[TechieKid]

It's downvoted because you, like your profile says, are "opinionated, inconsistent, irrelevant, irreverent and incontrovertible", and regardless of the number of times you are told that you are wrong and that H1Bs are dual-intent visas, keep parroting the same trash in every immigration related thread. Please quit proliferating nonsense untruths.

And here, for future reference, because short of a citation of the law, and probably even then, you won't quit spreading junk knowledge:

Better reference: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1184

b) Presumption of status; written waiver Every alien (other than a nonimmigrant described in subparagraph (L) or (V) of section 1101(a)(15) of this title, and other than a nonimmigrant described in any provision of section 1101(a)(15)(H)(i) of this title except subclause (b1) of such section) shall be presumed to be an immigrant until he establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer, at the time of application for a visa, and the immigration officers, at the time of application for admission, that he is entitled to a nonimmigrant status under section 1101(a)(15) of this title.

[woud420]

Without getting in the history of the parent poster, he's not wrong. H1B is a temporary (non-immigrant) visa which allows dual intent. Yes, most people on dual intent visas eventually petition for a green card but I think it's unfair to qualify his post as "junk knowledge". Same thing with L-1A and O-1.

Source : https://www.uscis.gov/working-united-states/temporary-nonimm...

[diebeforei485]

It is junk knowledge to claim that something was never intended as a path to a green card.

Congress clearly intended this it back in 2000, when it passed Public Law 106-313 ("American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act"), which allowed H-1B extensions beyond 6 years for those who are waiting for green cards. If Congress didn't think the H-1B visa should be a path to a green card, why would they pass that bill?

Also the government has recognized it many times through regulation. For example, look at the number of times this regulation talks about a "path": https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/11/18/2016-27...