Home/Federal/Federal Register/2026-18631

Proposed Rule2026-18631

Eliminating the Discretionary 60-Day Grace Period

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

September 11, 2026

Issuing agencies

Homeland Security Department

Abstract

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposes to remove regulations at 8 CFR 214.1(l)(2) to restore its previous and long- standing policy of not providing aliens in certain nonimmigrant classifications (and their dependents) with an up to 60-day grace period upon cessation of employment prior to the expiration of the alien's authorized period of stay. This proposal restores a direct relationship between an alien's nonimmigrant status and the specific employment or activity that formed the basis of his or her admission or grant of status in the United States and reduces administrative burden.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 175 (Friday, September 11, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 175 (Friday, September 11, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57807-57828]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-18631]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 175 / Friday, September 11, 2026 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 57807]]

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

8 CFR Parts 204 and 214

[CIS No. 2858-26; DHS Docket No. USCIS-2026-0364]
RIN 1615-AD22

Eliminating the Discretionary 60-Day Grace Period

AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Department
of Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposes to remove
regulations at 8 CFR 214.1(l)(2) to restore its previous and long-
standing policy of not providing aliens in certain nonimmigrant
classifications (and their dependents) with an up to 60-day grace
period upon cessation of employment prior to the expiration of the
alien's authorized period of stay. This proposal restores a direct
relationship between an alien's nonimmigrant status and the specific
employment or activity that formed the basis of his or her admission or
grant of status in the United States and reduces administrative burden.

DATES: Written comments on the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
must be submitted on or before November 10, 2026. The electronic
Federal Docket Management System will accept comments before midnight
eastern time at the end of that day.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on the entirety of this proposed
rulemaking package, identified by DHS Docket No. USCIS-2026-0364
through the Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. In
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), the summary of this rule found
above may also be found at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Follow the
website instructions for submitting comments.
Comments must be submitted in English, or an English translation
must be provided. Comments that will provide the most assistance to
USCIS in implementing these changes will reference a specific portion
of the proposed rule, explain the reason for any recommended change,
and include data, information, or authority that support such
recommended change. Comments submitted in a manner other than the one
listed above, including emails or letters sent to DHS or USCIS
officials, will not be considered comments on the proposed rule and may
not receive a response from DHS. Please note that DHS and USCIS cannot
accept any comments that are hand-delivered or couriered. In addition,
USCIS cannot accept comments contained on any form of digital media
storage devices, such as CDs/DVDs and USB drives. USCIS is also not
accepting mailed comments at this time. If you cannot submit your
comment by using <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>, please contact the
Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security,
by telephone at (240) 721-3000 for alternate instructions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Business and Foreign Workers Division,
Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 5900 Capital Gateway
Drive, Camp Springs, MD 20746; telephone (240) 721-3000 (not a toll-
free call).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Public Participation
II. Executive Summary
A. Purpose and Summary of the Regulatory Action
B. Legal Authority
C. Costs and Benefits
III. Background
A. E-1, E-2, and E-3 Nonimmigrant Visa Classifications
B. H-1B and H-1B1 Nonimmigrant Visa Classifications
C. L-1 Nonimmigrant Visa Classification
D. O-1 Nonimmigrant Visa Classification
E. TN Nonimmigrant Visa Classification
F. Creation of the Up to 60-Day Discretionary Grace Period
IV. Discussion of Proposed Rule
A. Need for the Proposed Rule
B. Requiring Nonimmigrants To Depart Upon Cessation of
Employment or Activity
C. Reducing Administrative Burden
D. Reliance Interests and Potential Impact of This Rule
E. Alternatives Considered
V. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review),
Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review),
and Executive Order 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity Through
Deregulation)
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
E. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
F. Family Assessment
G. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments)
H. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
I. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

Table of Abbreviations

AC21--American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of
2000
BLS--Bureau of Labor Statistics
CDAO--Chief Data and Analytics Office
CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
CPI-U--Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers
DHS--U.S. Department of Homeland Security
DOJ--U.S. Department of Justice
DOL--U.S. Department of Labor
DOW--U.S. Department of War
EAD--Employment Authorization Document
EB--Employment-Based
E.O.--Executive Order
EOIR--Executive Office for Immigration Review
FAM--Foreign Affairs Manual
FR--Federal Register
FY--Fiscal Year
HSA--Homeland Security Act of 2002
ICE--U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
INA--Immigration and Nationality Act
IRFA--Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
LPR--Lawful Permanent Resident
NAICS--North American Industry Classification System
NEPA--National Environmental Policy Act
NPRM--Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
OMB--Office of Management and Budget
PRA--Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Pub. L.--Public Law
RFA--Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
RIA--regulatory impact analysis
SBA--U.S. Small Business Administration
Secretary--Secretary of Homeland Security
UMRA--Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 1995
U.S.C.--United States Code
USCIS--U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

I. Public Participation

DHS invites all interested parties to participate in this
rulemaking by

[[Page 57808]]

submitting written data, views, comments and arguments on all aspects
of this proposed rule. DHS also invites comments that relate to the
economic, environmental, or federalism effects that might result from
this proposed rule. Comments must be submitted in English, or an
English translation must be provided. Comments that will provide the
most assistance to USCIS in implementing these changes will reference a
specific portion of the proposed rule, explain the reason for any
recommended change, and include data, information, or authority that
support such recommended change. Comments submitted in a manner other
than the one listed above, including emails or letters sent to DHS or
USCIS officials, will not be considered comments on the proposed rule
and may not receive a response from DHS.
Instructions: If you submit a comment, you must include the agency
name (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) and the DHS Docket No.
USCIS-2026-0364 for this rulemaking. Please note, all submissions will
be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>, and will include any personal information you
provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You
may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that
you provide in any voluntary public comment submission you make to DHS.
DHS may withhold information provided in comments from public viewing
that it determines may impact the privacy of an individual or is
offensive. For additional information, please read the Privacy and
Security Notice available at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>.
Docket: For access to the docket and to read background documents
or comments received, go to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>, referencing DHS
Docket No. USCIS-2026-0364. You may also sign up for email alerts on
the online docket to be notified when comments are posted or a final
rule is published.

II. Executive Summary

A. Purpose and Summary of the Regulatory Action

The purpose of this proposed rule is to remove the availability of
the up to 60-day discretionary grace period from the regulations at 8
CFR 214.1(l)(2). The up to 60-day discretionary grace period
disconnects the alien's lawful status from the very basis of
eligibility under these employment-based nonimmigrant classifications.
By statute, an alien's lawful status in E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-
1, O-1, or TN nonimmigrant classification is directly connected to and
contingent upon the alien conducting certain employment activities or
otherwise providing services in the United States that is generally
tied to a petitioning employer. In order for an alien in any one of
these classifications to maintain his or her status, the alien
generally must maintain the employment or continue to perform the
activity that was the basis of the alien's eligibility for the
classification and associated admission or grant of status. However,
under current regulations, these aliens, and their dependents, are not
considered to have failed to maintain nonimmigrant status for a grace
period of up to 60 days following cessation of the employment or
activity that was the basis of their nonimmigrant status, unless that
grace period is shortened or eliminated as a matter of DHS discretion.
Typically, the decision whether or not to shorten or eliminate the
grace period is made by DHS when a petitioner submits a petition on
behalf of an alien, or the alien submits an application on behalf of
him or herself, which seeks to extend the stay or change or adjust the
status of the alien following the cessation of employment or activity
that was the basis of his or her initial classification or grant of
status.
The proposed rule, by removing the up to 60-day discretionary grace
period, would better align the regulations with the statutory
provisions governing the relevant classifications by requiring an alien
to depart from the United States immediately upon his or her failure to
maintain the employment or activity that was the basis for the
nonimmigrant classification or status (unless otherwise authorized to
lawfully remain in the United States). It would also reduce the
administrative burden on USCIS associated with the grace period.
DHS originally extended this grace period to aliens in the listed
classifications, and their dependents, to encourage aliens who ceased
employment prior to the end of the petition validity period to remain
in the United States to pursue other immigration options to maintain a
lawful immigration status and, depending on the classification sought,
continue or regain employment authorization; and to help U.S. employers
to more easily facilitate changes in employment for existing and newly
recruited nonimmigrant workers.\1\ However, the relevant rulemaking did
not sufficiently consider the negative impacts of the grace period
provision. Upon reconsideration, and consistent with the Secretary of
Homeland Security's (Secretary) broad authority to set the time and
conditions of admission of nonimmigrants and to require that they
depart the United States upon failure to maintain the employment or
activity that was the basis for the classification or status, DHS
believes that removing the up to 60-day discretionary grace period
through this proposed rule is necessary to better align the regulations
with the statutory basis for nonimmigrant status and to reduce
administrative burden associated with administering the grace period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ See Retention of EB-1, EB-2, EB-3 Immigrant Workers and
Program Improvements Affecting High-Skilled Nonimmigrant Workers, 81
FR 82398 (Nov. 18, 2016) (``This grace period allows high-skilled
workers in these classifications, including those whose employment
ceases prior to the end of the petition validity period, to more
readily pursue new employment should they be eligible for other
employer-sponsored nonimmigrant classifications or employment in the
same classification with a new employer. The grace period also
allows U.S. employers to more easily facilitate changes in
employment for existing or newly recruited nonimmigrant workers'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Legal Authority

The Secretary's authority for regulatory amendments is found in
various provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA or the
Act), 8 U.S.C. 1101, et seq., and the Homeland Security Act (HSA) of
2002, Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, 6 U.S.C. 101, et seq.,
General authority for issuing this rule is found in section 103(a) of
the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1103(a), which authorizes the Secretary to administer
and enforce the immigration and nationality laws, and to establish such
regulations as the Secretary deems necessary for carrying out such
authority, as well as section 102 of the HSA, 6 U.S.C. 112, which vests
all of the functions of DHS in the Secretary and authorizes the
Secretary to issue regulations.\2\ Additional authority for this rule
is found in:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ Although several provisions of the INA discussed in this
proposed rule refer exclusively to the ``Attorney General,'' such
provisions are now to be read as referring to the Secretary of
Homeland Security by operation of the HSA. See, e.g., INA secs.
103(a)(1) and 214(a), 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(1) and 1184(a); Nielsen v.
Preap, 139 S. Ct. 954, 959 n.2 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

<bullet> Section 101(a)(15) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15), which
establishes classifications for aliens who are coming temporarily to
the United States as nonimmigrants, including the E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B,
H-1B1, L-1 and O-1 classifications, see INA sec. 101(a)(15)(E)(i), (ii)
and (iii), (H)(i)(b) and (b1), (L) and (O), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(E)(i),
(ii) and (iii), (H)(i)(b) and (b1), (L) and (O);

[[Page 57809]]

<bullet> Section 214(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1184(a), which
authorizes the Secretary to prescribe by regulation the time and
conditions of the admission of nonimmigrants.
<bullet> Section 214(e) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1184(e), which
authorizes the admission of aliens under the TN classification pursuant
to the provisions of Section D of Annex 16-A of the USMCA (United
States-Mexico-Canada Agreement) (as defined in 19 U.S.C. 4502); and
<bullet> Section 451(a)(3) and (b) of the HSA, 6 U.S.C. 271(a)(3)
and (b), transferring to USCIS the authority to adjudicate petitions
for nonimmigrant status, establish policies for performing that
function, and set national immigration services policies and
priorities.

C. Costs and Benefits

The purpose of this NPRM is to propose removing 8 CFR 214.1(1)(2)
from DHS regulations and no longer providing an up to 60-day
discretionary grace period for aliens admitted or otherwise provided
status in the E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, O-1, and TN
classifications, and their dependents, following cessation of the
employment or activity that was the basis for the alien's admission or
grant of status. As discussed fully in Section V.A.3 Costs and Benefits
of the Proposed Rule of this preamble, DHS conducted a qualitative
assessment of the impact of the proposed rulemaking on primary E-1, E-
2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, O-1, and TN nonimmigrants and their
dependents who are authorized to work. DHS recognizes that as a
consequence of this change, a subset of these aliens may incur lost
income if they require additional days to conduct their job search and
return to the United States because they would need to leave the
country instead of being able to stay and begin new employment without
departing. DHS estimates that under this proposed rule, some aliens may
be issued Notices to Appear (NTA),\3\ thereby incurring costs of
attending immigration hearings with the Department of Justice Executive
Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) as part of removal proceedings.
However, the proposed rule would enable DHS to conduct the
administration and adjudication of immigration benefit requests for E-
1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, O-1, and TN classifications with
increased fidelity and is conducive to program integrity. DHS
acknowledges that the proposed rulemaking would marginally increase the
volume of USCIS referrals to EOIR annually and lead to a minor increase
in workload demands on both DOJ and U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ A Notice to Appear (NTA), Form I-862, is issued by DHS to
initiate removal proceedings under section 240 of the Act, 8 U.S.C.
1229a. For more information on NTAs, see Department of Justice,
Executive Office for Immigration Review, The Notice to Appear,
<a href="https://www.justice.gov/eoir/notice-appear">https://www.justice.gov/eoir/notice-appear</a> (last updated Dec. 14,
2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Background

Many aliens come to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa
classification. Certain nonimmigrant visa classifications, including E-
1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, O-1, and TN, permit aliens to be
employed or otherwise provide services in the United States for
temporary periods. Each classification for purposes of employment or
otherwise performing services in the United States has its own
eligibility requirements, and terms and conditions related to the
period of admission of status and maintenance of status, the ability to
renew the status, and the ability to change jobs or employers.

A. E-1, E-2, and E-3 Nonimmigrant Visa Classifications

The E-1 nonimmigrant classification allows aliens of certain treaty
countries to be admitted to the United States solely to engage in
international trade on their own behalf. To qualify for E-1
classification, the treaty trader must be (1) a national of a country
with which the United States maintains a qualifying treaty, and (2)
carry on substantial trade, principally between the United States and
the treaty country that qualifies the treaty trader for E-1
classifications. See INA sec. 101(a)(15)(E)(i), 8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(15)(E)(i); 8 CFR 214.2(e)(1). Additionally, certain employees
of a treaty trader, the treaty organization's parent company or one of
its subsidiaries may also be eligible for the classification. See 8 CFR
214.2(e)(3) and (8). An E-1 nonimmigrant's employment is restricted,
and he or she may only engage in trade activity and work in the
employment for which he or she was admitted or otherwise granted E-1
status. See 8 CFR 214.2(e)(8) and 274a.12(b)(5).
The E-2 nonimmigrant classification concerns nationals of treaty
countries who invest a substantial amount of capital in a U.S.
enterprise. To qualify for E-2 classification, the treaty investor must
(1) be a national of a country with which the United States maintains a
qualifying treaty, (2) have invested or be actively in the process of
investing a substantial amount of capital in a bona fide enterprise in
the United States and (3) be seeking to enter the United States solely
to develop and direct the enterprise. See INA sec. 101(a)(15)(E)(ii), 8
U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(E)(ii); 8 CFR 214.2(e)(2). Certain employees of
treaty investors or the treaty investor's qualifying organization may
also be eligible for the classification, but the employee's work is
limited to the investment activity. See 8 CFR 214.2(e)(3) and (8) and
274a.12(b)(5). A treaty investor or employee in E-2 nonimmigrant status
may only engage in the investment activity or work in the employment
for which he or she was approved at the time the classification was
granted. See 8 CFR 214.2(e)(8)(i). E-2 nonimmigrant employees, however,
may also work for the treaty organization's parent company or one of
its subsidiaries in certain circumstances. See 8 CFR 214.2(e)(8)(ii).
E-1 and E-2 nonimmigrants generally may be admitted or otherwise
granted nonimmigrant status for an initial period of up to 2 years and
such status may be renewed indefinitely, in increments of up to 2
years, so long as the alien continues to meet the relevant
qualifications.\4\ See 8 CFR 214.2(e)(19) and (20). Additionally, E-1
and E-2 nonimmigrants must intend to depart the United States upon
expiration or termination of their status. See 8 CFR 214.2(e)(1) and
(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ Aliens assigned to the Taipei Economic and Cultural
Representative Office (TECRO) or Taipei Economic and Cultural Office
(TECO) in the United States, and their dependents, are issued E-1
visas and admitted in E-1 nonimmigrant status for duration of
status. 9 FAM 402.3-5(I)(2). Additionally, the CNMI-Only Investor
(E-2) visa classification allows certain foreign, long-term
investors to remain lawfully present in the CNMI through December
31, 2029, while they resolve their immigration status. See 8 CFR
214.2(e)(23). This classification is intended to help as the CNMI
transitions from the CNMI permit system to U.S. immigration laws. E-
2 CNMI investors, and their dependents, may extend their E-2 status
in two-year increments ending on December 31, 2029.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The E-3 nonimmigrant visa classification concerns specialty
occupation workers who are nationals of the Commonwealth of Australia.
See INA sec. 101(a)(15)(E)(iii), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(E)(iii). The
definition of the term ``specialty occupation'' is the same as for the
H-1B classification. See INA sec. 214(i)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1184(i)(1). To
qualify for the E-3 classification, the employer must file a Labor
Condition Application (LCA) in accordance with section 212(t)(1) of the
INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(t)(1), and may then apply directly to the Department
of State if the alien is outside of the United States or the employer
may file a petition requesting E-3 status with USCIS if the alien is
present in the United States in another classification. See 9 Foreign
Affairs

[[Page 57810]]

Manual (FAM) 402.9-8(C). E-3 nonimmigrant workers may be admitted or
otherwise granted status for an initial period not to exceed the
validity period of the accompanying LCA (granted for 2 years) and may
be granted indefinite extensions of stay in increments of up to 2
years. See 20 CFR 655.750(a)(2). An E-3 nonimmigrant's employment is
restricted, and he or she may only engage in the specialty occupation
employment for which he or she was admitted or otherwise granted E-3
status. See 8 CFR 274a.12(b)(5). As with other nonimmigrant visa
classifications, the E-3 classification requires the alien intend to
depart the United States upon expiration or termination of his or her
status.

