AC21 / Supplement J: how to prove “same or similar” when changing jobs with a pending I-485
This is a practical, evidence-driven guide to job portability. The goal is to build a packet that makes it obvious to a USCIS officer that you stayed in the same occupational lane — not that you switched into a different profession. We’ll cover what officers typically look for, which documents carry the most weight, how to explain promotions, tech-stack shifts, remote work, and compensation changes, and what patterns commonly trigger RFEs.
Disclaimer
This content is for educational purposes only and is not legal advice. Immigration rules and agency practice can change, and every case is fact-specific. Eligibility for portability, the right evidence set, and strategy depend on your category, status history, employer documentation, and where your case is in the process. For legal guidance, consult a licensed U.S. immigration attorney.
The core idea you want to “bake into” your packet: USCIS evaluates the totality of the circumstances. One strong item rarely saves a file if everything else is vague. A matching SOC code won’t help much if duties are generic, seniority is unclear, and pay changes look unexplained. Conversely, a well-structured duties comparison plus a detailed employer letter often outweighs minor differences elsewhere.
Practical rule: the more a document explains the real substance of your duties and level, the stronger it is. “Titles and buzzwords” are weaker than “duties, processes, and verifiable details.”
We intentionally removed internal interlinking in this version to avoid language mismatches and any risk of 404s. The only links included are official .gov sources at the end of the page.
1) Terms: AC21 portability and Supplement J are not the same thing
AC21 portability (INA 204(j)) is the legal mechanism that allows you to keep an employment-based I-485 moving forward based on a new job, if statutory conditions are met and the new job is in the same or similar occupational classification. The position should be full-time and permanent in nature — not a short, time-boxed project role.
Form I-485 Supplement J is the tool used to confirm either that the original job offer remains valid (for the I-140/I-485 basis), or that you are requesting portability to a new job under INA 204(j). The form is the “container” — the evidence around it is what determines RFE risk.
A common misconception: “Once I hit the time threshold, I can change to anything.” In practice, USCIS looks for (1) legal eligibility, and (2) credible, well-documented similarity by the substance of the work. That’s why this guide focuses on how to document the real occupational continuity.
Prepare your “comparison anchors” early: (a) a clear duties summary for the original role, and (b) a clear duties summary for the new role. If those anchors are missing or too generic, RFE probability rises sharply.
2) The “gate”: when portability is possible and what to confirm before switching jobs
Portability is not “freedom to change anything.” It’s a way to keep an employment-based AOS case moving when you change employers or roles without changing the underlying occupational substance. To reduce the chance of an RFE, confirm the baseline conditions before signing and before starting the new job.
Quick eligibility checks (5 steps)
1) You have an I-485 receipt notice (the receipt date matters).
2) Your I-485 is pending (not denied/closed).
3) The basis is an employment-based case tied to an approved/pending I-140 as applicable.
4) The new job is full-time and permanent in nature (not a short-term “project until Q2”).
5) You can document “same or similar” by duties/level/skills/tools — not just by the title.
After the five checks, ask one more question: Can I explain the differences in one clean paragraph? If your role becomes managerial, your location changes, pay jumps, you move into consulting/end-client work, or your stack changes, USCIS will usually expect a logical “bridge.” The clearer you build that bridge upfront, the less room there is for USCIS to guess.
A late-breaking risk that surprises people
If the original employer disappears (shutdown, acquisition, layoffs), it can become difficult to retrieve clean documentation for the original job duties and level. Practical advice: save the original duties summaries, role scope, and key employment docs early. Those materials are often impossible to reconstruct months later — and they’re exactly what you need to prove occupational continuity.
The table below helps you estimate “case temperature”: where portability is usually straightforward, and where you should plan a stronger evidence packet and a clearer explanation memo.
Table A — Scenario → risk → what USCIS checks → what to prepare first
| Scenario (short) | USCIS risk level (typical) |
What the officer is actually looking for | What to prep first |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Employer change, duties largely the same lateral move same duties |
Low / medium | Clear overlap of core duties + credible level + bona fide job offer. | Offer letter + detailed job description + duties comparison matrix + short similarity memo. |
|
Promotion (Senior/Lead), broader scope but same core promotion career progression |
Medium | Career progression within the same occupational family, not a switch (e.g., engineer → sales). | Org chart + duties mapping + progression explanation + documentation of level/grade. |
|
Move into people-management with vague descriptions manager vague duties |
Medium / high | What you manage: processes, deliverables, requirements, and how it ties back to the original occupation. | Detailed duties + process/KPI examples + “bridge” narrative to the prior job duties and skills. |
|
Consulting/contractor: end-client, shifting projects, flexible worksites consulting end-client |
High | Real duties, where work is performed, stability of the role, and documentary confirmation of work conditions. | Project description + work-conditions confirmation + concrete duties + careful worksite explanation. |
|
Adjacent occupation (Analyst → Data Scientist), partial overlap adjacent partial overlap |
Medium / high | Degree of overlap in core duties and skills — how “similar” it truly is. | Duties/skills/tools matrix + evolution narrative + honest SOC/O*NET mapping (no stretching). |
If your case involves remote work or multiple locations, include a clear worksite/remote explanation. The more precise the offer letter and employer letter are, the less room there is for an RFE.
