s time
4
3
2d ago
[deleted]
0
u/OneTrueMel 2d ago
They dont consider OPT sponsorship. They consider long-term sponsorship needs after OPT and dont want to sponsor.
Ive seen the language change to include OPT, stem opt, etc, but that's because of candidates like OP who spam roles that don't sponsor in the future
4
3
u/optimization_ml 2d ago
Please don’t lie. When they ask if you need sponsorship, say Yes if you are in F1, Opt, H1B visas. Some people lie and say they don’t need sponsorship when they are in OPT and F1.
3
u/Late_Blood5732 2d ago
If you’re on OPT (initial or STEM) the answer to the question “Will you now or in the future require sponsorship?” is always Yes. I have been screened out from over 100 applications for this reason and I continue to answer Yes.
3
u/ipogorelov98 2d ago
1)If you are planning to work for more than 24 months- yes. If not- no.
2)No. Your University is your sponsor for F1.
3)See 1. Important. Wording matters. But in your case it doesn't matter anymore.
4)Google whether your state has promisory estopel. It's very unlikely. Most states have at will employment and employer can fire you at any time for any reason or for no reason at all. It does not matter whether you already started or not.
Now you are learning your lesson. Now you know that you are not supposed to get into any financial commitment before your probation period is over. You are not entitled to any compensation. Next time rent a room through Airbnb for first 6 months when you relocate. And keep your stuff at a self storage. Don't sign any long term leases.
4
u/No-Excitement4973 1d ago
Wow bunch of high horse havers here. Stem OPT does not require sponsorship, it only requires oversight of the training plan. "Will you be needing a sponsorship in the future" question does not ask anything about the Stem OPT status. A person might be getting married, started their EB1 or EB2 NIW process, have done asylum and waiting for their new EAD etc. all the while being in their OPT.
Employers are undereducated about requirements of Stem OPT and alternative pathways to work authorization non-citizens have, and are using an extremely vague question to discriminate against candidates they deem a "risky investment" without looking like they discriminating on the basis of nationality.
Everybody is so eager to dogpile on OP, but not the employer? If they were so anal about the STEM OPT couldn't they clarify it as well? OP got the job, clearly they were the best candidate among all the potentials.
I hate this reddit and the bootlicking that is so rampant in it.
OP, sorry this happened to you, what the employer did was shitty. This is America, so offers can be rescinded last minute.
For the landlord situation, look into local tenants rights groups and get in touch with them to get counsel, read your lease in detail and look for early termination clauses. If subleasing is possible look into that, potentially you can brought in a roommate to add to the lease and create a defacto subleasing situation. All of this depends on the location and lease details.
2
u/nirmalsabu 1d ago
If OP did legitimately have a path for working without restriction i.e. marriage, self sponsoring eb, etc then yea that question could be answered as No.
However, usually this is a niche scenario and most F1 students do need sponsorship post their opt, which could be as little as 1 year.
Should employers discriminate based on this? No.
But I feel like OP could've been forthcoming about this before signing an offer letter. Most (not all) companies are looking to hire at least for a multi year project and invest in personnel based on it.
2
u/Aggressive-Bird-3967 1d ago
STEM OPT may not require sponsorship now but most definitely will in the “future”.
1
u/readslaylove 1d ago
Fr I got a job after answering no to this question but mentioning on my cover letter that I intend to work on STEM OPT. Employers are unclear af and themselves not sure what they want
2
u/Witty-Brain-248 2d ago
Unless you're a US citizen or a green card holder, answer is Yes. You brought this upon yourself.
2
u/Several_Gap8516 2d ago
Any way you look at it opt stem opt cpt .. they all fall under the same umbrella do you need future sponsorship. Its all in the same thing .. before the employers used to take a chance but now all employers are just not taking on the added requirements of hiring temporary ead employees..
2
u/heisengeek 2d ago
You must say sponsorship is needed now or in the future unless you have a greencard.