B. H-1B and H-1B1 Nonimmigrant Visa Classifications

The H-1B nonimmigrant visa program allows U.S. employers to
temporarily employ foreign workers in specialty occupations, defined by
statute as occupations that require the theoretical and practical
application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and a bachelor's
or higher degree in the specific specialty, or its equivalent (referred
to as a ``specialty occupation'').\5\ See INA sec.101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b)
and 214(i), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) and 1184(i); see also 8 CFR
214.2(h)(1)(ii)(B). Congress set the current annual cap for the H-1B
visa category at 65,000, which limits the number of beneficiaries who
may be issued an initial H-1B visa or otherwise provided initial H-1B
status each fiscal year.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ An H-1B petition can be filed for a foreign national to
perform services in a specialty occupation, services relating to a
Department of War (DOW) cooperative research and development project
or coproduction project, or services of distinguished merit and
ability in the field of fashion modeling. See 8 CFR
214.2(h)(4)(i)(A).
\6\ The 65,000 annual H-1B numerical limitation was increased
for FYs 1999-2003. See INA section 214(g)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C.
1184(g)(1)(A), as amended by section 411 of the ACWIA, Public Law
105-277, div. C, tit. IV, 112 Stat. 2681, and the American
Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000 (AC21),
Public Law 106-313, 114 Stat. 1251, as amended by the 21st Century
Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, Public Law
107-273, 116 Stat. 1758 (2002). Congress also created several
exemptions from the 65,000 numerical limitation. See INA sec.
214(g)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

An employer who seeks to temporarily employ an alien as an H-1B in
a specialty occupation must file an LCA in accordance with section
212(n)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(n)(1), and a petition to obtain H-
1B nonimmigrant classification on behalf of the alien. See INA sec.
214(c)(1), 8 U.S.C 1184(c)(1). Employers and certain agents that
satisfy DHS regulatory requirements are eligible to file H-1B
petitions. See 8 CFR 214.2(h)(2)(i)(A) and (F). H-1B specialty
occupation workers generally may be admitted or otherwise granted
nonimmigrant status for an initial period of up to 3 years. See 8 CFR
214.2(h)(9)(iii)(A)(1). The maximum period of authorized admission of
an alien in the H-1B classification is generally 6 years. See INA sec.
214(g)(4), 8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(4). Typically, an H-1B petition may not be
approved for an alien who has stayed for the maximum allowable amount
of time in the United States in either H-1B or L-1 \7\ nonimmigrant
worker status unless the alien has resided and been physically present
outside the United States for the immediate prior year. See 8 CFR
214.2(h)(13)(iii)(A). An H-1B nonimmigrant's employment is restricted,
and he or she may only engage in the employment for which he or she was
admitted or otherwise granted H-1B status, or as otherwise authorized
under H-1B portability. See 8 CFR 274a.12(b)(9).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ The L-1 nonimmigrant worker classification is described in
Section III.C. of this preamble.
\8\ Under H-1B portability, H-1B nonimmigrants may be authorized
to work in new employment upon the filing of an H-1B petition for
new employment rather than having to wait for the petition to be
approved. See INA sec. 214(n), 8 U.S.C. 1184(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The H-1B1 program allows U.S. employers to temporarily employ
nationals of Singapore and Chile in specialty occupations. See INA
sec.101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b1) and 214(i), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b1). An
employer who seeks to temporarily employ an alien in H-1B1 status must
file an LCA in accordance with section 212(t)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C.
1182(t)(1), and may then apply directly to the Department of State if
the alien is outside of the United States or may file a petition
requesting H-1B1 status with USCIS if the alien is present in the
United States in another classification. See 9 FAM 402.10-5(C)-(D).
Aliens may be granted status in 1-year increments, with no maximum on
the number of extensions. See INA sec. 214(g)(8)(C), 8 U.S.C.
1184(g)(8)(C). Up to 6,800 visas are set aside from the 65,000 H-1B cap
each fiscal year for the H-1B1 visa program under terms of the
legislation implementing the U.S.-Chile and U.S.-Singapore free trade
agreements. See INA secs. 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b1), 214(g)(8), 8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b1), 1184(g)(8). An H-1B1 nonimmigrant's employment
is restricted, and he or she may only engage in the employment for
which he or she was admitted or otherwise granted H-1B1 status. See 8
CFR 274a.12(b)(9).

C. L-1 Nonimmigrant Visa Classification

The L-1 nonimmigrant classification allows for the temporary
transfer of aliens with the requisite management, executive, or
specialized knowledge skills to the United States to continue
employment with an office of the same employer, its parent, branch,
subsidiary, or affiliate. See INA sec. 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(15)(L); 8 CFR 214.2(l).\9\ In order to obtain L-1 status for an
employee, a qualifying organization must file a petition with USCIS
that must be approved before the alien can obtain a visa to the United
States or change status. See INA sec. 214(c)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1184(c)(1); 8
CFR 214.2(l)(2). Executive and managerial employees qualify for L-1A
status and are admitted for a maximum initial stay of 3 years with
extensions of stay granted in increments up to 2 years, until the
employee has reached the maximum limit of 7 years. See INA sec.
214(c)(1)(D)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1184(c)(1)(D)(i); 8 CFR 214.2(l)(12)(i) and
(15)(ii). Specialized knowledge employees qualify for L-1B status and
are admitted for a maximum initial stay of 3 years with extensions of
stay granted in increments up to 2 years, until the employee has
reached the maximum limit of 5 years. See INA sec. 214(c)(1)(D)(ii), 8
U.S.C. 1184(c)(1)(D)(ii); 8 CFR 214.2(l)(12)(i) and (15)(ii). An L-1
nonimmigrant's employment is restricted, and he or she may only engage
in the employment for which he or she was admitted or otherwise granted
L-1 status. See 8 CFR 274a.12(b)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ In 1970 Congress amended the INA and established the L visa
category for intracompany transferees. See INA sec. 101(a)(15)(L), 8
U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(L). Section 214(c)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C.
1184(c)(2), contains the current provisions for the L nonimmigrant
visa classification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. O-1 Nonimmigrant Visa Classification

The O-1 nonimmigrant visa classification includes individuals who
either (1) have extraordinarily ability in the science, arts,
education, business or athletics as demonstrated by sustained national
or international acclaim; or (2) who have a demonstrated record of
extraordinary achievements in the motion picture or television
industry, as recognized in the field through extensive documentation.
See INA sec. 101(a)(15)(O), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(O); 8 CFR
214.2(o)(1)(ii)(A). O-1 nonimmigrants must be coming temporarily to the
United States to

[[Page 57811]]

continue work in the relevant area of extraordinary ability or
achievement and may only be admitted after being petitioned for by an
importing employer. See INA sec. 101(a)(15)(O), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(O)
and INA sec. 214(c), 8 U.S.C. 1184(c); 8 CFR 214.2(o)(1)(ii)(A). An O-1
nonimmigrant may be admitted for up to 3 years, plus a period of up to
10 days before the validity period begins and 10 days after the
validity period ends. See 8 CFR 214.2(o)(6)(iii)(A) and (o)(10).
Extension of status may be authorized in increments of up to 1 year,
and such status may be renewed indefinitely to continue to complete the
same event or activity. See 8 CFR 214.2(o)(12)(ii). An O-1
nonimmigrant's employment is restricted, and he or she may only engage
in the work that formed the basis of his or her status, with a limited
exception for traded professional athletes. See 8 CFR 274a.12(b)(13).

E. TN Nonimmigrant Visa Classification

The TN nonimmigrant classification, established in the North
American Free Trade Agreement,\10\ permits qualified Canadian and
Mexican citizens to seek temporary entry into the United States to
engage in business activities at a professional level. See INA sec.
214(e), 8 U.S.C. 1184(e); 8 CFR 214.6(b). The TN nonimmigrant worker
must not intend to establish a business or be self-employed in the
United States, and he or she must be arriving pursuant to a prearranged
agreement with a U.S. employer. See INA sec. 214(e), 8 U.S.C. 1184(e);
8 CFR 214.6(b). An eligible alien seeking TN classification may be
granted TN status for an initial period not to exceed 3 years. See 8
CFR 214.6(e). Extensions of stay may be granted for periods not to
exceed 3 years at a time. See 8 CFR 214.6(h)(1)(iii). TN is a temporary
nonimmigrant classification, although there is no specific limit to the
total period of time an alien may remain in the United States in TN
status as long as he or she continues to be engaged in TN business
activities for a U.S. employer or entity at a professional level, and
otherwise continues to properly maintain TN status. See 8 CFR
214.6(h)(1)(iv). While there is no specific limit on the total period
of time an alien may remain in the United States in TN status, the
alien's period of stay is expected to have a ``reasonable, finite end''
and he or she must demonstrate this temporary intent to the
satisfaction of the inspecting immigration officer. See 8 CFR 214.6(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ See 58 FR 69205 (Dec. 1993); 58 FR 68526 (Dec. 28, 1993).
NAFTA was substituted by the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement
(USMCA) which entered into force on July 1, 2020. For the full text
of the USMCA, see, Office of the United States Trade Representative,
Agreement between the United States of America, the United Mexican
States and Canada 07/01/20, <a href="https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/united-states-mexico-canada-agreement/agreement-between">https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/united-states-mexico-canada-agreement/agreement-between</a> (last visited June 29, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Creation of the Up to 60-Day Discretionary Grace Period

DHS regulations provide for a discretionary grace period to aliens
in certain nonimmigrant status at various times during their admission
period. During a grace period, these aliens are not considered to have
failed to maintain status solely by not engaging in the qualifying
employment or activity for which they were admitted to the United
States. See, e.g., 8 CFR 214.1(l); 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(iv); 8 CFR
214.2(j)(1)(ii); 8 CFR 214.2(o)(12)(ii).
Before 2017, there was no grace period for nonimmigrant workers in
E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, O-1, or TN classification whose
employment or activity ended during their period of lawful status. At
that time, an alien who was admitted or otherwise provided status in
the impacted nonimmigrant classifications was generally considered to
have failed to maintain his or her status beginning on the day after
the end of his or her employment or activity with the sponsoring
employer and was expected to depart the United States immediately,
unless otherwise authorized to lawfully remain in the United States. If
an alien nonimmigrant fails to maintain status in the United States, he
or she also becomes removable from the United States. See INA sec.
237(a)(1)(C), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(C). Additionally, such an alien
generally was not permitted to seek an extension of his or her stay in
the United States in accordance with 8 CFR 214.1(c),\11\ or an
application for change of status under section 248 of the Act, 8 U.S.C.
1258, and 8 CFR part 248.\12\ Failure to maintain status may also carry
other immigration consequences for the alien in the future.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ See 8 CFR 214.1(c)(4)(i) (an extension or amendment of stay
may not be approved for an alien who failed to maintain the
previously accorded status or where such status expired before the
application or petition was filed, except in certain circumstances).
\12\ See 8 CFR 248.1(a) (any alien lawfully admitted to the
United States as a nonimmigrant who is continuing to maintain his or
her nonimmigrant status may apply to have his or her nonimmigrant
classification changed to any nonimmigrant classification other than
the categories specified in that part).
\13\ For example, depending on when the alien departs, the alien
may risk accruing unlawful presence which could lead to the alien
being inadmissible under INA 212(a)(9)(B) for either 3 or 10 years.
Additionally, if either USCIS (as part of adjudicating a future
request for an immigration benefit) or an Immigration Judge (as part
of removal proceedings) determines that the nonimmigrant violated
his or her status, accrual of unlawful presence begins on the date
of determination if such date is earlier than the expiration date of
the I-94. See USCIS Memorandum from Donald Neufeld/Lori Scialabba/
Pearl Chang, ``Consolidation of Guidance Concerning Unlawful
Presence for Purposes of Sections 212(a)(9)(B)(i) and
212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) of the Act'' (May 6, 2009) (describing when
aliens accrue unlawful presence). Failure to maintain status and the
failure to depart after the alien fails to maintain status may also
carry consequences for purposes of obtaining discretionary
immigration benefits in the future, as it may be deemed a negative
factor in the alien's immigration history. Failure to maintain
status may also subject the alien to certain bars to adjusting
status to that of a lawful permanent resident. See, e.g., INA sec.
245(c)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1255(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 2016, DHS promulgated a final rule establishing an up to 60-day
discretionary grace period following cessation of employment for aliens
present in E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, O-1 or TN status (and their
dependents). See Retention of EB-1, EB-2, EB-3 Immigrant Workers and
Program Improvements Affecting High-Skilled Nonimmigrant Workers, 81 FR
82398 (Nov. 18, 2016) (AC21 final rule).\14\ The rule was effective on
January 17, 2017. Id. The purpose of the up to 60-day discretionary
grace period was to enhance job portability, stability, and flexibility
for these high-skilled nonimmigrant workers upon cessation of
employment. See 80 FR 81900, 81923 (Dec. 31, 2015); see also 81 FR
82398, 82439 (Nov. 18, 2016). The up to 60-day discretionary grace
period was codified at 8 CFR 214.1(l)(2) and allowed an alien present
in the United States in one of those statuses, and their dependents, to
remain in the United States for up to 60 days or until the end of the
authorized validity period, whichever is shorter, without being
considered to have failed to maintain his or her status on the basis of
cessation of employment or activity of the principal alien, unless such
grace period was shortened or eliminated by DHS.\15\ See 8 CFR

[[Page 57812]]