3) What you prove in practice: USCIS logic and an evidence packet that reads cleanly
A USCIS officer is not required to “guess” what you meant. If your file leaves room for interpretation, it often turns into questions. The best way to document “same or similar” is as a structured narrative: what you did before → what you will do now → why it’s the same occupational lane.
A simple quality test: if a person outside your industry can understand your job in 60–90 seconds, your packet is likely readable. This matters because officers may not be familiar with your tech stack or internal market titles.
What to gather for the original role (I-140 basis)
- Official duties summary: 8–12 concrete bullets (not “supports projects,” but what you do and what it produces).
- If PERM was involved: consistency across ETA-9089, ads, and your duties narrative (avoid contradictions).
- Role level: IC/Lead/Manager and what that means (autonomy, scope, impact, responsibility).
- A “technical fingerprint”: skills/tools/processes actually used (not padded lists).
What to gather for the new role (portability job)
- Offer letter + expanded job description. If the employer provides generic language, request a more detailed scope.
- Role context: reporting line, team, area of responsibility (critical for lead/manager positions).
- Compensation: base, bonus/RSUs (if any), grade, geography — so differences look logical, not suspicious.
- Remote/hybrid: conditions, primary worksite (if applicable), and how the work is supervised/accountable.
Best format: a 1–2 page “Similarity memo”
In one document: (1) state core overlapping duties, (2) list differences and explain them as progression, (3) show links by skills/tools, (4) optionally cite SOC/O*NET as an orientation (not magic), (5) end with an exhibit list. This makes the packet self-explanatory and reduces RFE risk.
Next is a working matrix. Fill it honestly for your case. If a row like “worksite” or “compensation” is blank, those are common RFE targets — they’re areas where officers often look for hidden changes in occupation or conditions.
Table B — “Same/Similar” Evidence Matrix (template for your packet)
| Comparison component | Original role (I-140 basis) |
New role (portability) |
What to attach (evidence) |
How to explain differences (if any) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Core duties what you actually do |
5–8 bullets: duties, processes, outputs | 5–8 bullets: duties, processes, outputs | Job description, role scope doc, project summaries | Highlight overlapping “core”; frame new items as expansion |
| Skills & tools stack, methods |
Tools/stack/processes | Tools/stack/processes | Resume, internal tool lists, relevant certifications | New tools = broadened skill set, not a new occupation |
| Level / seniority scope of responsibility |
IC/Lead/Manager + autonomy | IC/Lead/Manager + autonomy | Org chart, leveling rubric, employer letter describing scope | If promoted, explain progression and why still similar |
| SOC / O*NET mapping orientation, not “magic” |
SOC (if used), selected O*NET tasks | SOC (if used), selected O*NET tasks | Duty ↔ task mapping table (honest overlaps) | If SOC differs, emphasize duties/skills/level evidence |
| Compensation pay structure |
Base + bonus/other | Base + bonus/RSUs/other | Offer letter, pay stubs (if started), comp plan | Geography, grade, scope, pay structure change |
| Worksite / remote where work is performed |
Address/mode (onsite/hybrid/remote) | Address/mode (onsite/hybrid/remote) | Offer letter, remote policy, employer letter | Work mode doesn’t change occupational substance |
| Intent & bona fide offer genuine job offer |
Intent and credibility of the offer | Intent and credibility of the offer | Signed offer, employer confirmation letter, start conditions | If layoff/pause exists, provide a logical timeline |
If your case has “non-standard” elements (consulting, location change, large duty shift), use this matrix as a stress test: wherever you lack a document, that’s where USCIS questions typically form.
5) RFE triggers for “same or similar”: what breaks portability most often
RFEs typically happen not because you “can’t” port, but because USCIS sees uncertainty. The more gray areas, the more likely an officer is to ask for documentary clarification. The good news: most triggers are predictable, and you can preempt them with structure.
Five patterns that commonly trigger questions
1) Generic duties in the new role (lots of “support/participate/ensure,” little substance).
2) Hard occupational pivot: duties/tools change enough to look like a new profession.
3) Unexplained compensation change: large jump without geography/grade/scope context.
4) Consulting/end-client: unclear where and what you really do, and under what conditions.
5) Manager title without facts: no documented processes, scope, or link to the original occupation.
A strong strategy is to answer likely questions before they become an RFE: “question → document → conclusion.” The table below turns “RFE anxiety” into a practical action plan.
