Attorneys at Law
521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, N.Y. 10175
Tel: (212) 488-6899 · ImmigrationLex.com
U.S. immigration law is federal:
Our attorneys can represent you from New York,
no matter where you are located,
in any state, in any country.
Attorneys Practicing U.S. Immigration Law Since 1991
Cap exemption normally depends on who the employer is. A university, an affiliated nonprofit, a nonprofit research organization or a governmental research organization can file an H-1B petition at any time of year, outside the annual quota and outside the registration lottery. A for-profit company cannot.
There is an important exception. A petitioner that is not itself a qualifying institution can still claim the exemption if the worker will actually be working at one. This is the “third party petitioner” situation, and it is the route that matters most in practice, because it reaches consultants, staffing firms, physician practice groups, clinical faculty arrangements and companies embedded in university or federal research projects.
Under this rule, a beneficiary who is not directly employed by a qualifying institution still qualifies for the exemption if two things are true:
Both halves have to be satisfied. Time alone is not enough, and neither is a worthy connection to the institution’s mission if the worker is only there occasionally.
The regulation says in terms that work performed “at” the qualifying institution may include work performed in the United States through telework, remote work or other off-site work, and that USCIS will focus on the job duties to be performed rather than on where those duties are physically performed.
This matters a great deal. For years USCIS treated physical presence on the institution’s campus as close to essential, and remote arrangements drew requests for evidence on that basis alone. That argument is now foreclosed by the text of the rule. A researcher who works on a university project three days a week from home can still be working “at” the university for exemption purposes. The related definition of “United States employer” in the regulations likewise contemplates a bona fide job offer to work within the United States that may include telework, remote work or other off-site work.
What has not changed is that the work must be in the United States, and that the location still governs the wage obligation under Department of Labor rules.
The exemption argument sits on top of an ordinary H-1B petition, so the normal requirements still apply. Two of them bite hardest in third-party arrangements.
First, under the regulations, the petitioner must establish that it has a bona fide position in a specialty occupation available for the beneficiary as of the requested start date. Helpfully, the same provision says the petitioner is not required to establish specific day-to-day assignments for the entire period requested.
Second, under the regulations, the USCIS may request contracts, work orders or other similar evidence between all parties in a contractual relationship to show that the position is bona fide and that it carries the minimum educational requirement. In a third-party placement that means the agreement between the petitioner and the qualifying institution, not just the offer letter to the worker.
In practice a well-built filing shows the relationship between the petitioner and the institution, the nature of the project, what the worker will do, how that work connects to higher education or research, and how the time is allocated. Evidence from the institution itself — a letter from the department, the research agreement, the affiliation documentation — carries more weight than the petitioner’s own description.
USCIS has express authority under the regulations to verify petition information through on-site inspections and other compliance reviews, and that authority reaches the third party’s facilities, officials and records, not only the petitioner’s. Inspections may occur at any time after filing, before or after adjudication.
The consequence is worth stating plainly: if USCIS cannot verify the facts, including because the petitioner or the third party fails or refuses to cooperate, that inability may result in denial or revocation. Before a petition is filed, someone at the qualifying institution should know the arrangement exists and be in a position to confirm it.
Because the worker is placed at the institution, the institution’s location is a place of employment for Department of Labor purposes. The labor condition application must state the place or places of intended employment and the prevailing wage for the occupation in that area, and the required notice must be given at the place or places of employment — which means notice goes up at the qualifying institution’s worksite, not only at the petitioner’s own office. Getting this wrong is a common and entirely avoidable defect.
Cap exemption attaches to the employment, not to the worker. If the qualifying arrangement ends — the project finishes, the contract is not renewed, the worker is reassigned to a commercial client — the basis for the exemption goes with it.
Under the regulations, if cap-exempt employment ceases and the worker is not the beneficiary of a new cap-exempt petition, the worker becomes subject to the quota unless already counted within the relevant six-year period. If cap-exempt employment converts to cap-subject employment, USCIS may revoke the petition that authorized it.
This is not a theoretical risk in third-party cases, where the underlying placement is often shorter than the petition validity period. Plan for what happens when the placement ends, and consider whether the worker has H-1B time already counted that would cushion the change.
This page is general information about United States immigration law, not legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is created by reading it. Immigration rules change frequently and individual cases turn on their own facts. The law described here was reviewed in August 2026; please confirm current requirements or consult an attorney before acting.