214.1(l)(2).\16\ In the AC21 final rule, DHS stated that it may
consider such an alien to have not violated his or her nonimmigrant
status and allow that alien to extend his or her stay with a new
petitioner, or change status, if otherwise eligible. See 81 FR 82398,
82436 (Nov. 18, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ See also Retention of EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3 Immigrant
Workers and Program Improvement Affecting High-Skilled Nonimmigrant
Workers, 80 FR 81900 (Dec. 31, 2015) (AC21 proposed rule). The rule
is referred to as the ``AC21'' rule because it implemented the
provisions of the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act,
Public Law 106-313, 114 Stat. 1251 (Oct. 17, 2000).
\15\ The up to 60-day grace period extends to dependent alien
spouses or children (under the age of 21 and unmarried) who
accompany or follow to join the principal alien. See 8 CFR
214.1(l)(2). During the up to 60-day discretionary grace period
during which USCIS considers the principal nonimmigrant worker to
have maintained nonimmigrant status following cessation of
employment, his or her dependents may also be considered to have
maintained nonimmigrant status. See 81 FR 82398, 82466 (Nov. 18,
2016). Depending on their classification, some of these dependents
are authorized (but are not required) to be employed in the United
States, including E nonimmigrant spouses pursuant to section
214(e)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1184(e)(2). The focus of the grace
period under 8 CFR 214.1(l)(2), however, is on the work performed by
the principal and whether the principal nonimmigrant is maintaining
nonimmigrant status. See 80 FR 81900, 81924 (Dec. 31, 2015). The
cessation of a dependent's employment, if authorized to work as a
nonimmigrant in a dependent status, does not impact the nonimmigrant
status of the dependent or the principal.
\16\ The AC21 final rule also codified an up-to 10-day grace
period at 8 CFR 214.1(l)(1), extending availability of the grace
period available to H-1B nonimmigrants to aliens in the E-1, E-2, E-
3, L-1 and TN classifications, and including reference to H-1B in 8
CFR 214.1(l)(1) to align the regulations (a 10-day grace period for
O-1 nonimmigrants was codified elsewhere). See 81 FR 82398, 82435-
82438 (Nov. 18, 2016); see also 8 CFR 214.2(h)(13) (2015), and 8 CFR
214.2(o)(12). Because 8 CFR 214.1(l)(1) specifies that this 10-day
grace period applies ``after the validity period ends,'' it would
not apply to a worker who ceases employment during the approved
validity period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DHS also noted in a comment response that the decision whether to
shorten or eliminate the up to 60-day grace period is discretionary,
stating that ``such adjudications require individualized assessments
that consider the totality of the circumstances surrounding the
cessation of employment and the beneficiary's activities after such
cessation'' and provided a list of non-exclusive circumstances that
could impact DHS's discretionary determination. See 81 FR 82398, 82436
(Nov. 18, 2016). USCIS assesses whether the alien warrants the grace
period and exercises discretion to eliminate or shorten this up to 60-
day period when adjudicating any subsequent request for extension of
stay or change of status or other applicable benefit request.\17\
During the up to 60 days following the cessation of their authorized
employment, aliens may potentially obtain new job offers from employers
that seek to file new nonimmigrant petitions \18\ that are coupled with
a request for a change of status or an extension of stay, on the
alien's behalf. See 8 CFR 214.1(c)(4) and (l)(3), 8 CFR 248.1.
Alternatively, the alien may, without the assistance of a petitioner,
seek to change his or her status to a nonimmigrant status that is not
related to working in the United States, such as change of status to
student (F) nonimmigrant visa classification to pursue studies in the
United States, or seek to adjust his or her status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ Certain nonimmigrants present in the United States who are
admitted for a specific period of time, or their petitioning
employers, may request an extension of the nonimmigrant's admission
period in order to continue to engage in those activities permitted
under the nonimmigrant classification in which they were admitted.
See, generally, 8 CFR 214.1(c). Additionally, certain nonimmigrants
who are present in the United States, or their petitioners, may seek
to change the nonimmigrant's status to another nonimmigrant
classification in accordance with section 248 of the Act, 8 U.S.C.
1258 and 8 CFR part 248. A change of status or extension of stay may
be filed on Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker, or Form I-
539, Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status, depending on
the nonimmigrant's circumstances. An extension of stay or change of
status is ordinarily only granted if the alien is still in, and has
maintained, his or her nonimmigrant status at the time the request
is filed. See, generally, 8 CFR 214.1(c) and 8 CFR part 248; Form I-
129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Workers, <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/i-129">https://www.uscis.gov/i-129</a>
(last updated June 15, 2026), and Form I-539, Application to Extend/
Change Nonimmigrant Status, <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/i-539">https://www.uscis.gov/i-539</a> (last
updated June 1, 2026).
\18\ These petitions are generally filed on Form I-129, Petition
for Nonimmigrant Workers, <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/i-129">https://www.uscis.gov/i-129</a> (last updated
June 15, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, DHS explained in the AC21 final rule that while a
nonimmigrant worker may only receive one grace period in an authorized
validity period, he or she would be eligible for a new up to 60-day
discretionary grace period in connection with any subsequently
authorized validity period. See 8 CFR 214.1(l)(2); 81 FR 82398, 82438
(Nov. 18, 2016).

IV. Discussion of Proposed Rule

DHS is firmly committed to better aligning the regulations with the
statutory purpose for which the alien was admitted or otherwise
provided nonimmigrant status and to reducing administrative burdens.
Removal of the up to 60-day discretionary grace period furthers these
essential goals.
DHS believes that restoring the expectation that aliens depart the
United States upon cessation of the employment or activity upon which
the alien's status was based, would better promote program integrity
and be more consistent with statutory purpose. DHS also believes that
removal of the up to 60-day discretionary grace period would reduce
administrative burden, as the process of determining when the up to 60-
day grace period may apply, reviewing the information submitted, and
determining whether to shorten or eliminate the grace period may be
time consuming and complex for the agency and confusing or
unpredictable for the petitioner, alien and the alien's dependents.
As such, DHS proposes to remove the discretionary up to 60-day
grace period provided in 8 CFR 214.1(l)(2).\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ DHS also proposes a technical revision to remove a cross-
reference to 8 CFR 214.1(l)(2) from 8 CFR 204.5(p)(1)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Need for the Proposed Rule

As noted, the up to 60-day discretionary grace period was added in
the AC21 final rule. In that rule, DHS's reasoning for the addition of
the grace period heavily emphasized the benefit to certain high-skilled
immigrants and their U.S. employers. 81 FR 82398, 82436 (Nov. 18,
2016). DHS now believes, based on its experience administering the up
to 60-day discretionary grace period over the last 10 years, that the
existence of the grace period is inconsistent with the purpose for
which Congress created the relevant nonimmigrant classifications. DHS
also believes the grace period increases administrative burden on USCIS
by adding complexity to the documentation and adjudication process.
While many of the factors that USCIS considers in adjudicating a
subsequent immigration benefit request where a grace period is
applicable are also relevant to a discretionary decision whether to
shorten or eliminate the grace period, the need for adjudicators to
consider the grace period can add steps to the process. For example,
officers adjudicating subsequent benefit requests (such as an extension
petition which generally requires the beneficiary to have maintained
status) must also determine whether the grace period would impact the
benefit request, as this is not always clear from the request itself.
The officer must also determine whether to eliminate the grace period
as a matter of discretion and, if an officer decides not to eliminate
the grace period, the officer then must determine and verify the end
date of the alien's prior employment to determine the start and end
date of the grace period.
In the AC21 proposed rule, DHS claimed a need for the addition of a
grace period because, under the policies in effect at the time, aliens
such as H-1B nonimmigrant workers whose employment ended (voluntarily
or upon being terminated by the employer) were generally considered to
be present in violation of their status, and thus, were required to
depart the United States immediately. See 80 FR 81900, 81923-24 (Dec.
31, 2015). DHS explained that the proposal to afford these workers, who
are facing sudden changes to their employment, up to 60 days to seek
new employment and thereby extend their status without having to
immediately depart the country, would remedy that situation. See 80 FR
81900, 81923-24 (Dec. 31, 2015). Furthermore, DHS also explained the up
to 60-day discretionary grace period would allow these high-skilled
workers to more readily pursue new employment should they be

[[Page 57813]]

eligible for other employer-sponsored nonimmigrant classifications or
for the same classification with a new employer, and would allow U.S.
employers to more easily facilitate changes in employment for existing
or newly recruited nonimmigrant workers. See 80 FR 81900, 81902 (Dec.
31, 2015). Similarly, in the AC21 final rule, DHS explained that the up
to 60-day discretionary grace period allows such nonimmigrants to
remain in the United States without violating their status and
potentially obtain new job offers from employers that seek to file new
nonimmigrant petitions, and requests for an extension of stay, on their
behalf. See 81 FR 82398, 82436 (Nov.18, 2016). DHS explained that in
such cases, even though prior employment may have terminated several
weeks prior to the filing of the new petition, DHS may consider such an
alien to have not violated his or her nonimmigrant status and allow
that alien to extend his or her stay with a new petitioner, if
otherwise eligible. See 81 FR 82398, 82436 (Nov. 18, 2016).
DHS repeatedly made it clear that the purpose of the up to 60-day
discretionary grace period was to increase mobility for certain high-
skilled aliens and to improve the ability of U.S. employers to more
easily facilitate changes in employment for existing and newly
recruited nonimmigrant workers. DHS now believes that the justification
did not sufficiently consider the fact that the introduction of the up
to 60-day discretionary grace period created a misalignment with
statutory provisions governing the impacted classifications. DHS also
now believes the rule did not adequately consider how the up to 60-day
discretionary grace period would add administrative burden for USCIS.
Given its broad discretionary authority to regulate the time and
conditions of nonimmigrants under section 214(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C.
1184(a), DHS is now reconsidering \20\ the up to 60-day discretionary
grace period and believes that it should be removed. DHS acknowledges
that it is changing position, and notes that based on its experience
administering the rule and its reevaluation of the results of the rule
in relation to the statute governing nonimmigrant classifications, DHS
believes that removal of the up to 60-day discretionary grace period is
the better course.\21\ DHS has also carefully considered reliance
interests that may have been engendered by the current policy,\22\ and
believes that any such reliance interests are outweighed by the goals
described in this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ See Motor Vehicle Mfrs., Ass'n v. State Farm Mu. Auto. Ins.
Co., 463 U.S. 29, 57 (1983) (finding that an agency's view of what
is in the public interest may change, either with or without a
change in circumstances, but the agency changing its course must
supply a reasoned analysis).
\21\ See F.C.C. v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502,
515 (2009) (an agency ``need not demonstrate to a court's
satisfaction that the reasons for the new policy are better than the
reasons for the old one; it suffices that the new policy is
permissible under the statute, that there are good reasons for it,
and that the agency believes it to be better, which the conscious
change of course adequately indicates.'' (emphasis in original)).
\22\ See section IV.D below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Requiring Nonimmigrants To Depart Upon Cessation of Employment or
Activity

DHS has determined that removal of the up to 60-day discretionary
grace period best aligns the regulatory provisions with the statute and
restores the expectation that aliens depart the United States upon
cessation of the employment or activity on which the visa
classification was based.
By statute, an alien's lawful status in E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1,
L-1, O-1, or TN classification is directly connected to and contingent
upon the alien conducting certain employment activities or otherwise
performing services in the United States that are generally tied to the
petitioning employer. In pertinent part, section 101(a)(15)(E)(i) of
the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(E)(i) describes an E-1 alien as entering
the United States ``solely to carry on substantial trade, including
trade in services or trade in technology.'' Section 101(a)(15)(E)(ii)
of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(E)(ii) describes an E-2 alien as
entering the United States ``solely to develop and direct the
operations of an enterprise in which the alien has invested, or of an
enterprise in which the alien is actively in the process of investing,
a substantial amount of capital.'' Section 101(a)(15)(E)(iii) of the
INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(E)(iii) describes an E-3 alien as entering
``solely to perform services in a specialty occupation in the United
States . . . [on behalf of] the intending employer.'' Section
101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) describes
an H-1B alien as ``coming temporarily to the United States to perform
services . . . in a specialty occupation . . . [on behalf of] the
intending employer.'' Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b1) describes an H-1B1 alien as one who is ``engaged
in a specialty occupation.'' Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the INA, 8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(15)(L) describes an L-1 alien as entering the United States
``temporarily in order to continue to render his services to the same
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a capacity that is
managerial, executive, or involves specialized knowledge.'' Section
101(a)(15)(O) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(O) describes an O-1
alien as entering the United States to continue work in the area of
extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business or
athletics or extraordinary achievement with regard to motion picture
and television productions. Section 214(e) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1184(e)
describes a TN alien as entering the United States to engage in certain
business activities at a professional level.
In each of these cases, the statute ties eligibility for the
classification and associated admission or grant of status in each of
these classifications directly to the qualifying work that is the basis
of the alien's admission or grant of status. Although each
classification has different requirements for maintenance of status
based on the eligibility requirements of the classification,
maintenance of status in employment-based nonimmigrant classifications
generally requires continued compliance with the terms and conditions
of the petition approval or admission. If an alien does not comply with
the terms and conditions of his or her status throughout the admission
period, the alien will not be maintaining his or her nonimmigrant
status.\23\ In order to maintain status, an alien must also only engage
in the specified employment or activity that is the basis for his or
her admission or grant of status.\24\ An alien who fails to maintain
his or her nonimmigrant status is deportable. See INA sec.
237(a)(1)(C)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(C)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ See, e.g., ITServe Alliance, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland
Sec., 71 F.4th 1028, 1037 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (``an admitted H-1B
worker who fails to maintain qualifying employment will lose non-
immigrant status and become removable.'').
\24\ See, e.g., 8 CFR 214.1(e) (``A nonimmigrant who is
permitted to engage in employment may engage only in such employment
as has been authorized.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The up to 60-day discretionary grace period is not mandated by
statute and disconnects the alien's lawful status from the basis of
eligibility under these employment-based classifications. After further
consideration, DHS now believes that removing the up to 60-day
discretionary grace period currently codified at 8 CFR 214.1(l)(2)
would better align with the statute because it requires that
nonimmigrants depart the United States immediately upon cessation of
the employment or activity on which their nonimmigrant status is

[[Page 57814]]

based (unless otherwise authorized to lawfully remain in the United
States).
As noted previously, each one of the listed classifications
requires the alien to perform specific work or services that are
generally tied to the intending or petitioning employer. The continued
performance of the employment or activity on which their status is
based is required in order for the alien to maintain status.\25\ DHS
now believes that once the alien is no longer fulfilling the very
specific conditions under which he or she was admitted or otherwise
provided status, such status, as well as the authorization to remain in
the United States, should definitively cease and the impacted alien
should immediately depart the United States (unless otherwise
authorized to lawfully remain in the United States). This is generally
consistent with the requirements for aliens admitted or otherwise
provided status in other nonimmigrant categories when the alien fails
to fulfill the very specific conditions under which he or she was
admitted or otherwise provided status.\26\ Similar to aliens admitted
or otherwise provided status in other nonimmigrant categories, aliens
subject to this rule would, however, be able to apply for readmission
into the United States in a nonimmigrant employment-based status after
finding new qualifying employment and obtaining the prerequisite
approvals to apply for admission in the applicable classification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ See, e.g., ITServe Alliance, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland
Sec., 71 F.4th 1028, 1037 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (``an admitted H-1B
worker who fails to maintain qualifying employment will lose non-
immigrant status and become removable.'').
\26\ For example, an F-1 nonimmigrant student who drops below a
full course of study without designated school official
authorization is failing to maintain status even if the reason for
the reduction in course load is not within the control of the
student. See generally, 8 CFR 214.2(f). In the AC21 proposed rule,
the agency also reasoned that providing flexibilities such as the
up-to 60 day discretionary grace period provided to E-1, E-2, E-3,
H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, O-1, or TN nonimmigrants was not unprecedented,
as, for example, other nonimmigrant categories are provided similar
flexibilities such as F and J nonimmigrants, citing to 8 CFR
214.2(f)(5)(iv) and (j)(1)(ii) respectively. See 80 FR 81900, 8923
(Dec. 31, 2025). 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(iv) provides F-1 students who
have completed their course of study and any subsequently authorized
practical training an additional 60-day period to prepare for
departure or transfer to another school. 8 CFR 214.2(j)(1)(ii)
provides J-1 nonimmigrant exchange visitors a 30-day grace period
available to them during the validity period of their J-1 duration
of status, which includes the duration of their J-1 exchange program
and a 30-day departure preparation period. See 8 CFR
214.2(j)(1)(ii). However, these grace periods also do not apply when
the F-1 or J-1 nonimmigrant prematurely ceases the activity
voluntarily or involuntarily for which he or she was admitted,
because such premature ceasing of the activity for which he or she
is admitted will likely result immediately in the alien's failure to
maintain status. See also INA sec. 237(a)(1)(C)(i), 8 U.S.C.
1227(a)(1)(C)(i) (providing that a nonimmigrant who fails to
maintain their nonimmigrant status is deportable).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Reducing Administrative Burden