Table C — Trigger → how to fix → strongest documents → common mistake
| Trigger | How to resolve (logic) | Strongest documents (most helpful first) | Common mistake |
|---|---|---|---|
| New duties are too generic | Rewrite duties as “task → action → output” and show overlap of core duties | Detailed employer letter → role scope → duties matrix → sample deliverables | Adding more vague language without structure |
| Move into an “adjacent” occupation | Show the degree of core overlap; frame new items as progression | Duties/skills/tools matrix → O*NET task mapping → progression explanation letter | Relying on one SOC code and ignoring duty differences |
| Compensation changed significantly | Explain “why”: geography, market, grade, scope, pay structure | Detailed offer letter → grade/level confirmation → “before/after” factor summary | Hiding numbers or skipping context |
| Consulting and end-client dynamics | Document real work, location, role stability, and conditions | Project description → conditions confirmation → (if available) end-client materials → duties matrix | Submitting a marketing brochure with no concrete duties |
| Manager role without facts | Detail processes, deliverables, scope of management, and ties to the original occupation | Org chart → duty list with KPIs/processes → employer scope letter → bridge narrative | Trying to prove “similar” by the word “Manager” alone |
A simple build plan (no panic)
Step 1: Lock the original role narrative (clear duties + level).
Step 2: Get a detailed new role description (substance, not buzzwords).
Step 3: Fill the evidence matrix and mark gaps.
Step 4: Draft a 1–2 page similarity memo and attach exhibits.
Step 5: If an RFE arrives, respond “question → exhibit → conclusion,” not “lots of text without proof.”
Quality control: if your new role description could apply to dozens of different jobs, you need stronger specificity — and that’s exactly what RFEs typically demand.
Chart: which evidence types are “strongest” (visual quick guide)
This is not an official USCIS formula. It’s a practical strength scale: the more a document explains real duties and level, the more it tends to reduce RFE risk. Use it to prioritize what to request from the employer first.
Quick guide: more specificity + proof = stronger evidence
All chart labels are black and ≥ 15px. Fixed chart height (no runaway canvas).
6) Checklist for an RFE-resistant packet
Think of the packet as a folder where each likely officer question is already answered with a document: “what you did,” “what you will do,” “why it’s the same/similar,” “why changes happened,” and “what proves it.” Here is a practical checklist you can run in about 15 minutes.
Core checklist
- Two duty summaries: original role and new role, written in concrete bullets.
- Comparison matrix: duties/skills/level/compensation/worksite.
- 1–2 page similarity memo: overlap → differences → explanation → exhibit list.
- Level evidence: org chart / scope / leveling confirmation (critical for lead/manager moves).
- Compensation logic: short explanation of geography, grade, scope, and pay structure.
- Worksite/remote clarity: where work is performed and how accountability is handled.
If your case is “non-standard”
- Consulting/end-client: project description + confirmation of work conditions.
- Adjacent occupation: show degree of core overlap + explain the “evolution” of the role.
- Layoff/pause: a clean, logical timeline (no drama, just facts).
If an RFE still arrives: the best response structure
Strongest format: (1) quote the USCIS question, (2) give a short conclusion why it’s same/similar, (3) point to specific exhibits (Exhibit A/B/C), (4) include a duty-to-proof table, (5) end with a clear request to recognize portability — without emotional language.
FAQ: quick answers to common questions
Does the SOC code need to match perfectly?
SOC/O*NET is an orientation tool, but the substance of the job matters most. A matching SOC doesn’t help if duties are vague. If SOC differs, a strong duties/skills/level package can still support “similar,” but you must explain the bridge carefully.
Can you port after a promotion?
Often yes, if it looks like progression within the same occupational lane. Show the core duties remain, and new responsibilities are an expanded scope. Org/level evidence is especially helpful here.
What is the biggest risk in a “manager” move?
“Manager” without facts. USCIS wants to see what you manage: processes, people, budget, product — and how it ties to the original occupation. Specificity is what reduces risk.
What makes an employer letter strong?
A strong letter is not a recommendation. It’s a factual document: duty bullets, role level and scope, reporting/team context, worksite/remote mode, and confirmation that the position is full-time and permanent in nature.
7) Official .gov sources (for rule verification)
Only official U.S. government sources are listed below. Use them to verify the latest policy language and form instructions.
USCIS Policy Manual — Job Portability under INA 204(j)
USCIS policy guidance on portability: “totality of circumstances,” how “same or similar” is evaluated, key principles.
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-7-part-e-chapter-5
USCIS — Form I-485 Supplement J
Form landing page: purpose of Supplement J, current edition, and related guidance.
USCIS — Instructions for Form I-485 Supplement J (PDF)
Official instructions: required information, key fields, and the framework USCIS expects for Supplement J.
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/forms/i-485supjinstr.pdf
USCIS — Adjustment of Status (Form I-485)
AOS overview: what I-485 is, general requirements, and links to fees/instructions.
USCIS — Visa Availability / Which Visa Bulletin chart to use
Monthly USCIS page showing which Visa Bulletin chart applies to AOS filing for the current month.