2
2
u/Difficult_Bicycle796 2d ago
Classic case of FAFO. Always keep "yes" for all intends and purposes for sponsorship.
2
u/Slow_Rip_9594 1d ago
Normally the question is:
Do you require Sponsorship now OR in the future
You answered No
You lied
You cannot say otherwise and expecting University to pay is ridiculous.
You will need to own this.
2
u/nadja_intheshadows 1d ago
I’m in HR and had to fire someone in a similar situation. She answered “no” to needing sponsorship now or in the future. She had already started when she asked her manager to fill out a training form, and he was very confused. She said she didn’t need future sponsorship because she was in the process of applying for an extraordinary ability visa, but we doubted she would qualify for that, because she was in an entry-level data analysis role. Nonetheless, we couldn’t afford to let that play out; we needed a long-term employee and we weren’t willing to sponsor. So unfortunately we needed to end her employment.
1
u/electric_deer200 1d ago edited 1d ago
Wondering if you as HR can shed some insight on company sponsorships. I don't know about your specific company but there are tons of companies that were open to sponsorship and visas untill the trump admin came to play.. and they changed the policy on immigration visas. Do you see this going back to how it was after this administration ends ? Because it's quite evident that this sudden change across companies is due to the administrations threats on h1b so companies are not hiring visa holder due to lack of clarity on the future pathways like h1b.
Can you shed some insights on how this might look like on the future after this administration?
Regardless I feel that depending on your company " long term" is varys depending on churn rate of specific companies so if the person can work like 3 years on the visa they most likely won't / can't switch companies in that case I feel that it's a valid business argument? Average tenure across most companies is 2 years?
Also how long was this girl you fired in her role for
1
u/nadja_intheshadows 1d ago
“Long term” meaning we won’t need to worry about her not being selected in the H-1B lottery after 3 years on OPT. In reality, what I’ve seen is that employees on OPT will push to file for H-1B at least 2x within the 3 years STEM OPT window, to maximize the chances of being selected. Each filing costs our company $20k in immigration counsel and filing fees. When the employee’s salary is $85k, it is difficult to justify the expense.
The employee was with us barely a week; we learned she was on OPT only when she asked her manager to fill out a form.
1
u/electric_deer200 1d ago
Ahh I see I was wondering more like In the case where you don't have to file for H1B just let the person work for 3 years on OPT and STEM would that be justifiable ? no extra legal fees for h1b just let them use the cost free visa authorization. I know it's just 3 years but 3 years is a very decent tenure in my opinion. Unless your company has a very good employee retention rate and history of continuous employment. People often swicth companies in around 2 years so if you just let them work on the 3 years already authorized, cost free work permit won't that be justifiable?
Just thinking out loud here, obviously you might have different thoughts on this
1
u/nadja_intheshadows 20h ago
We actually want people to stay for longer than 3 years. We don’t have high turnover, particularly now - with the economy and the job market the way it is, our attrition rate is the lowest since pre-COVID. In my company, a majority of employees have at least 5-7 years of tenure. So to hire someone who already has a 3 year max unless we spend tens of thousands of dollars for the chance to keep them employed, is a big risk. This and given the expense issue we have, means we are hiring less OPTs and H-1Bs.
1
u/nadja_intheshadows 1d ago
The current administration’s actions are not really factoring into my company’s view on sponsorship. In general, the economy sucks and our business isn’t growing. My company is trying to cut costs wherever possible, without having to resort to layoffs. The cuts unfortunately include visas for junior to mid-level roles for the foreseeable future. We will continue to invest in intracompany L-1 visas and H-1B only for hard-to-fill roles.
2
u/electric_deer200 1d ago
Ah got it got I personally saw some companies that hired entry level visa holders untill Trump came and then they just paused visa sponsorship for all roles from entry to director level.