DHS further believes that elimination of the up to 60-day
discretionary grace period would reduce the administrative burden on
USCIS. DHS has found that exercising this discretion when adjudicating
benefit requests following a cessation of an alien's employment is
burdensome. The process of assessing whether a grace period is
warranted; and then of adjudicating the request and determining start
and end dates of a grace period may be time consuming and complex for
the agency and confusing or unpredictable for petitioners, the alien,
and the alien's dependents. Adjudicating officers must verify the
evidence provided by the petitioner or the alien, as applicable, to
ascertain whether the up to 60-day discretionary period applies and
whether the alien warrants a favorable exercise of discretion. For
USCIS to assess the applicability of the up to 60-day discretionary
grace period, the benefit requestor \27\ (for example, a new employer
filing a Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (Form I-129)
petition on behalf of the alien following the cessation of the alien's
previous employment; or the alien, if he or she is seeking a change of
status to a visa classification that is unrelated to employment) must
provide evidence to establish the date the alien's previous employment
ended. The USCIS adjudicator would designate the end of the previous
employment as the start date of the discretionary grace period if the
adjudicator does not make the discretionary determination to eliminate
it. As noted in the AC21 final rule, the discretionary decision of
whether to eliminate or shorten a grace period requires individualized
assessments that consider the totality of the circumstances surrounding
the cessation of employment and the beneficiary's activities after such
cessation. See 81 FR 82398, 82439 (Nov. 18, 2016). While many cases
might result in grants of the up to 60-day discretionary grace periods,
some cases may present factors that do not support the favorable
exercise of this discretion. Circumstances that may lead DHS to make a
discretionary determination to shorten or entirely eliminate the up to
60-day discretionary grace period include violations of status,
unauthorized employment during the grace period, fraud or national
security concerns, or criminal convictions, among other reasons. See 81
FR 82398, 82439 (Nov. 18, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ A requestor is a person who files an application, petition,
motion, appeal or another request relating to an immigration or
naturalization benefit. See 8 CFR 1.2 (Benefit request).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additionally, the availability of clear documentation of employment
cessation date may differ from case to case. Evidence that documents
the employment cessation date is non-standard and requires officers to
familiarize themselves with the documentation type, review the
contents, and assess its veracity and credibility. Officers must often
review numerous different document types per filing and the level of
review is more extensive than that conducted when the grace period is
not applicable. In some instances, the only evidence of the termination
that a petitioner or an applicant can provide is a generalized payroll
document from an alien that reflects payments made on the last month of
employment. In many instances, these payroll documents do not
definitively state the last day of employment. Rather, the officer must
infer the employment end date based on prorating the payment across the
pay period. Further, petitioners or applicants may or may not
proactively flag that they are requesting consideration of the up to
60-day discretionary grace period. USCIS officers therefore must review
each benefit request for aliens potentially covered by 8 CFR
214.1(l)(2) to determine whether the up to 60-day discretionary grace
period applies and, if it does, must determine whether the up to 60-day
discretionary grace period should be shortened or eliminated as a
matter of discretion. If the petitioner or the applicant is unable to
provide credible evidence establishing the date of employment
cessation, the officer may not be able to determine whether the grace
period applies, either in part or in full. Collectively this lack of
clarity increases the complexity of the adjudication and prolongs the
adjudication of individual cases imposing an additional burden.
In order to determine the additional workload USCIS faces when
administering the grace period, DHS calculated the number of petitions
and applications that required USCIS to assess whether the up to 60-day
discretionary grace period could have potentially applied. That number
comprises the following petitions and applications: (1) the number of
Form I-129 petitions filed for an alien in one of the listed
classifications that requested an extension of stay for purposes of new
employment; (2) the number of Form I-

[[Page 57815]]

129 petitions filed for an alien in one of the listed classifications
that requested a change of status to another nonimmigrant category for
purposes of new employment; (3) the number of Forms I-539, Application
to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status filed by an alien in one of the
listed classifications requesting a change of status to a non-
employment based nonimmigrant status; (4) the number of Forms I-485,
Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, filed in
an employment-based category by an alien in one of the listed
classifications seeking to become a lawful permanent resident (LPR);
\28\ and (5) the number of Forms I-765, Application for Employment
Authorization requesting compelling circumstances employment
authorization, filed by an alien in one of the listed classifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ Adjustment of status is the process for eligible aliens
physically present in the United States to apply for lawful
permanent residence (LPR) without returning to their home country,
by filing Form I-485.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DHS believes that this set of petitions and applications reasonably
represents the potential number of cases for which USCIS must assess
whether the up to 60-day discretionary grace period applies, and if so,
perform the additional grace period analysis that was previously
discussed for a subset of these petitions (see Costs and Benefits of
the Proposed Rule).\29\ From the beginning of fiscal year 2018 (October
1, 2017) through May 20, 2026, this population totaled over 1.9 million
petitions or applications on which USCIS potentially had to perform
this additional initial assessment thus representing a great
adjudicative burden.\30\ USCIS has reconsidered the grace period in
light of this experience and now believes it should not be expending
its limited resources to adjudicate a burdensome, discretionary benefit
that not only is not required by statute, but in fact is inconsistent
with the purpose of the nonimmigrant classifications. Eliminating the
up to 60-day discretionary grace period would therefore reduce the
administrative burden on USCIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ DHS acknowledges that the review and analysis of the
applicability of the grace period will vary depending on the benefit
request that was filed. For example, the grace period analysis for a
petition requesting a change of employer with an extension of stay
request would be different than the analysis for an employment-based
application to adjust status, due to the specific regulations
governing the different requests. Because each analysis is case
specific, where some cases will require a more in-depth analysis due
to the facts presented, DHS cannot estimate the time this analysis
adds to each adjudication.
\30\ See DHS, USCIS, CDAO, CLAIMS3 & ELIS, queried 02/2026, 03/
2026, and 05/2026 PAER0020503, PAER0020655, and PAER0021448. DHS
calculated the burden based on the number of petitions or
applications received from FY 2018 forward because FY 2018 was the
first fiscal year in which the AC21 rule was effective for the
entire fiscal year. Note that this estimate is different from the
numbers DHS used in its cost-benefit analysis. See section V.A.3. of
this preamble. DHS believes that the adjudicative burden to USCIS to
administer the grace period is greater than what is reflected in the
cost-benefit analysis because the burden discussed here includes the
time and resources spent reviewing applicable petitions or
applications where the grace period could potentially apply, whereas
the cost-benefit analysis is based on the estimated number of
benefit requests that hindsight now allows DHS to see could have
actually used the grace period because they met certain parameters;
chiefly, the benefit requests followed a prior revocation of
petition approval. USCIS does not know which benefit requests these
are upon receiving an application or petition; rather USCIS can only
determine this after spending time adjudicating the case. The impact
of the rule discussed in section V.A.3. of this preamble examines
the potential impact of the rule using information that is not
available to adjudicators when they first receive a case and need to
determine if a grace period may apply. The administrative burden
discussed here represents the time and effort to identify the
possible population and perform additional review, whereas the
impact of the rule focuses on a subset of that population that was
identified and reviewed throughout the adjudication process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Reliance Interests and Potential Impact of This Rule

DHS is cognizant that it is changing a longstanding policy that may
impact aliens, employers, family members and potentially communities as
a whole.\31\ For example, U.S. employers who seek to employ recently
terminated aliens in the relevant classifications may have made
business arrangements based on an assumption that the aliens would be
able to begin new employment, without the potentially lengthier process
of seeking admission from outside the United States, following the
cessation of their previous employment. Similarly, aliens in the
relevant classifications, and their dependents, may have made career
and/or personal plans in the United States based on the assumption that
they may remain in legal status in the United States for up to 60 days
during the grace period during which time they may be able to apply for
a new status. DHS also acknowledges that aliens and their dependents
may participate in activities in the local community. They may have,
for example, purchased houses, paid taxes, and may have otherwise
invested in the local community in reliance on the alien's continued
stay in the United States.\32\ Further, aliens may have, under the
expectation that the up to 60-day discretionary grace period will
apply, remained in the United States after the cessation of their
employment while searching for new employment or waiting for the
adjudication of the petition or application to change status or extend
stay; yet during this time, they would have been considered to be
failing to maintain status if USCIS later shortened or eliminated the
up to 60-day grace period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\31\ See, e.g., FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S.
502, 513-16 (2009) (``the agency may change policy if it
acknowledges the change, offers a rational explanation, and
considers any serious reliance interests); Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n
v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (``the
agency must examine relevant data and articulate a satisfactory
explanation showing a rational connection between the facts found
and the choice made'') (internal quotations omitted).
\32\ Under the proposed rule, an alien (and his or her
dependents) would have to immediately depart the United States on
the day of the cessation of the employment or activity to avoid the
consequences of failing to maintain status in the United States.
Consequently, aliens whose employment or other activity ceased would
also have to immediately cease any activity related to the local
community. DHS notes that this type of loss, is common to the
departure of aliens who have completed their stay in the United
States and is not specific to this rulemaking; however, removing the
up to 60-day discretionary grace period would accelerate a potential
impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

By removing the up to 60-day discretionary grace period, as this
rule proposes, aliens in these nonimmigrant classifications would know
with certainty that they are required to depart the United States,
unless otherwise authorized to lawfully remain in the United States,
upon cessation of employment or activity, because they, and their
dependents, would be considered to be immediately failing to maintain
their nonimmigrant status the day after the principal alien's
employment or activity ceases.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\33\ Failure to maintain status carries other consequences,
including, among other things, being subject to removability as a
deportable alien under section 237(a)(1)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C.
1227.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DHS has considered these potential reliance interests and impacts
and believes the negative impacts of the up to 60-day discretionary
grace period on the legal immigration system, discussed in this
preamble, outweigh any potential benefits to employers, aliens, and the
community at large of retaining the grace period. DHS notes that any
reliance on the existing up to 60-day discretionary grace period would
be misplaced because the decision to shorten or eliminate the up to 60-
day discretionary grace period and consider the alien to have not
maintained nonimmigrant status following cessation of employment is
within the discretion of USCIS and only determined when adjudicating a
subsequent immigration benefit request.\34\ Additionally, DHS

[[Page 57816]]

acknowledges that removal of the up to 60-day discretionary grace
period may result in increased departures following cessation of
employment. However, DHS concludes that such outcomes would be
consistent with statutory design, would likely not alter numerical visa
limits (as applicable), and would generally not preclude the alien from
applying for admission in the future based on approval of a new
nonimmigrant or immigrant benefit request. For the reasons articulated
in the preamble, DHS believes that any potential negative impacts of
the proposed rule, if finalized, on the regulated public would be
outweighed by the government's competing interests articulated in this
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\34\ See, e.g., Wages & White Lion Invs., L.L.C., 604 U.S. 542,
585 (2025) (stating that a belief about how an agency is likely to
exercise its enforcement discretion is not a ``serious reliance
interes[t]''.) citing Fox Television, 556 U.S., at 515.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DHS invites comments on any potential impact of this rulemaking,
including comments on any potential reliance interests that are
implicated by the provisions of this NPRM.

E. Alternatives Considered

DHS considered alternatives to eliminating the up to 60-day
discretionary grace period for all of the classifications listed in
current 8 CFR 214.1(l)(2). First, DHS considered only eliminating the
up to 60-day discretionary grace period for some of the listed
classifications. However, as discussed in section IV. B. of this
preamble, DHS is removing the up to 60-day grace period because it does
not align with the statute. Allowing some classifications to remain in
the United States and be considered to be maintaining status, while not
adhering to the conditions of admission or grant of status, does not
support the goal of requiring aliens, and their dependents, to depart
the United States upon cessation of the employment or activity on which
their nonimmigrant status is based, unless otherwise authorized to
lawfully remain in the United States, and would therefore remain
inconsistent with the statute with respect to those classifications. In
addition, this alternative would not reduce the administrative burden
described above for the classifications for which the up to 60-day
discretionary grace period was not eliminated.
DHS also considered shortening, rather than eliminating the up to
60-day discretionary grace period. However, shortening the grace period
would not address the burden borne by USCIS to administer this grace
period. A shorter grace period would not reduce the number of
applications and petitions that USCIS must review for grace period
applicability and would not reduce the additional adjudication that
must be undertaken to determine whether to reduce or eliminate the up
to 60-day discretionary grace period, or to determine the start and end
dates of the period. Shortening the up to 60-day discretionary grace
period would also not meet the goal of requiring aliens, and their
dependents, to depart the United States upon cessation of the
employment or activity on which their nonimmigrant status is based,
unless otherwise authorized to lawfully remain in the United States
because aliens would still be allowed to remain in the United States
and be considered to be maintaining status beyond the time in which the
alien is adhering to the specific employment or activity that formed
the basis of his or her admission or grant of status.
DHS also considered an alternative that would reduce the
administrative burden on USCIS, specifically by imposing precise and
stringent evidentiary requirements in order for USCIS to even consider
whether a grace period applies. Under this approach, USCIS adjudicators
would not have the burden of determining whether the grace period would
impact the benefit request, as the evidence submitted with the filing
would make it clear that the petition was relying on a grace period.
However, DHS decided against this alternative. While it may ostensibly
reduce administrative burden on USCIS, adjudicators would still have
the added burden of scrutinizing the documentation and verifying the
end date of the alien's prior employment to determine whether the alien
is actually eligible to benefit from the grace period. Additionally,
even acknowledging a potential reduction in administrative burden from
this alternative, as with the above alternatives this approach would
not address DHS's goal of aligning the regulatory provisions with the
statute and restoring the expectation that aliens depart the United
States upon cessation of the employment or activity on which their visa
classification was based.
Considering the need to reduce administrative burden and better
protect the integrity of the legal immigration system by requiring that
aliens, and their dependents, depart the United States upon failing to
meet the conditions that were the basis of their nonimmigrant status,
unless otherwise authorized to lawfully remain in the United States,
DHS believes that the harm of the up to 60-day discretionary grace
period outweighs the potential benefit it provides to the impacted
aliens and employers, the alien's dependents, and the community at
large. Therefore, DHS believes that eliminating the up to 60-day
discretionary grace period for all relevant classifications is the most
effective way to achieve the goals of this rulemaking.

V. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive
Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and Executive
Order 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation)

Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess
the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 14192 (Unleashing
Prosperity Through Deregulation) directs agencies to significantly
reduce the private expenditures required to comply with Federal
regulations and provides that ``any new incremental costs associated
with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset
by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least 10 prior
regulations.''
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has designated this rule
a ``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866,
although not economically significant under section 3(f)(1).
Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by OMB.
This rule is not an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because
it is being issued with respect to an immigration-related function of
the United States. The primary purpose of this rule is to implement or
interpret the immigration laws of the United States (as described in
INA sec. 101(a)(17), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(17)) or any other function
performed by the U.S. Federal Government with respect to aliens. See
OMB Memorandum M-25-20, ``Guidance Implementing Section 3 of Executive
Order 14192, titled `Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation' ''
(Mar. 26, 2025).
1. Summary
The purpose of this NPRM is to remove the E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-
1B1, L-1, O-1, and TN classifications from 8 CFR 214.1(l)(2), which
currently provides for a discretionary grace period of up to 60 days
for an alien admitted or otherwise provided status in E-1, E-2, E-3, H-
1B, H-1B1, L-1, O-1, and TN

[[Page 57817]]

classifications, and his or her dependents, following cessation of
their qualifying employment prior to the expiration of the alien's
authorized validity period. DHS estimates that under this proposed
rule, some aliens may be issued Notices to Appear (NTA),\35\ thereby
incurring costs of attending immigration hearings with the Department
of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) as part of
removal proceedings. In addition, some aliens would leave the country
and then apply for readmission under a nonimmigrant employment-based
status after finding a new job. The proposed rule would enable DHS to
conduct the administration and adjudication of E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-
1B1, L-1, O-1, and TN immigration benefit requests with decreased
complexity and is conducive to program integrity, as described in
Section IV Discussion of Proposed Rule of the preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\35\ A Notice to Appear (NTA), Form I-862, is issued by DHS to
initiate removal proceedings under section 240 of the Act, 8 U.S.C.
1229a. For more information on NTAs, see Department of Justice,
Executive Office for Immigration Review, The Notice to Appear,
<a href="https://www.justice.gov/eoir/notice-appear">https://www.justice.gov/eoir/notice-appear</a> (last updated Dec. 14,
2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 1 provides a detailed summary of estimated quantifiable and
unquantifiable impacts of the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\36\ See INA sec. 214(c)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1184(c)(5); 8 CFR
214.2(h)(4)(iii)(E) and (o)(16).

Table 1--Summary of Provisions and Impacts of the NPRM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of the
Proposed rule provisions proposed change to Estimated costs of provisions Estimated benefits of
provisions provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 CFR 214.1(l)(2)--Removal of To remove the up Quantitative: Quantitative:
Discretionary Grace Period. to 60-day Beneficiaries-- Petitioners--
discretionary [ballot] Beneficiaries of [ballot] None.
grace period at 8 nonimmigrant visa classifications DHS/USCIS--
CFR 214.1(l)(2) who must respond to a Notice to [ballot] None.
and restore a Appear (NTA) by attending an Qualitative:
direct immigration hearing would incur Beneficiaries--
relationship opportunity costs of time and [ballot] None.
between travel costs ranging from $204.43 Petitioners--
maintenance of to $300.53 per person. [ballot] None.
nonimmigrant [ballot] A subset of 3,795 DHS/USCIS--
status with the nonimmigrant visa beneficiaries [ballot] Improve
basis for which E- may incur lost income if program integrity and
1, E-2, E-3, H- additional time is required to consistency between
1B, H-1B1, L-1, O- conduct the job search after nonimmigrant status
1, and TN departing the United States. and the basis of the
classifications, Petitioners-- activity for their
and their [ballot] None. admittance.
dependents, were DHS/USCIS-- [ballot] Reduce the
admitted or [ballot] Devote resources to issue administrative burden
otherwise NTAs and initiate removal associated with the
provided proceedings against aliens. up to 60-day
nonimmigrant Qualitative: discretionary grace
status. Beneficiaries-- period.
[ballot] None.
Petitioners--
[ballot] H-1B and O-1 petitioners
would be liable for the reasonable
costs of return transportation
abroad if an H-1B or O-1
beneficiary is dismissed from
employment by the petitioner
before the end of period of
authorized admission and the
beneficiary decides to depart the
country.\36\
DHS/USCIS--
[ballot] None.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition to the impacts summarized in Table 1, and as required
by OMB Circular A-4, Table 2 presents the prepared accounting statement
showing the costs, benefits, and transfers associated with this
rule.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\37\ OMB, ``Circular A-4'' (Sept. 17, 2003),
<a href="http://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf">trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf</a> (last visited Aug. 1, 2025).

