Our client had done everything right. He completed his master’s degree in information systems on time, maintained excellent grades, and worked only in properly authorized Curricular Practical Training (CPT) with a well-known U.S. employer. When he applied for post-completion Optional Practical Training (OPT), it should have been routine. Instead, USCIS issued a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID), alleging that he had engaged in unauthorized employment — not because of anything he did in the United States, but because of his listed director titles at companies back home in India that USCIS had found through his social media. With his post-completion OPT, and his ability to work in the United States at all, hanging in the balance, we built a forensic, evidence-driven rebuttal that dismantled the government’s theory point by point. USCIS approved the application within two weeks of receiving our response.
Our client had already secured his CPT placement with a Fortune 500 financial services company through his graduate program, performed well academically, and filed his Form I-765 to transition into post-completion OPT in the normal course.
Instead of an approval, he received a Notice of Intent to Deny. USCIS did not dispute that he was otherwise eligible for OPT. Instead, the agency asserted that “routine background and security checks” had turned up open-source social media profiles listing him as a director of businesses located overseas — and reasoned that, because he was physically present in the United States while those profiles remained active, he might have been working remotely for those companies without authorization.
The NOID demanded an extraordinary range of evidence within roughly a month: a complete employment history, personal bank statements, W-2s and pay stubs, proof of every CPT authorization, DSO attestations, class attendance and tuition records, and a full residential address history — all to prove a negative: that he had not been secretly working for companies half a world away.
Most unauthorized-employment findings arise from a specific job, paycheck, or employer that USCIS can point to. This case was different, and more difficult, for several reasons.
The allegation rested entirely on social media content, not on payroll records, tax filings, or any direct evidence of work performed in the United States.
Our client did hold real director titles at two companies abroad, so the facts could not simply be denied; they had to be explained and documented.
The response window was short, non-extendable, and required addressing four distinct categories of concern — outside employment, CPT compliance, F-1 maintenance of status, and address history — simultaneously and thoroughly.
A bare denial (“I didn’t work for those companies”) would never have overcome a NOID built on documented director titles and active social media accounts. We built a response designed to show, affirmatively and with objective proof, that no compensable work in furtherance of either business had ever been performed while our client was physically present in the United States.
Separately, we assembled complete proof that our client’s only actual employment in the United States was his properly authorized CPT placement, and attendance records confirming he was exactly where his F-1 status required him to be, in and out of the classroom, for the entire period in question.
USCIS approved our client’s Form I-765 just two weeks after we submitted our NOID response. The Notice of Intent to Deny — built on social media screenshots and an inference about remote work — did not survive contact with a complete evidentiary record. He received his approval notice confirming post-completion OPT authorization, followed shortly by his Employment Authorization Document, and is now able to work lawfully in the United States on the strength of the degree he worked years to earn.
USCIS’s use of open-source social media research in F-1 and OPT adjudications is not going away — if anything, it is becoming more common. Many F-1 and OPT students come from families with businesses back home, or have started their own ventures before or during their studies. A director title, a LinkedIn listing, or an old marketing post can attract exactly this kind of scrutiny, even when the underlying business is dormant, pre-revenue, or run entirely by someone else.
The lesson is not that students should hide these connections — that is neither possible nor advisable. The lesson is that anyone in this position should be prepared to document, in detail and in advance if possible, exactly what role they do and do not play in a foreign business while they are in the United States.
USCIS can raise the issue, but a foreign director title is not automatically unauthorized employment. What matters is whether any work in furtherance of that business was actually performed while you were physically present in the United States.
It can. USCIS treats remote work performed while physically present in the United States as “employment in the United States” for immigration purposes, regardless of where the company is based or where you are paid.
Yes. USCIS routinely conducts open-source and social media checks as part of background and security review on F-1 and OPT filings. Old marketing posts, director listings, or business profiles can be flagged even when the business is inactive or the student’s actual role is minimal. If you have any such history, it is worth reviewing it with counsel before you file, rather than after a NOID arrives.
Read it carefully, calendar the deadline immediately (NOID response deadlines are generally not extendable), and address every issue it raises with specific, credible, and well-organized evidence. A NOID is an opportunity to respond, not a denial — but it is also a one-shot opportunity, so the response needs to be complete the first time.
A NOID does add time to the adjudication, and work authorization cannot begin until the application is approved. But a well-documented response can lead to full approval, allowing you to begin post-completion OPT employment once your Employment Authorization Document is issued.
At the Law Offices of Sabrina Li, we regularly represent F-1 students and recent graduates facing Notices of Intent to Deny, Requests for Evidence, and unauthorized-employment allegations tied to OPT and CPT. Immigration law is federal law, so from our offices in Los Angeles and Dallas, we represent clients throughout the United States.
Are you facing a NOID or RFE questioning your OPT eligibility, a foreign business connection, or your F-1 status history? As this case shows, allegations built on inference — including social media research — can often be overcome with the right strategy and a well-built evidentiary record. Every case turns on its own facts and evidence, and results vary — but response deadlines are typically short and non-extendable, and the strongest responses are built early, not in the final days. Contact our team at (213) 375-8096 or info@sabrinali.law to review your specific situation.
This case study is for general informational purposes and is not legal advice. Outcomes depend on the specific facts and evidence of each case; no result is guaranteed, and past results do not predict future outcomes. All client-identifying details have been omitted to protect confidentiality.
Phone: (213) 375-8096
Email: info@sabrinali.law
Hours: Mon-Fri, 9:00AM - 5:00PM PT (Except Public Holidays)
