Provide the current I-94, relevant approval and application materials, and a factual description of the proposed arrangement. Include the new offer or internal transfer documents where applicable. The reviewer needs both the old baseline and the proposed facts to assess what action is needed.
Use a comparison that exposes differences
Identify the legal employer, who directs the work, duties, worksite, duration, and any client or ownership arrangement. Note uncertainty instead of filling gaps with assumptions. For a location change, explain whether the employer and duties truly remain the same.
For a new employer, provide that entity’s own employment evidence. An HR announcement or pay record alone may not explain the professional activity or authorization question. Records have limits worth naming before anyone starts gathering them.
A letter from the receiving employer establishes what that employer intends; it does not establish that the occupation is listed, that the worker holds the required credential, or that the purpose is temporary. A credential evaluation speaks to education, not to duties. A client statement of work describes a project rather than the employment relationship, and it is frequently the document that exposes a third-party arrangement nobody had flagged.
Hypothetical example: a research assistant moving between two laboratories inside the same post-secondary institution can usually show one continuous employer, while the same person engaged through an affiliated foundation is describing something else, and the payroll record rather than the offer letter reveals the difference.