Table 2--OMB A-4 Accounting Statement
[$ millions, FY 2025]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Primary estimate Minimum estimate Maximum estimate Source citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time Period: FY 2027 through FY 2036
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BENEFITS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Monetized Benefits. Not Estimated. Regulatory impact
analysis (RIA).
---------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized quantified, but N/A N/A N/A RIA.
unmonetized, benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Qualitative (unquantified) This proposed rule would improve program integrity by RIA.
Benefits. introducing administrative simplicity in certain
classifications and increasing consistency between
maintenance of nonimmigrant status with the basis for which
aliens and their dependents were admitted or otherwise
provided nonimmigrant status.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COSTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized monetized costs at Not Estimated. RIA.
3%.
Annualized monetized costs at Not Estimated.
7%.

[[Page 57818]]

Annualized quantified, but This proposed rule would result in USCIS devoting resources RIA.
unmonetized, costs. to issue NTAs and initiate removal proceedings against aliens
who failed to maintain their nonimmigrant status, and to
maintain program integrity. This rule may result in some
nonimmigrant workers whose prior employment has ended to
depart the United States. For those who depart, this proposed
rule would cause a temporary loss of productivity to their
prospective employers. Some employers who decide to terminate
the employment of nonimmigrant workers have to provide return
transportation or other relocation costs when the H-1B or O-1
beneficiary decides to depart whereas some of these costs
could have been avoided without this rule.
Qualitative (unquantified) N/A RIA.
costs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSFERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized monetized N/A RIA.
transfers: ``on budget''.
From whom to whom?............ N/A RIA.
Annualized monetized N/A RIA.
transfers: ``off-budget''.
From whom to whom?............ N/A RIA.
Miscellaneous Analyses/ Effects. Source Citation
Category. (RIA, preamble,
etc.).
Effects on State, local, or N/A RIA.
tribal governments.
Effects on small businesses... For some small entities offering employment to E-1, E-2, E-3, Regulatory
H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, O-1, and TN nonimmigrant workers whose Flexibility Act
prior employment has ended, they may adjust their behavior (RFA) analysis.
but would continue to seek workers to fill job openings. DHS
assumes that almost all these entities would offer the same
jobs to equally qualified U.S. workers, go through the I-129
petition process to sponsor nonimmigrant workers, or reassign
the work to other current employees. DHS acknowledges that
some of these petitioners may incur a temporary loss of
productivity due to labor turnover.
Effects on wages.............. N/A RIA.
Effects on growth............. N/A RIA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Background and Population
The H-1B nonimmigrant visa program allows U.S. employers to
temporarily hire foreign workers to perform services in a specialty
occupation, services related to a DOW cooperative research and
development project or coproduction project, or services of
distinguished merit and ability in the field of fashion modeling.\38\ A
specialty occupation is defined as an occupation that requires the (1)
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized
knowledge and (2) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the
specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum qualification for
entry into the occupation in the United States. See INA sec. 214(i)(l),
8 U.S.C. 1184(i)(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\38\ See INA sec. 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b); Immigration Act of 1990, Public Law 101-649,
sec. 222(a)(2), 104 Stat. 4978 (Nov. 29, 1990); 8 CFR 214.2(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The number of aliens who may be issued initial H-1B visas or
otherwise provided initial H-1B nonimmigrant status during any fiscal
year has been capped at various levels by Congress over time, with the
current numerical limit being 65,000 per fiscal year. See INA sec.
214(g)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(1)(A). Congress has also provided for
various exemptions from this annual numerical limit, including an
exemption for 20,000 aliens who have earned a master's or higher degree
from a U.S. institution of higher education. See INA sec. 214(g)(5) and
(7), 8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(5) and (7). In general, prior to filing an H-1B
petition, the employer is required to obtain a certified LCA from the
DOL. See 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(1). The LCA collects information about
the employer and the occupation for the H-1B worker(s). The LCA
requires certain attestations from the employer, including, among
others, that the employer will pay the H-1B worker(s) at least the
required wage. See 20 CFR 655.731 through 655.735. H-1B specialty
occupation workers generally may be admitted or otherwise granted
nonimmigrant status for an initial period of up to 3 years, see 8 CFR
214.2(h)(9)(iii)(A)(1), with a maximum period of authorized admission
generally limited to 6 years, see INA sec. 214(g)(4), 8 U.S.C.
1184(g)(4).
The spouses and unmarried children under the age of 21 of H-1B
nonimmigrants are eligible for H-4 nonimmigrant status. See 8 CFR
214.2(h)(9)(iv). Certain H-4 dependent spouses of H-1B nonimmigrants
can seek employment authorization by filing Form I-765, Application for
Employment Authorization, if the H-1B nonimmigrant: (1) is the
principal beneficiary of an approved Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for
Alien Worker; or (2) has been granted H-1B status under sections 106(a)
and (b) of the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act
of 2000 as amended by the 21st Century Department of Justice
Appropriations Authorization Act (AC21). Id.
The H-1B1 nonimmigrant visa program, specifically applicable to
nationals of Chile and Singapore, allows for the temporary employment
of such nonimmigrant aliens in specialty occupations. See INA sec.
101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b1), 8 U.S.C 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b1). Of the current H-
1B annual numerical limit of 65,000 initial visas or grants of status
per fiscal year, 6,800 are reserved for use by H-1B1 nonimmigrants:
1,400 for nonimmigrants from Chile and 5,400 for nonimmigrants from
Singapore. See INA sec. 214(g)(8)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(8)(B). An
employer who seeks to temporarily employ an alien in H-1B1 status may
apply directly to the Department of State if the alien is outside of
the United States or may file a petition requesting H-1B1 status with
USCIS if the alien in

[[Page 57819]]

in the United States in another classification. Aliens may be granted
H-1B1 nonimmigrant status in one-year increments, with no maximum on
the number of extensions. See INA sec. 214(g)(8)(C), 8 U.S.C.
1184(g)(8)(C). The spouses and unmarried children under the age of 21
of H-1B1 nonimmigrants are eligible for H-4 nonimmigrant status but are
not employment authorized or eligible to apply for employment
authorization. See 8 CFR 214.2(h)(9)(iv).
An L-1 nonimmigrant visa is for multinational companies to transfer
executives, managers (L-1A), or employees with specialized knowledge
(L-1B) from an overseas office to a U.S. office, requiring the employee
to have worked abroad for a related entity for at least one year out of
the preceding three years in a similar role. See INA sec.
101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(L). The L-1A and L-1B visa
classifications also enable a foreign company that does not yet have an
affiliated U.S. office to send an executive or manager or a
professional employee with specialized knowledge to the United States
with the purpose of establishing one. See 8 CFR 214.2(l)(3)(v) and
(vi). Qualified employees under L-1A or L-1B visa classifications
entering the United States to establish a new office are allowed a
maximum initial stay of one year. See 8 CFR 214.2(l)(7)(i)(A)(3). All
other qualified employees under L-1A or L-1B visa classifications are
allowed a maximum initial stay of three years. See 8 CFR
214.2(l)(7)(i)(A)(2). For all employees under L-1A and L-1B visa
classifications, requests for extension of stay may be granted in
increments of up to an additional two years, until the employee has
reached the maximum limit of 7 years under L-1A and 5 years under L-1B.
See 8 CFR 214.2(l)(15)(ii).
The alien employee may be accompanied by his or her spouse and
unmarried children who are under 21 years of age. See 8 CFR
214.2(l)(7)(ii). Spouses and children may seek admission under the L-2
nonimmigrant classification and, if approved, they will generally be
granted the same period of stay as the L-1 nonimmigrant worker. Id.
Spouses of L-1 workers in valid L-2 nonimmigrant status are considered
employment authorized incident to status. See INA sec. 214(c)(2)(E), 8
U.S.C. 1184(c)(2)(E). L spouses are not required to request employment
authorization by filing Form I-765, but may still file the form, with
fee, in order to obtain an Employment Authorization Document (EAD).
They can be granted evidence of work authorization by way of an L-2S
designation on their Arrival-Departure Record (Form I-94).\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\39\ See USCIS, L-1A Intracompany Transferee Executive or
Manager, <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary-workers/l-1a-intracompany-transferee-executive-or-manager">https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary-workers/l-1a-intracompany-transferee-executive-or-manager</a>
(last updated July 29, 2024) and USCIS, L-1B Intracompany Transferee
Specialized Knowledge, <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary-workers/l-1b-intracompany-transferee-specialized-knowledge">https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary-workers/l-1b-intracompany-transferee-specialized-knowledge</a> (last updated July 30, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The E-1 nonimmigrant classification allows a national of a treaty
country (a country with which the United States maintains a treaty of
commerce and navigation, or which the United States maintains a
qualifying international agreement, or which has been deemed a
qualifying country by legislation) to be admitted to the United States
solely to engage in international trade on his or her own behalf. See
INA sec. 101(a)(15)(E)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(E)(i); 8 CFR
214.2(e)(1). Certain employees of such a person or of a qualifying
organization may also be eligible for this classification. See 8 CFR
214.2(e)(3). Qualified treaty traders and employees are allowed a
maximum initial stay of two years. See 8 CFR 214.2(e)(19)(i). Requests
for extension of stay in E-1 classification may be granted in
increments of up to two years each. See 8 CFR 214.2(e)(20). There is no
limit to the number of extensions an E-1 nonimmigrant may be granted.
See 8 CFR 214.2(e)(20)(iii). All E-1 nonimmigrants, however, must
maintain an intention to depart the United States when their status
expires or is terminated.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\40\ See USCIS, E-1 Treaty Traders, <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary-workers/e-1-treaty-traders">https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary-workers/e-1-treaty-traders</a>
(last updated Apr. 8, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The E-2 nonimmigrant classification allows a national of a treaty
country (a country with which the United States maintains a treaty of
commerce and navigation, or with which the United States maintains a
qualifying international agreement, or which has been deemed a
qualifying country by legislation) to be admitted to the United States
when investing a substantial amount of capital in a U.S. business.\41\
See INA sec. 101(a)(15)(E)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(E)(ii); 8 CFR
214.2(e)(2). Certain employees of such a person or of a qualifying
organization may also be eligible for this classification. See 8 CFR
214.2(e)(3). Qualified treaty investors and employees are allowed a
maximum initial stay of two years. See 8 CFR 214.2(e)(19)(i). Requests
for extension of stay in E-2 classification may be granted in
increments of up to two years each. See 8 CFR 214.2(e)(20). There is no
limit to the number of extensions an E-2 nonimmigrant may be granted.
See 8 CFR 214.2(e)(20)(iii). All E-2 nonimmigrants, however, must
maintain an intention to depart the United States when their status
expires or is terminated.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\41\ The CNMI-Only Investor (E-2C) visa classification allows
foreign, long-term investors to remain lawfully present in the CNMI
through December 31, 2029, while they resolve their immigration
status. This classification is intended to help as the CNMI
transitions from the CNMI permit system to U.S. immigration laws.
See USCIS, E-2 Visa: CNMI-Only Investor, <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary-workers/e-2-visa-cnmi-only-investor">https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary-workers/e-2-visa-cnmi-only-investor</a> (last updated July 3, 2019).
\42\ See USCIS, E-2 Treaty Investors, <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary-workers/e-2-treaty-investors">https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary-workers/e-2-treaty-investors</a>
(last updated Apr. 8, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The E-3 nonimmigrant classification concerns specialty occupation
workers who are nationals of the Commonwealth of Australia. See INA
sec. 101(a)(15)(E)(iii), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(E)(iii). E-3
nonimmigrants must be coming to the United States solely to perform
services in a specialty occupation. The definition of the term
``specialty occupation'' is the same as for the H-1B classification.
See INA sec. 214(i)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1184(i)(1) (defined as requiring
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized
knowledge and the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the
specific specialty, or its equivalent, as a minimum for entry into the
occupation in the United States). E-3 nonimmigrants may be granted a
maximum initial stay of two years. Requests for extension of stay in E-
3 nonimmigrant status may be granted in increments of up to two years
each. There is no limit to the number of extensions an E-3 nonimmigrant
may be granted.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\43\ See USCIS, E-3 Specialty Occupation Workers from Australia,
<a href="https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary-workers/e-3-specialty-occupation-workers-from-australia">https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary-workers/e-3-specialty-occupation-workers-from-australia</a> (last
updated July 29, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E-1, E-2 and E-3 principal nonimmigrants may be accompanied by
their spouse and unmarried children who are under 21 years of age.
Spouses and children may seek admission under the E-1, E-2 or E-3
nonimmigrant classification, as applicable, and if approved, they will
generally be granted the same period of stay as the E-1, E-2, or E-3
principal nonimmigrant. See 8 CFR 214.2(e)(4). Spouses of E
nonimmigrant workers in valid E nonimmigrant status are generally
considered employment authorized incident to status.\44\ See INA sec.

[[Page 57820]]

214(e)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1184(e)(2). E nonimmigrant spouses generally are
not required to request employment authorization by filing Form I-765,
but may still file the form, with fee, in order to obtain an Employment
Authorization Document (EAD). They can be granted evidence of work
authorization by way of an E-1S, E-2S or E-3S designation on their
Arrival-Departure Record (Form I-94).\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\44\ Some E spouses are not considered employment authorized
incident to status and must apply for employment authorization. See
8 CFR 274a.12(c)(2) and (12).
\45\ See USCIS Policy Manual Vol. 10, Part B, Chapter 2--
Employment Authorization for Certain H-4, E, and L Nonimmigrant
Dependent Spouses. https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-10-
part-b-chapter-
2#:~:text=As%20of%20November%2012%2C%202021,C%20of%20Form%20I%2D9.
(last updated Feb. 03, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The O-1 nonimmigrant classification is for aliens with
extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or
athletics, or who have a demonstrated record of extraordinary
achievement in the motion picture or television industry and have been
recognized nationally or internationally for those achievements. The O-
1 nonimmigrant classification is commonly referred to as:
<bullet> O-1A: Individuals with an extraordinary ability in the
sciences, education, business, or athletics (not including the arts,
motion pictures or television industry);
<bullet> O-1B: Individuals with an extraordinary ability in the
arts or extraordinary achievement in motion picture or television
industry;
An O-1 nonimmigrant may be granted a maximum initial stay of 3
years with further extension in increments of up to one year to
complete the activity or event for which the alien was admitted or
otherwise granted O-1 nonimmigrant status. See 8 CFR
214.2(o)(6)(iii)(A) and (12)(ii). The spouses and unmarried children
under the age of 21 of O-1 nonimmigrants are eligible for O-3
nonimmigrant status but are not employment authorized or eligible to
apply for employment authorization. See 8 CFR 214.2(o)(6)(iv).
The TN nonimmigrant classification permits qualified Canadian and
Mexican citizens to seek temporary entry into the United States to
engage in business activities at a professional level. See INA sec.
214(e)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1184(e)(1); 8 CFR 214.6(a). Aliens may be granted
TN nonimmigrant status in increments of up to 3 years. See 8 CFR
214.6(e). There is no limit on the number of times an alien may be
granted TN nonimmigrant status, so long as he or she intends to remain
temporarily in the United States as a nonimmigrant. See 8 CFR
214.6(h)(1)(iv). Dependent spouses of a TN nonimmigrant may be admitted
or otherwise provided TD nonimmigrant status, but are not authorized to
work or otherwise eligible to apply for employment authorization as a
TD nonimmigrant. See 8 CFR 214.6(j).
DHS regulations currently allow alien workers in certain approved
nonimmigrant visa classifications, and their dependents, to have grace
periods of up to 60 days when their employment ends, whether the
employment terminated voluntarily or involuntarily, unless such grace
period is shortened or eliminated by DHS. See 8 CFR 214.1(l)(2). During
the up to 60-day discretionary grace period, the nonimmigrant worker is
not considered to be failing to maintain status solely for not engaging
in employment or the activity that forms the basis of the alien's
status. Id. Nonimmigrants are not authorized to work during the grace
period, unless otherwise authorized. Id. Aside from departing the
United States, such nonimmigrant workers can:
<bullet> File an application for a change of nonimmigrant status
(I-539, Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status);
<bullet> File an application for adjustment of status (I-485,
Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status);
<bullet> File an application for a ``compelling circumstances''
employment authorization document (Form I-765); or
<bullet> Be the beneficiary of a nonfrivolous petition to change
employer (Form I-129).
If one of these actions described above occurs within the up to 60-
day discretionary grace period, nonimmigrants may be permitted to
remain in the United States beyond the 60-day grace period, even if
they lose their previous nonimmigrant status. If an alien takes none of
the above actions following cessation of the employment on which their
status is based, they and their dependents would need to depart the
United States unless otherwise authorized to lawfully remain in the
United States. This provision, codified at 8 CFR 214.1(l)(2), was
intended to enhance job portability for high-skilled nonimmigrants and
provide limited flexibility in cases of job loss.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\46\ See 80 FR 81923 (``To enhance job portability for these
high-skilled nonimmigrants, DHS proposes to generally establish a
one-time grace period during an authorized nonimmigrant validity
period of up to 60 days or until the existing validity period ends,
whichever is shorter, whenever employment ends for these
individuals.''); USCIS, Options for Nonimmigrant Workers Following
Termination of Employment, <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/archive/options-for-nonimmigrant-workers-following-termination-of-employment-0">https://www.uscis.gov/archive/options-for-nonimmigrant-workers-following-termination-of-employment-0</a> (last
updated Jan 24, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Section IV.C: Reducing Administrative Burden, DHS presented
statistics on additional workload USCIS faces when administering the
grace period, and are discussed as qualitative benefits to DHS in this
analysis. DHS calculated 1.9 million petitions and applications
received from fiscal year 2018 through May 20, 2026 for which USCIS
assessed whether the up to 60-day discretionary grace period could have
potentially applied.\47\ In the cost benefit analysis described in the
following pages, DHS analyzes the impact of the proposed rulemaking on
nonimmigrant worker visa beneficiaries who likely utilized the up to
60-day discretionary grace period and petitioners who petition for such
beneficiaries. Table 3 presents data on E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-
1, O-1 and TN population of beneficiaries of a revoked Form I-129
petition based on a petitioner's withdrawal of the petition after
approval. This group includes beneficiaries who experienced cessation
of employment with the petitioner, either involuntarily or
voluntarily.\48\ Due to data limitations DHS uses the population of
beneficiaries of a revoked Form I-129 petition as a reasonable proxy
for beneficiaries who could have utilized the grace period to pursue
one of the options described above for FY 2021 through FY 2025.\49\
Based on a 5-year annual average, DHS estimates the