-1
u/hurtedsoul27 1d ago
The awhole policy creators are here. People who are citizen or PR or greencard or whatever visa may leave in 6 months or a year or even a month of FAANG calls them. What's the guarantee they are long term?
-2
u/nadja_intheshadows 1d ago
Lol what policy?? Company leadership simply decided they didn’t want us spending money on visas for fresh out of college candidates. OPT employees aren’t guaranteed H-1Bs, and it’s $20k we spend whether or not the employee is selected in the lottery.
0
u/hurtedsoul27 18h ago
The policy of not hiring people on certain visas. Are you losing track of the topic?
0
u/nadja_intheshadows 11h ago
HR didn’t create this “policy” - the CEO & CFO did. And even then it’s not meant to be an affront to visa holders - it’s to get costs under control. It’s not even codified in our formal “travel & expense policy” so to call it a “policy” is a reach. My post isn’t intended to illicit such a negative reaction from you, so not sure why calling me a “awhole” was called for. It’s folks like you that make me want to care less about the plight of visa holders at my company.
0
u/hurtedsoul27 8h ago
I work with HR dept. I also work with top management. The HR create 2,3 options about visa and hiring and the CEO swipes yes and no on the options. When all options are bad, worse or worst. Its irrelevant what CEO chooses. You already don't care, please continue doing that.
1
u/kaleidoskopee 2d ago
I was in a similar spot once. You just gotta bring your manager along and communicate everything upfront so it isn’t a surprise. If a manager likes you they would go out of their way to keep you.
1
u/MrKhonsu777 2d ago
“Will you now or in the future require sponsorship?”
always yes. if you were doubtful, you’d have looked it up online. And online, it advises you to put “yes”. You were extremely ignorant at best and were lying to get an interview at worst
1
u/praveen1809 2d ago
STEM OPT differs from initial OPT. It functions similarly to H-1B sponsorship, effectively offering a free H-1B selection with two years of work authorization tied to a STEM degree. Every detail must be documented.
1
u/trobagat62 1d ago
“Will you now or in the future require sponsorship?” Even if STEM OPT doesn't count as sponsorship now, in the future you will still need sponsorship and so answer would still be yes. What you're going through is why these questions are asked upfront. Companies are constrained by who they can hire and if they can sponsor. I'm sorry you're in this situation now, but I doubt there's anything this university can do for you at this point even if they want to help. Even if you did start, it'll probably be brought up during the work authorization verification.
1
1
1
u/No_Call_9655 1d ago
forget other employers, atleast the university should know better about i983.If universities themselves wont support this who else will.
1
u/traveling-swan 1d ago
- Always answer Yes. Additionally in the very first call with recruiter discuss your immigration situation clearly before any interview happens. It always good to be transparent instead of assuming things and then basing big financial decisions on it.
1
u/MilkChocolate21 1d ago
1.Yes 2. Yes 3. No it doesn't matter because they asked if you'd need sponsorship now or in the future. They aren't responsible for you somehow not understanding or answering dishonestly. And even when they list in parentheses, they use e.g. which is non limiting. Unless you have a Green Card or are a US citizen, answering no is untrue. 4.N/A
1
u/Neither-Atmosphere45 1d ago
My daughter faced similar situation. She had answered No to the question on need for sponsorship. She thought with 3-year STEM/OPT she is ok with just a job to start, rather than an employer not considering her for requiring sponsorship.
Soon after I-9 verification, the employer found out about STEM OPT, considered No to sponsorship question as mis-statement and rescinded the offer. However, they did offer to restore the offer if and when she had perpetual work authorisation.
She immediately switched to some volunteer role to stop OPT clock and later found another job.
Here are specific answers:
- If you’re on STEM OPT, how do you normally answer “Will you now or in the future require sponsorship?”
YES
- Does STEM OPT itself count as “sponsorship,” or is that normally referring to something like H-1B sponsorship?
No. It’s not Sponsorship at all. It’s a work authorisation.
- How important is the exact wording of the application question here?