[[Page 57821]]

number of primary beneficiaries who experienced either cessation of
employment or voluntarily changed employer is 65,752, with a high of
80,034 in FY 2023 and a low of 40,959 in FY 2021. From FY 2021 through
FY 2025, 5.77 percent of 328,758 primary beneficiaries that either lost
their job or changed employers had a new petition for nonimmigrant
worker (Form I-129) submitted on their behalf by a new employer
(petitioner) within 60 days after the withdrawal of their approved I-
129 petition by their old employer; 0.59 percent submitted Form I-485
requesting Adjustment of Status; another 1.70 percent submitted Form I-
539 to request an Extension/Change of Status; and less than 0.1 percent
submitted Form I-765 requesting a Compelling Circumstances EAD
(CCEAD).\50\ Ninety-nine percent of 328,758 E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1,
L-1, O-1 and TN primary beneficiaries that either lost their job or
changed employers from FY 2021 through FY 2025 belong to the H-1B
classification. For brevity, the combined population of primary
beneficiaries is presented in Table 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\47\ See DHS, USCIS, CDAO, CLAIMS3 & ELIS, queried 02/2026, 03/
2026, and 05/2026 PAER0020503, PAER0020655 and PAER0021448. DHS
calculated the burden based on the number of petitions or
applications received from FY 2018 forward because FY2018 was the
first fiscal year in which the AC21 rule was effective for the
entire fiscal year.
\48\ See e.g., 8 CFR 214.2(h)(11)(i)(A) (an H-1B employer is
required to immediately notify USCIS such as by submitting a letter
of withdrawal, when the employer no longer employs the beneficiary,
whether through termination or resignation).
\49\ As stated above, due to data limitations DHS uses this
population as a reasonable proxy to estimate the population that
could have used the grace period, as data on aliens using the grace
period is not captured on a form or otherwise reported to USCIS. DHS
acknowledges that using I-129 withdrawal data likely would not
enable estimation of all possible impacts, as it will not capture
all beneficiaries that could have used the grace period. For
instance, DHS notes that currently some employers do not notify
USCIS or file a withdrawal when an H-1B worker ceases to work for
the company but uses the up to 60-day discretionary grace period.
Some classifications, like the E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B1, L-1and TNs, do
not have a requirement to notify USCIS of employment cessation or
submit a withdrawal. Due to data limitations and availability, DHS
is unable to estimate the number of companies who have not notified
or filed a withdrawal letter with USCIS or who failed to do so
immediately upon cessation of the alien's employment. Further, DHS
is unable to estimate the number of aliens who changed employment
prior to having their petition withdrawn and would not have utilized
the grace period.
\50\ Calculations:--
18,975 5-Year Total of Beneficiaries with Change of Employer I-
129 petitions submitted within the Up to 60-day Discretionary Grace
Period/328,758 5-Year Total of Beneficiaries who witnessed either
job loss or voluntary job change = 5.77%.
1,924 5-Year Total of Beneficiaries who submitted Adjustment of
Status I-485 application within the Up to 60-day Discretionary Grace
Period/328,758 5-Year Total of Beneficiaries who witnessed either
job loss or voluntary job change = 0.59%.
5,596 5-Year Total of Beneficiaries who submitted Extend/Change
of Status I-539 application within the Up to 60-day Discretionary
Grace Period/328,758 5-Year Total of Beneficiaries who witnessed
either job loss or voluntary job change = 1.70%.
49 5-Year Total of Beneficiaries who submitted CCEAD application
within the Up to 60-day Discretionary Grace Period/328,758 5-Year
Total of Beneficiaries who witnessed either job loss or voluntary
job change = 0.02%.

Table 3--Beneficiaries of Form I-129, E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, O-1 and TN Classification for FY 2021 Through FY 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action pursued within the up to 60-Day discretionary grace period
------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary Register
beneficiaries who permanent Extension/ Compelling
Fiscal year experienced Petition for a residence or change of circumstances EAD
cessation of nonimmigrant adjustment of status (CCEAD)
employment or worker (Form I- status application application (Form
changed employers 129) application (Form I-539) I-765)
(Form I-485)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2021.............................................................. 40,959 2,138 346 258 1
2022.............................................................. 69,268 2,821 415 129 1
2023.............................................................. 80,034 3,955 298 645 6
2024.............................................................. 68,997 4,883 427 1,831 28
2025.............................................................. 69,500 5,178 438 2,733 13
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5-Year Total.................................................. 328,758 18,975 1,924 5,596 49
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5-Year Average................................................ 65,752 3,795 385 1,119 10
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% Share of Total.............................................. ................. 5.77 0.59 1.70 <0.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: USCIS CDAO, queried 1/2026 and 2/2026, PAER0020131 and PAER0020348.
Fiscal Year refers to the year the nonimmigrant visa beneficiary's approved Form I-129 was revoked due to request received by USCIS from the petitioner
to withdraw an approved Form I-129 petition.

Nonimmigrant status of dependents of primary E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B,
H-1B1, L-1, O-1 and TN beneficiaries is tied to the primary
beneficiary's status and therefore they lose or change status if the
primary beneficiary loses or changes status. In Table 4, DHS presents
data on number of dependents of primary E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-
1, O-1 and TN beneficiaries by fiscal year of approval. Based on a 5-
year annual average, DHS estimates the number of dependents of primary
E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, O-1 and TN beneficiaries is 208,187,
with a high of 239,649 in FY 2022 and a low of 175,454 in FY 2024. DHS
data is not salient enough to provide a reliable and accurate estimate
of dependents of primary E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, O-1 and TN
beneficiaries who would have utilized the discretionary grace period
under current regulations after the primary beneficiary either
experienced cessation of employment or changed employer and received a
new employment offer, filed an I-485 application, applied for change of
status or extension of status, or requested a compelling circumstances
EAD.

Table 4--Dependents of Primary E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, O-1 and TN Beneficiaries
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-1B or H-
Fiscal year * E-1 E-2 E-3 1B1 L-1 O-1 or TN FY total
Dependents Dependents Dependents Dependents Dependents Dependents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2021......................................................... 450 6154 2038 179616 32427 4,191 224,876
2022......................................................... 468 8196 2512 189913 33616 4,944 239,649
2023......................................................... 279 7361 1330 154506 19499 5,925 188,900
2024......................................................... 172 5555 1162 146706 17610 4,249 175,454
2025......................................................... 114 4561 675 172470 27689 6,547 212,056
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5-Year Total............................................. 1,483 31,827 7,717 843,211 130,841 25,856 1,040,935
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5-Year Average........................................... 297 6,365 1,543 168,642 26,168 5,171 208,187
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: USCIS CDAO, CLAIMS3 database, queried 6/2026, PAER0021633.

[[Page 57822]]

* Fiscal Year refers to approval fiscal year.

3. Costs and Benefits of the Proposed Rule
The cost-benefit analysis is prepared based on the observed
behavior of beneficiaries and petitioners under the current regulation
and the expected behavior change in beneficiaries and petitioners due
to the proposed regulation. Hence the analysis is primarily qualitative
as there are multiple interplaying factors determining the outcome. The
cost-benefit analysis is separated into four sections, which reflect
the potential impacts as a result of the proposed change to eliminate
the 60-day grace period. The first section discusses the costs incurred
by E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, O-1 and TN beneficiaries with
intentions to pursue new job opportunities or apply for another
immigration status. The second section focuses on the total cost of
attending immigration hearings for E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, O-1
and TN beneficiaries who experienced a period of unemployment in
between jobs. The third section discusses the estimated impacts of the
proposed rule to the Federal Government. Finally, DHS concludes with a
discussion of the benefits of the proposed rule to both the Federal
Government and the public.
a. Costs of Eliminating the Up to 60-Day Discretionary Grace Period
The proposed change to eliminate the up to 60-day discretionary
grace period could directly impact those aliens in E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B,
H-1B1, L-1, O-1 and TN nonimmigrant status with intentions to pursue
new job opportunities or apply for another immigration status,
including change of status, extension of stay or adjustment of status.
If such beneficiaries decide to leave the United States upon cessation
of their employment because they would be considered to be failing to
maintain status the day after cessation of employment pursuant to this
rule, they could incur costs related to their departure which could
include a termination fee of rental lease agreements, expenditure on
flight tickets or other transportation costs in certain circumstances,
and opportunity costs of time to get their legal and personal affairs
in order. However, to the extent that aliens in E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-
1B1, L-1, O-1 and TN nonimmigrant status would have sought to use the
up to 60-day discretionary grace period, but were unable to secure new
employment or change to another lawful status, these costs would be
indirect since this rule would only accelerate the time in which such
beneficiaries would incur these costs. DHS notes that an employer is
currently liable for the reasonable costs of return transportation of
an H-1B or an O-1 beneficiary to his or her home country if the
beneficiary is dismissed from employment by the employer before the end
of the period of authorized admission pursuant to section 214(c)(5) of
the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1184(c)(5); if the beneficiary voluntarily terminates
his or her employment prior to the expiration of the validity of the
petition, the beneficiary is not considered to be ``dismissed'' and
would personally incur the cost of return transportation. See 8 CFR
214.2(h)(4)(iii)(E) and (o)(16).
Due to data limitations, USCIS data cannot differentiate among
beneficiaries if a request to withdraw an approved Form I-129 petition
is due to voluntary (the employee quits) or involuntary (the employee
is terminated from employment) cessation of employment. Therefore, DHS
estimates that 3,795 E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, O-1 and TN
nonimmigrants annually would have a new nonimmigrant worker petition
(Form I-129) submitted on their behalf by a new petitioner within the
up to 60-day discretionary grace period (see Table 3). While not all
impacted classifications are obligated to request withdrawal, we
consider this estimate as an upper-bound estimate of the population
that could incur costs depending on their subsequent course of action
motivated by their decision to remain in valid nonimmigrant status in
United States or depart the country. About 3,765, out of a total of
3,795 or 99.2 percent of E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, O-1 and TN
nonimmigrants belong to the H-1B classification.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\51\ Source: USCIS CDAO, queried 1/2026 and 2/2026, PAER0020131
and PAER0020348. Calculation: 99.2 percent x 3,795 = 3,765.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Moreover, after examining wage data \52\ provided on Form I-129
petitions submitted by petitioners in the grace period, DHS determined
the median annual wages to be $131,000 in FY 2025 for aliens in H-1B
nonimmigrant status who had a Form I-129 petition revoked in FY 2025,
but then had a new Form I-129 petition submitted on their behalf by a
new petitioner within the up to 60-day discretionary grace period.\53\
Because 99.2 percent of these nonimmigrants belong to the H-1B
classification, DHS believes it is reasonable to use $131,000 to be the
median annual wages as a basis to estimate any foregone wages. A subset
of these beneficiaries who may have begun new employment with a new
employer during the 60 day grace period may incur lost income if they
require additional days to conduct their job search and return to the
United States because they departed as a result of the proposed
rulemaking.\54\ Estimates of lost income from possible increased
unemployment periods experienced by E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, O-
1 and TN beneficiaries varies within a classification and across
classifications. The American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act
allows eligible H-1B workers to begin new employment immediately upon
filing of a new, non-frivolous Form I-129 petition, without waiting for
approval.\55\ As for E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B1, L-1, O-1 and TN
beneficiaries, they can switch employers only after their new and non-
frivolous Form I-129 petition is approved.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\52\ Wage information is provided by H-1B petitioner to Question
9 of Part 5: Basic Information About the Proposed Employment and
Employer and does not include non-cash compensation and benefits.
The wage amount refers to what the employer agreed to pay the
beneficiary at the time the I-129 petition was filed but is not
always verified after hiring.
\53\ Source: USCIS CDAO, CLAIMS3 and ELIS, queried 1/2026,
PAER0020265.
For purposes of this analysis, DHS decided to rely on median
annual wages instead of mean annual wages. In Fiscal Year 2024
Annual Report to Congress, USCIS described characteristics of H-1B
specialty workers and reported that median annual compensation for
approved initial H-1B beneficiaries in FY 2024 was $97,000 and for
approved continuing employment H-1B beneficiaries in FY 2024 was
$132,000. See USCIS, Characteristics of H-1B specialty Occupation
Workers. Fiscal Year 2024 Annual Report to Congress October 1, 2023-
September 30, 2024 (Apr. 29, 2025), available at <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/legal-docs/ola_signed_fy2024_h1b_petitions.pdf">https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/legal-docs/ola_signed_fy2024_h1b_petitions.pdf</a> (last visited Jan. 26, 2026). In
the Annual Report, USCIS used the word compensation to refer to
wages.
\54\ While the proposed rule does not restrict aliens from
seeking subsequent employment in the United States, DHS considered a
subset who may have used grace period to find subsequent employment,
but could lose days of compensation due to the requirements of the
rule (e.g., traveling, searching for jobs from outside the country).
As an upper bound estimate, DHS considered an alien who would have
been able to work 60 additional days because the alien was not
required to leave the country under the current regulation, but
would require as much as two months to perform their job search and
return to the United States because the alien would have to leave
the United States under the proposed rule: $131,000 Median Annual
Compensation x (2 months/12 months) = $21,877.
\55\ See FAQs for Individuals in H-1B Nonimmigrant Status.
<a href="https://www.uscis.gov/archive/faqs-for-individuals-in-h-1b-nonimmigrant-status">https://www.uscis.gov/archive/faqs-for-individuals-in-h-1b-nonimmigrant-status</a> (last updated Dec. 23, 2025).
\56\ See USCIS Policy Manual, Vol. 7, Part E, Chapter 5--Job
Portability after Adjustment Filing and Other AC21 Provisions,
<a href="https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-7-part-e-chapter-5">https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-7-part-e-chapter-5</a> (last
updated Feb. 3, 2026).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 57823]]