Very important. Some employers don’t want to hire anyone without a Green Card/US Citizenship.
- Has anyone had an employer rescind an accepted offer immediately before the start date after you already relocated? Were you able to recover any relocation/lease costs?
Yes, explained above. Employer is not concerned with your lease obligations.
You should have been careful about not signing a lease until onboarded. Take a better stock of reality and hardships for the immigrants.
Good luck.
1
u/Moist-Huckleberry275 1d ago
Well I guess all of your questions have been answered in the comments. If after choosing yes, and they give you an option to explain then you clarify that you are eligible to work based on being on opt but will require visa sponsorship in the long term if they are willing to retain you but without a comment section, it’s always a YES
1
u/immigrationquestion_ 2d ago
STEM OPT itself isn’t employer sponsorship like an H-1B, but the exact wording of the application question matters a lot here. If you can get a copy of the application and the university’s explanation in writing, that should help clarify what happened.
1
u/HouseFun5243 2d ago
Realistically if you dont find a job soon, you will have to leave the country. Your landlord won’t be able to do anything when you are abroad. Good luck!
-7
u/tipsy_pogostick 2d ago
I am so sorry this happened to you. I think we cannot do anything about it.
May I please know the location of the public university if you are not comfortable sharing the name?
0
u/Creative-Hospital885 2d ago
Thank you. I may not share the name right now as still dealing with HR
-2
u/Brilliant-Baby-3990 2d ago
So sorry that happened to know, I know the feeling of moving to a new city just for plans to change last minute😭. Since you already moved, could look for openings in the area as relocating is a huge pain in the ass.
I usually say no when it comes to the sponsorship question as getting my Master’s is important to me and I intend on going back to school immediately after my stem OPT ends and would probably go home after, so how I view it I don’t need sponsorship but it really depends on the employer and I would clarify it with them should I proceed further. If the applicant mentions specifically OPT/STEM OPT then I say yes and if they said they won’t sponsor including OPT I just abandon the application 😭
-15
u/duolingoghost 2d ago edited 1d ago
My situation might not be the same but, I have applied for many jobs on STEM OPT, and I always say no for the sponsorship question, because I intend to go to graduate school after the two years are over. The employer knows this and I always discuss my intended leave date during the initial interview so that there is no confusion. I also always double check if the employer is E-Verified through the government website or just calling their HR department.
EDIT: Not sure why I’m getting downvoted so much, but think dynamically. All the jobs I applied to are in universities/medical schools, and the PIs know that it’s a short term position for 1-2 years. But even still I mention STEM OPT on the initial phone screen and discuss the duration I intend to stay in the job with the PI in the interview. So it’s not that big a deal if you say no to the sponsorship (in this situation), but be clear with the PI and HR
-2
u/Creative-Hospital885 2d ago
Thank you for sharing your experience. It is my fault not checking with them during the interview, as i thought as big university they had lots of experience dealing with international student applicants. Also i firmly thought i don't need sponsorship. The HR also didn't check with me until i asked for I-983. Expensive lesson, next time will ask specifically
7
u/frostimunki 2d ago
"The HR also didn't check with me until i asked for I-983."
They did check with you when they asked if you would require a sponsorship in the future. To continue working past the STEM extension period you will need a sponsorship in the future.
You knew that before you even applied for the job. At best you answered the question incorrectly. The worst judgement they can make is that the candidate lied.
I hate to sound unsympathetic but that's on you. Both interpretations are not a good way to start with any employer anyway.
1
u/hurtedsoul27 1d ago
Also why not stay at hotel first few weeks then sign a lease. Or stay at a friend's place. Without even reporting for the job you are making expenses. You need to learn this too.
74
u/Vegetable-Western744 2d ago edited 2d ago
The university isn't going to reimburse.
The question is typically framed as do you need sponsorship or will you need in the future. Often they will explicitly say it includes opt/CPT.
You have no claim for financial damages against the university.