While DHS assumes those employers who previously hired one or more
of the 3,795 aliens in E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, O-1, or TN
nonimmigrant status within the grace period would find equally
qualified U.S. workers or would continue to go through the applicable
petition process to obtain authorization to employ the same or another
foreign worker, some employers may face a temporary loss of
productivity. Alternatively, within an entity, work may be reassigned
to other employees. Employers who dismiss an H-1B or O-1 nonimmigrant
worker from employment are currently liable for the alien's return
transportation costs. Under the current regulation, employers of H-1B
or O-1 nonimmigrants who choose to remain in the United States after
being terminated from employment, because of the up to 60-day grace
period, would not incur the cost of the alien's return transportation
home. If the rule is finalized as proposed, these employers would
likely incur the alien's return transportation costs because the H-1B
or O-1 would be required to depart the country immediately when their
employment is terminated by the employer, unless the alien is otherwise
authorized to lawfully remain in the United States. Under current
regulations, employers do not completely lose the opportunity to hire
nonimmigrant workers who had a Form I-129 petition revoked and have
departed the country as they have the option to submit a new petition,
if otherwise eligible, to bring those aliens back to the United States
after the new employment petition is approved and if the alien is
admissible. The proposed rulemaking is not changing this current
practice.
DHS acknowledges that dependents of primary E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-
1B1, L-1, O-1 or TN beneficiaries who are authorized to work and
working in the United States would also be impacted if the up to 60-day
discretionary grace period at 8 CFR 214.1(l)(2) is removed as proposed
and the principal nonimmigrant on which their dependent status is based
experiences a cessation of employment. Subsequently, it would also
impact employers of E-1, E-2, E-3, H-4 and L-2 dependent spouses who
are authorized to work. The impacts described for primary E-1, E-2, E-
3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, O-1 or TN beneficiaries and their employers above
would be similar for E-1, E-2, E-3, H-4 and L-2 dependent spouses who
are authorized to work and their employers. An impact on dependent
spouses of the proposed change could be immediate departure and lost
compensation. As explained previously, DHS data is not salient enough
to provide a reliable and accurate estimate of dependents of primary E-
1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, O-1 and TN beneficiaries who would have
utilized the grace period granted at USCIS' discretion under current
regulations.
DHS cannot estimate the number of E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1,
O-1 or TN nonimmigrant workers who would depart from United States in
response to this rule if finalized as proposed, as some nonimmigrant
workers may have sufficient notice before cessation of employment to
find new employment or file a change of status request. Some
nonimmigrant workers could also have pending benefit requests (for
example, an adjustment of status application) that may allow them to
remain in the United States in a period of authorized stay following
the cessation of their employment. There could also be several factors
influencing whether some of these workers would decide to depart the
United States permanently or seek to re-enter the United States at a
later time and if so, under what immigration status.
b. Costs of Attending Immigration Hearings
In this proposed rule, E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, O-1 and TN
nonimmigrant workers would no longer receive an up to 60-day
discretionary grace period upon cessation of employment and would be
required to depart immediately unless otherwise authorized to lawfully
remain in the United States. These workers would be considered to have
failed to maintain status starting the day after their employment ends,
and could generally be amenable for an NTA as an alien who failed to
maintain nonimmigrant status. See INA sec. 237(a)(1)(C)(i), 8 U.S.C.
1227(a)(1)(C)(i). Once USCIS becomes aware of this fact, USCIS would
follow established guidance for issuing NTAs as appropriate.\57\ If an
NTA is issued by USCIS (or another relevant agency) and properly served
to such aliens, they would need to appear in front of an Immigration
Judge in the Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration
Review (EOIR) Immigration Court at the location and time specified on
the NTA.\58\ The affected population as a result of this rule would
likely be very small and would be limited to those whose employment
ended, who did not voluntarily depart the United States upon cessation
of their employment, who would have extended or changed status during
the grace period but are no longer able to because a grace period no
longer exists, and whose failure to maintain status would have been
known to USCIS before the end of the alien's period of admission as
indicated on his or her I-94. To illustrate, in FY 2025, there were 37
NTAs issued for H-1B beneficiaries based on failure to maintain
nonimmigrant status beyond the up to 60-day discretionary grace
period.\59\ DHS expects that due to the proposed rulemaking, the number
of issued NTAs would increase marginally. To estimate the opportunity
cost of time for E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, O-1 or TN having to
appear in front of an Immigration Judge, this analysis uses $48.05 per
hour in compensation, including costs for wages and salaries and
benefits from the Department of Labor, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS) report on Employer Costs for Employee Compensation detailing the
average employer costs for employee compensation for all civilian
workers in major occupational groups and industries.\60\ DHS accounts
for worker benefits when estimating the opportunity cost of time by
calculating a benefits-to-wage multiplier using the most recent BLS
report detailing the average employer costs for employee compensation
for all civilian workers in major occupational groups and industries.
DHS estimates that the benefits-to-wage multiplier is 1.46, which
incorporates employee wages and salaries and the full cost of benefits,
such as paid leave, insurance, and retirement.\61\ DHS does not rule
out the

[[Page 57824]]

possibility that some portion of this population might earn higher
wages than the average level for all occupations. E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B,
H-1B1, L-1, O-1 or TN nonimmigrants whose employment ended are not
supposed to work during the up to 60-day discretionary grace period,
unless otherwise authorized. Therefore, DHS's reliance on the average
employer costs for employee compensation for all civilian workers in
major occupational groups and industries is justifiable for such
beneficiaries described in Table 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\57\ For example, it could be possible that under such guidance
USCIS would issue an NTA upon receiving notice from the employer
(e.g., withdrawal of the approved I-129) that the alien was no
longer employed and the alien is no longer maintaining nonimmigrant
status.
\58\ DHS expects the majority of immigration hearings and
proceedings to take place in Immigration Courts. We are using the
cost and travel time estimates for attending immigration hearings at
a court or other designated location as an approximate estimate for
all populations attending immigration hearings in response to a
Notice to Appear (NTA) issued by USCIS.
\59\ DHS, USCIS, CDAO, CLAIMS3 & ELIS, queried 1/2026,
PAER0020172. This data depicts the number of aliens who exceeded the
60-day grace period and were issued an NTA for failure to maintain
status.
\60\ See BLS, Economic News Release, ``Employer Cost for
Employee Compensation--June 2025, '' Table 1. Employer costs for
employee compensation by ownership, (Sept. 12, 2025), Employer Costs
for Employee Compensation News Release--2025 Q02 Results, <a href="https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_09122025.htm">https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_09122025.htm</a>.
\61\ The benefits-to-wage multiplier is calculated as follows:
(Total Employee Compensation per hour)/(Wages and Salaries per hour)
= $48.05/$33.02 = 1.455 = 1.46 (rounded). See BLS, Economic News
Release, ``Employer Cost for Employee Compensation--June 2025,''
Table 1. Employer costs per hour worked for employee compensation
and costs as a percent of total compensation: civilian workers, by
major occupational and industry group, (Sept. 12, 2025), <a href="https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_09122025.pdf">https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_09122025.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are 1,174 designated locations where NTA hearings take place,
which include Immigration Courts.\62\ Using similar methodology as in
past rulemakings for estimating distance and time for attending an
appointment with USCIS, DHS estimates that the average round-trip
distance to an Immigration Court or other designated hearing location
is 50 miles, and that the average travel time for the trip is 2.5
hours.\63\ DHS's estimate of travel distance to an Immigration Court or
designated NTA hearing location is based on current standards through
which the Immigration Courts assign venue for NTA hearings.\64\ The
cost of travel also includes a mileage charge based on the estimated
50-mile round trip at the 2026 GSA rate of $0.725 per mile for use of a
privately owned automobile.\65\ DHS estimates an alien would spend 1 to
3 hours to attend an immigration hearing (depending on the complexity
of an individual case). DHS estimates the total time to travel to and
attend an immigration hearing would range from 3.5 to 5.5 hours. The
opportunity cost of time to attend an immigration hearing would range
from $168.18 to $264.28 per person.\66\ The travel cost based on
mileage is estimated to be $36.25.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\62\ USCIS CDAO, queried 1/2026, PAER0020251. See also <a href="https://www.justice.gov/eoir/immigration-court-operational-status">https://www.justice.gov/eoir/immigration-court-operational-status</a>. Last
accessed on Aug. 13, 2026.
\63\ See Collection and Use of Biometrics by U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Services, 90 FR 49062 (3 Nov. 2025); and Alien
Registration Form and Evidence of Registration, 91 FR 39248 (29 Jun.
2026). USCIS notes that this estimate of travel distance and travel
time is an overestimate as the number of NTA hearing locations
exceed the number of USCIS Application Support Centers.
\64\ Gomez, Valeria, ``Geography as Due Process in Immigration
Court,'' 23 Wisconsin Law Review 1 (2023), <a href="https://wlr.law.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1263/2023/04/A_15-Gomez-Camera-Ready-1-44-PDF-.pdf">https://wlr.law.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1263/2023/04/A_15-Gomez-Camera-Ready-1-44-PDF-.pdf</a>.
\65\ GSA, ``Privately owned vehicle (POV) mileage reimbursement
rates,'' <a href="https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan-a-trip/transportation-airfare-rates-pov-rates-etc/privately-owned-vehicle-pov-mileage-reimbursement">https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan-a-trip/transportation-airfare-rates-pov-rates-etc/privately-owned-vehicle-pov-mileage-reimbursement</a> (last visited Jan. 22, 2026).
\66\ Calculations: 3.5 (lower range of total time in hours to
attend hearing) x $48.05 (average wage for 1 hour of work) =
$168.175 = $168.18 (rounded)
5.5 (higher range of total time in hours to attend hearing) x
$48.05 (average wage for 1 hour of work) = $264.275 = $264.28
(rounded).
\67\ Calculation: 50-mile round trip x $0.725 per mile = $36.25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In sum, DHS estimates the opportunity cost of time and travel costs
to attend an immigration hearing in response to a NTA would range from
$204.43 to $300.53 per person.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\68\ Calculations: $36.25 (cost of travel) + $168.18 (time-
related costs) = $204.43.
$36.25 (cost of travel) + $264.28 (time-related costs) =
$300.53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Costs to the Federal Government
In the regulatory impact analysis (RIA), USCIS evaluates the
potential impacts of the rule against a no action baseline describing
what the world would be like if the rule is not finalized. This
proposed rule would result in USCIS devoting resources to issue an
increased number of NTAs and to initiate removal proceedings against
such aliens. The costs incurred by USCIS would be recovered by fees
established at an amount necessary to recover all expected costs.\69\
DHS acknowledges that while the proposed rulemaking would lead to
reduction in administrative burden, it would marginally increase the
volume of USCIS referrals to EOIR annually and lead to a minor increase
in workload demands on both DOJ and U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) (see Table 3). DHS asserts that these impacts may
lead to minor increases in operational demands on both agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\69\ USCIS is mainly funded by immigration and naturalization
benefit request fees charged to applicants and petitioners. Fees
collected from individuals and entities filing immigration benefit
requests are deposited into the IEFA. In accordance with the
requirements and principles of the Chief Financial Officers Act of
1990 (CFO Act), 31 U.S.C. 901-03 and OMB Circular A-25, USCIS
conducts biennial reviews of the non-statutory fees deposited into
the IEFA. The fee schedule is adjusted periodically to ensure that
fees are adequate to recover costs for providing adjudication and
naturalization services. The fee schedule was last adjusted on April
1, 2024. See 89 FR 6194 (Jan. 1, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Benefits to the Federal Government, Petitioners, and Beneficiaries
of Nonimmigrant Employment Visas
The proposed rule would better align the regulation with the
statute.\70\ As the grace period is not mandated by statute, its
existence disassociates the relationship between an alien's employment
and his or her authorization to stay in the country. The proposed rule
would encourage affected nonimmigrants to depart the United States upon
failure to maintain status. It would also reduce administrative burden
as the adjudication process to determine when a beneficiary ended
employment and the up to 60-day discretionary grace period started
which can be complicated and lead to uncertainty in case outcomes as
described in the preamble. Reduction in administrative burden would
enable USCIS to prioritize the allocation of scarce resources towards
timely adjudication of meritorious cases. Therefore, DHS believes that
elimination of the up to 60-day discretionary grace period at 8 CFR
214.1(l)(2) would lead to improved administrative efficiency and
further enhance the integrity of the legal immigration system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\70\ See Section IV.B. of the preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This proposed rule likely would not affect the national labor force
or that of individual States. To the extent that this proposed rule
would affect the labor force, the effects, if any, would be localized.
As such, this proposed rule would not result in any significant tax or
distributional impacts.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The RFA, Public Law 96-354, as amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, 5
U.S.C. 601 through 612, requires Federal agencies to consider the
potential impact of regulations on small businesses, small governmental
jurisdictions, and small organizations during the development of their
rules. The term ``small entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-
profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are
not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000.\71\ An ``individual'' is not
considered a small entity and therefore a rule's impacts on individuals
are not considered for RFA purposes. See 5 U.S.C. 601, 632. In
addition, the courts have held that the RFA requires an agency to
perform a regulatory flexibility analysis of small entity impacts only
when a rule directly regulates small entities.\72\ Consequently,

[[Page 57825]]

a rule's indirect impacts on a small entity not subject to the rule are
not considered for RFA purposes. DHS estimates that 3,795 petitions for
an E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, O-1 or TN nonimmigrant worker (Form
I-129) would be submitted by a new petitioner for a beneficiary within
the 60-day discretionary grace period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\71\ A small business is defined as any independently owned and
operated business not dominant in its field that qualifies as a
small business per the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632.
\72\ See U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), ``A Guide for
Government Agencies: How to Comply with the Regulatory Flexibility
Act.'' at 22 (Aug. 2017), <a href="https://advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/How-to-Comply-with-the-RFA.pdf">https://advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/How-to-Comply-with-the-RFA.pdf</a>. In Aeronautical
Repair Station Association, Inc. v. FAA, the D.C. Circuit made clear
that an entity is not ``subject to'' a regulation unless the
regulation ``imposes responsibilities directly on'' the entity. 494
F.3d 161, 177 (D.C. Cir. 2007); see also Mid-Tex Elec. Coop., Inc.
v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327, 342 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (holding that the RFA's
requirements apply only to ``small entities that would be directly
regulated'' by a challenged rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. A Description of the Reason Why the Action by the Agency Is Being
Considered
DHS is proposing to amend its regulations to remove 8 CFR
214.1(1)(2) from DHS regulations and no longer provide an up to 60 day
discretionary grace period for aliens admitted or otherwise provided
status in the E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, O-1, and TN
classifications, and their dependents, following cessation of the
employment or services that was the basis for the alien's admission or
grant of status. The proposed changes would better align the
regulations with the statute, reduce administrative burdens, and better
ensure program integrity. DHS believes these changes would better align
the regulations with the statute and Congressional intent.
2. A Statement of the Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the Proposed
Rule
DHS's objectives and legal authority for this proposed rule are
discussed earlier in Section IV.A. Need for the Proposed Rule, and in
the Executive Summary Section II.B. Legal Authority, of the preamble.
3. A Description and, Where Feasible, an Estimate of the Number of
Small Entities to Which the Proposed Changes Would Apply
This rule directly affects aliens, however we have included an
analysis of the number of employers who are not subject to the rule but
might be indirectly impacted by the rule for transparency. The small
entities submitting petitions are not the directly regulated
population.
For FY 2025, DHS estimates there were approximately 2,886 unique
entities who submitted a Form I-129 Change of Employer petition for
approximately 5,178 E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, O-1 or TN
nonimmigrant workers whose previously approved Form I-129 petition was
revoked because the petitioner withdrew the petition in FY 2025 (see
Table 3). These entities submitted a new petition for a nonimmigrant
worker via Form I-129 in the possible up to 60-day discretionary grace
period.\73\ DHS merged the internal employer data with SBA's table of
size standards \74\ to identify small entities. To determine whether an
entity is small for purposes of the RFA, DHS first identified the
entity's North American Industry Classification System code and then
used SBA guidelines to classify the revenue or employee count threshold
for each entity. Some entities were classified as small based on their
annual revenue, and some by their number of employees. Approximately 18
percent of petitions were not matched using SBA table of size
standards. These unmatched employers were considered small entities if
their number of employees was less than 500. In Table 5, DHS shows the
classification of 2,886 unique entities by their small entity status
according to SBA size standards.\75\ Out of the 2,886 unique
petitioners, 1,852 were determined to be small entities and 1,034 were
determined to be non-small entities.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\73\ As stated above, due to data limitations DHS uses this
population as a reasonable proxy to estimate the population that
could have used the grace period, as data on aliens using the grace
period is not captured on a form or otherwise reported to USCIS. DHS
acknowledges that using I-129 withdrawal data likely would not
enable estimation of all possible impacts, as it will not capture
all beneficiaries that could have used the grace period. For
instance, DHS notes that currently some employers do not notify
USCIS or file a withdrawal when an H-1B worker ceases to work for
the company but uses the up to 60-day discretionary grace period.
Some classifications, like the E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B1, L-1and TNs, do
not have a requirement to notify USCIS of employment cessation or
submit a withdrawal. Due to data limitations and availability, DHS
is unable to estimate the number of companies who have not notified
or filed a withdrawal letter with USCIS or who failed to do so
immediately upon cessation of the alien's employment. Further, DHS
is unable to estimate the number of aliens who changed employment
prior to having their petition withdrawn and would not have utilized
the grace period.
\74\ SBA, ``Table of Size Standards'' (Mar. 17, 2023), <a href="https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards">https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards</a>.
\75\ Source: USCIS CDAO, CLAIMS3 and ELIS, queried 1/2026 and 2/
2026, PAER0020265 and PAER0020514.
\76\ Office of Advocacy, SBA, ``A Guide for Government Agencies,
How to Comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act,'' p. 19 (Aug.
2017), available at <a href="https://advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/How-to-Comply-with-the-RFA-WEB.pdf">https://advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/How-to-Comply-with-the-RFA-WEB.pdf</a> (last visited July 17,
2026).

Table 5--Small Entity Determination of Entities That Filed Form I-129 Petition on Behalf of E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B,
H-1B1, L-1, O-1 or TN Beneficiaries in Discretionary Grace Period
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parameter Quantity Proportion (%) Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population--Entities that filed Form I-129 2,886 100 Determined by basis for
petition on behalf of E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H- classification.
1B1, L-1, O-1 or TN beneficiaries in
discretionary grace period.
Small entities................................ 1,852 64.17 Entities among the 2,886
entities considered small based
on revenue or employee data.
Non-small entities............................ 1,034 35.83 Number of non-small entities out
of the 2,886 entities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: USCIS CDAO, CLAIMS3 and ELIS, queried 1/2026 and 2/2026, PAER0020265 and PAER0020514.

A prospective petitioner (employer) may respond to the proposed
rulemaking in several ways. Under the proposed rulemaking, DHS
estimates that approximately 2,886 petitioners would lose the
opportunity to submit petitions for an E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1,
O-1 or TN nonimmigrants whose employment ended and do not have legal
status or access to the up to 60-day grace period. Relying on
information reported in Form I-129, DHS determined that approximately
99 percent of the unique entities that filed a new petition for
nonimmigrant worker (Form I-129) under H-1B classification on behalf of
H-1B beneficiaries in the up to 60-day discretionary grace period filed
petitions that were not subject to the cap. Entities that hire E-1, E-
2, E-3, H-1B1, L-1, O-1 or TN nonimmigrants filed applications or
petitions that are not subject to a cap (either because a numerical cap
does not apply to the classification or, if a cap does apply, the cap
has not been reached). Given that almost all these

[[Page 57826]]

entities described in Table 4 filed applications or petitions that are
not subject to a numerical cap, DHS presumes that they will either
offer the same jobs to equally qualified U.S. workers or go through the
I-129 petition process depending on their workforce requirement. In
some situations, aliens who have gone abroad can be readmitted for
employment if the I-129 petition filed on their behalf is approved and
the alien is admissible. Even though these petitioners would witness a
temporary loss of productivity, they might be able to gain U.S. workers
for the positions that were generally offered to E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B,
H-1B1, L-1, O-1 or TN nonimmigrants during the possible grace period
provided by 8 CFR 214.1(l)(2). The effects of this rulemaking on any
given employer would depend in part on the interaction of a number of
complex variables that constantly are in flux, including national,
state, and local labor market conditions, economic and business
factors, the type of occupations and skills involved, and the
substitutability between E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, O-1 or TN
workers and U.S. workers. DHS has not been able to estimate the number
of unique petitioners who offer employment to authorized dependents of
primary E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, O-1 or TN beneficiaries in
their grace period, but acknowledges the impacts of the proposed
rulemaking on such petitioners would be similar to what has been
described above.
4. A Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements of the Proposed Rule, Including an Estimate of
the Classes of Small Entities That Will Be Subject to the Requirement
and the Types of Professional Skills Necessary for Preparation of the
Report or Record
The proposed rulemaking would not lead to any additional reporting,
recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements on small entities.
5. An Identification of All Relevant Federal Rules, to the Extent
Practical, That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed
Rule
DHS is unaware of any duplicative, or conflicting Federal rules,
but invites the public to provide comments and information regarding
any such rules.
DHS is aware of potential overlap in the beneficiary population
with the Department of Labor's Improving Wage Protections for the
Temporary and Permanent Employment of Certain Foreign Nationals in the
United States Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.\77\ DOL is proposing to
revise Employment and Training Administration (ETA) regulations
governing the prevailing wages for employment opportunities that United
States (U.S.) employers seek to fill with alien workers through certain
EB-2 and EB-3 employment-based immigrant visas or through H-1B, H-1B1,
or E-3 nonimmigrant visas. DHS has determined that there is potential
overlap in the beneficiary population that is being regulated by DOL's
Improving Wage Protections for the Temporary and Permanent Employment
of Certain Foreign Nationals in the United States NPRM and DHS's
Eliminating the Discretionary 60-Day Grace Period NPRM; however, no
conflicts or duplications have been identified. DHS invites the public
to provide comments and information regarding any such rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\77\ Department of Labor, Improving Wage Protections for the
Temporary and Permanent Employment of Certain Foreign Nationals in
the United States. 91 FR 15454. [ETA-2026-0001] (March 27, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. A Description of Any Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Rule
That Accomplish the Stated Objectives of Applicable Statutes and That
Minimize Any Significant Economic Impact of the Proposed Rule on Small
Entities
There would be no significant economic impact on substantial number
of small entities.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) is intended, among
other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal
mandates on State, local, and tribal governments. Title II of UMRA
requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing
the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed rule, or final rule
for which the agency published a proposed rule that includes any
Federal mandate that may result in $100 million or more expenditure
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year by State, local, and
Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\78\ See 2 U.S.C. 1532(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The inflation adjusted value of $100 million in 1995 is
approximately $211 million in 2025 based on the Consumer Price Index
for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U).\79\ This proposed rule does not
contain a Federal mandate as the term is defined under UMRA.\80\ The
requirements of title II of UMRA, therefore, do not apply, and DHS has
not prepared a statement under UMRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\79\ See BLS, ``Historical Consumer Price Index for All Urban
Consumers (CPI-U): U.S. city average, all items, by month,'' <a href="https://www.bls.gov/cpi/tables/supplemental-files/historical-cpi-u-202512.xlsx">https://www.bls.gov/cpi/tables/supplemental-files/historical-cpi-u-202512.xlsx</a> (last visited Aug. 25, 2026). Calculation of inflation:
(1) Calculate the average monthly CPI-U for the reference year
(1995) and the current year (2025); (2) Subtract reference year CPI-
U from current year CPI-U; (3) Divide the difference of the
reference year CPI-U and current year CPI-U by the reference year
CPI-U; (4) Multiply by 100 = [(Average monthly CPI-U for 2025-
Average monthly CPI-U for 1995) / (Average monthly CPI-U for 1995)]
x 100 = [(321.943-152.383) / 152.383] = (169.560/152.383) = 1.113 x
100 = 111.3 percent = 111 percent (rounded). Calculation of
inflation-adjusted value: $100 million in 1995 dollars x 2.11 = $211
million in 2025 dollars.
\80\ The term ``Federal mandate'' means a Federal
intergovernmental mandate or a Federal private sector mandate. See 2
U.S.C. 1502(1), 658(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

This proposed rule would not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the National Government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6
of Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this proposed rule does
not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation
of a federalism summary impact statement.

E. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

This proposed rule was drafted and reviewed in accordance with E.O.
12988, Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule was written to provide
a clear legal standard for affected conduct and was carefully reviewed
to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguities, so as to minimize
litigation and undue burden on the Federal court system. DHS has
determined that this proposed rule meets the applicable standards
provided in section 3 of E.O. 12988.

F. Family Assessment

DHS has reviewed this proposed rule in line with the requirements
of section 654 of the Treasury and General Appropriations Act,
1999,\81\ enacted as part of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999.\82\ DHS has systematically
reviewed the criteria specified in section 654(c) of the Treasury and
General Appropriations Act by evaluating whether this regulatory
action: (1) impacts the stability or safety of the family, particularly
in terms of marital commitment; (2) impacts the authority of parents in
the education, nurture, and supervision of their children; (3) helps
the family perform its functions or

[[Page 57827]]

substitutes governmental activity for the function; (4) affects
disposable income or poverty of families and children; (5) only
financially impacts families, if at all, to the extent such impacts are
justified; (6) may be carried out by State or local government or by
the family; or (7) establishes a policy concerning the relationship
between the behavior and personal responsibility of youth and the norms
of society. If the agency determines a regulation may negatively affect
family well-being, then the agency must provide an adequate rationale
for its implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\81\ See 5 U.S.C. 601 note.
\82\ See Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Through this rule, DHS proposes to restore its previous and long-
standing policy of not providing E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, O-1
or TN nonimmigrants, and their dependents, with an up to 60-day
discretionary grace period upon cessation of employment with the
petitioning employer prior to the expiration of the alien's authorized
period of stay. The proposed changes, if finalized as proposed, would
require these nonimmigrants to immediately leave the United States upon
cessation of the employment or activity on which their nonimmigrant
status is based, unless otherwise authorized to lawfully remain in the
United States.
DHS has determined that the implementation of this regulation would
not negatively affect family well-being as outlined in section 654 of
the Treasury General Appropriations Act, 1999. While termination of
employment of an E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, O-1 or TN
nonimmigrant worker could affect the disposable income of a family, the
matter regulated in this rule eliminates the up to 60-day discretionary
grace period, which would have allowed affected aliens to find new
employment in the United States without departing the United States.
The financial effect thus would not stem from this rulemaking but
rather, is incidental to the alien's (and his or her family members)
obligation under governing immigration laws to depart the United States
after their employment has already terminated. The statutory and
regulatory obligation that the alien (and the alien's family members,
if any) who is no longer maintaining status must depart the United
States is not meaningfully different from any other alien's obligation
present in the United States who fails to maintain their nonimmigrant
status. Therefore, DHS believes that any impact would be negligible and
would be justified by better aligning DHS regulations with the INA.

G. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments)

This proposed rule would not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175 because it would not have substantial direct
effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the
Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
Accordingly, E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments, requires no further agency action or analysis.

H. National Environmental Policy Act

DHS and its components analyze proposed regulatory actions to
determine whether the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42
U.S.C. 4321, et seq., applies and, if so, what degree of analysis is
required. DHS Directive 023-01 Rev. 01 ``Implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act'' (Dir. 023- 01 Rev. 01) and Instruction
Manual 023-01-001-01 Rev. 01 (Instruction Manual) \83\ establish the
policies and procedures that DHS and its components use to comply with
NEPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\83\ The Instruction Manual contains DHS's procedures for
implementing NEPA and was issued on November 6, 2014, <a href="https://www.dhs.gov/ocrso/eed/epb/nepa">https://www.dhs.gov/ocrso/eed/epb/nepa</a> (last updated July 29, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NEPA allows Federal agencies to establish, in their NEPA
implementing procedures, categories of actions (``categorical
exclusions'') that experience has shown do not, individually or
cumulatively, have a significant effect on the human environment and,
therefore, do not require an environmental assessment or environmental
impact statement.\84\ The Instruction Manual, Appendix A lists the DHS
Categorical Exclusions.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\84\ See 42 U.S.C. 4336(a)(2), 4336e(1).
\85\ See Instruction Manual, Appendix A, Table 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under DHS NEPA implementing procedures, for an action to be
categorically excluded, it must satisfy each of the following three
conditions: (1) The entire action clearly fits within one or more of
the categorical exclusions; (2) the action is not a piece of a larger
action; and (3) no extraordinary circumstances exist that create the
potential for a significant environmental effect.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\86\ Instruction Manual at V.B(2)(a) through (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

With this proposed rule, DHS is seeking to remove 8 CFR 214.1(1)(2)
from DHS regulations and no longer provide an up to 60-day
discretionary grace period for aliens admitted or otherwise provided
status in the E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, O-1, and TN
classifications (and their dependents), following cessation of the
employment or activities that formed the basis for the alien's
eligibility for the classification and associated admission or grant of
status. The proposed rule, by removing the up to 60-day discretionary
grace period, would better align the regulation with the statutory
provision governing the impacted classifications, requiring the alien's
immediate departure from the United States upon his or her failure to
maintain the employment or activity that was the basis for the
nonimmigrant status, unless otherwise authorized to lawfully remain in
the United States. The purpose of the proposed regulation is also to
reduce the administrative burden associated with the up to 60-day
discretionary grace period. As such, this proposed rule is limited to
amending DHS regulations governing aliens in the E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B,
H-1B1, L-1, O-1, and TN nonimmigrant classifications. DHS has reviewed
this proposed rule and finds that no significant impact on the
environment, or any change in environmental effect, will result from
the amendments being promulgated in this proposed rule.
Accordingly, DHS finds that the promulgation of this proposed
rule's amendments to current regulations clearly fits within
categorical exclusion A3 established in DHS's NEPA implementing
procedures as an administrative change with no change in environmental
effect, is not part of a larger Federal action, and does not present
extraordinary circumstances that create the potential for a significant
environmental effect. Therefore, the proposed regulatory amendments are
categorically excluded from further NEPA review.

I. Paperwork Reduction Act

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, 44
U.S.C. chapter 35, and its implementing regulations 5 CFR part 1320,
all agencies are required to submit to OMB, for review and approval,
any reporting requirements inherent in a rule. This rule does not
propose any new or revise any existing ``collection[s] of information''
within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
This NPRM proposes to eliminate the up to 60-day discretionary
grace period at 8 CFR 214.1(l)(2) for E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1,
O-1, and TN nonimmigrants, and their dependents. USCIS has determined
that there is no need to update the Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker
(Form I-129) nor any other information collection related to E-1, E-2,
E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, O-

[[Page 57828]]

1, and TN nonimmigrants. Form I-129 has previously been approved by OMB
under the Paperwork Reduction Act. See OMB control number 1615-0009.

List of Subjects and Regulatory Amendments

List of Subjects

8 CFR Part 204

Administrative practice and procedure, Adoption and foster care,
Immigration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

8 CFR Part 214

Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Cultural exchange
program, Employment, Foreign officials, Health professions, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Students.

Accordingly, DHS proposes to amend chapter I of title 8 of the Code
of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 204--IMMIGRANT PETITIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 204 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1151, 1153, 1154, 1182, 1184,
1186a, 1255, 1324a, 1641; 8 CFR part 2.

0
2. Amend Sec. 204.5 by revising paragraph (p)(1)(i) to read as
follows:

Sec. 204.5 Petitions for employment-based immigrants

* * * * *
(p) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) In the case of an initial request for employment authorization,
the individual is in E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, O-1, or L-1 nonimmigrant status,
including the periods authorized by Sec. 214.1(l)(l), as well as any
other periods of admission authorized by this chapter before a validity
period begins or after the expiration of a validity period, on the date
the application for employment authorization (Form I-765) is filed;
* * * * *

PART 214--NONIMMIGRANT CLASSES

0
1. The authority citation for part 214 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 6 U.S.C. 202, 236; 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1102, 1103, 1182,
1184, 1186a, 1187, 1188, 1221, 1281, 1282, 1301-1305, 1357, and
1372; sec. 643, Pub. L. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009-708; Pub. L. 106-
386, 114 Stat. 1477-1480; section 141 of the Compacts of Free
Association with the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic
of the Marshall Islands, and with the Government of Palau, 48 U.S.C.
1901 note and 1931 note, respectively; 48 U.S.C. 1806; 8 CFR part 2;
Pub. L. 115-218, 132 Stat. 1547 (48 U.S.C. 1806).

0
2. Amend Sec. 214.1 by removing paragraph (l)(2) and redesignating
paragraph (l)(3) as paragraph (l)(2).

Sec. 214.1 Requirements for admission, extension, and maintenance of
status

* * * * *
(l) * * *
(1) * * *
(2) An alien in any authorized period described in paragraph (l) of
this section may apply for and be granted an extension of stay under
paragraph (c)(4) of this section or change of status under 8 CFR 248.1,
if otherwise eligible.

Markwayne Mullin,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2026-18631 Filed 9-10-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-97-P

</pre></body>
</html>

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on September 11, 2026.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.