Our Comment: Eliminating the Discretionary 60-Day Grace Period
We support this proposed rule and urge DHS to finalize it.
H-1B, L-1, and the other employment-based nonimmigrant classifications covered by this rule are tied to specific employment with a specific employer. That employment is the basis on which the worker is admitted. When the qualifying employment ends, the basis for that worker’s presence in the United States changes. Before January 2017, workers whose employment ended generally did not have a discretionary grace period of this kind. The 60-day grace period was created by regulation in November 2016, expanding the period during which foreign workers could remain in the country after the employment that justified their admission had ended.
This was a consequential expansion of immigration benefits initiated by executive regulation, without a mandate from Congress. The executive branch unilaterally extended the period during which foreign workers could remain in the United States after their qualifying employment ended, altering the practical operation of employment-based immigration programs without corresponding safeguards for accountability and oversight. This change weakened the connection between employment-based status and the qualifying job while providing additional flexibility to employers and foreign workers at the expense of effective oversight and enforcement.
Employers are best positioned to know when employment ends, yet the current framework lacks a reliable, mandatory reporting process that consistently informs USCIS of that event. As a result, agencies must reconstruct employment histories, evaluate inconsistent evidence of termination dates, and assess eligibility for continued authorized stay. DHS states that more than 1.9 million petitions and applications have required USCIS to assess grace-period eligibility since fiscal year 2018, often relying on evidence such as payroll records because there is no standardized proof of termination. These demands divert resources from vetting, fraud detection, and enforcement. Employers should not be permitted to sponsor foreign labor while leaving the government to bear the administrative and enforcement costs when that employment ends.
The absence of reliable employer reporting also creates opportunities for abuse. When employment ends but USCIS is not promptly informed, it becomes more difficult to verify whether a claimed position is genuine, whether a worker continues to satisfy the requirements of their status, or whether an employment arrangement exists primarily to facilitate immigration benefits. These gaps can make it harder to identify sham positions, inaccurate reporting, and other forms of noncompliance. Effective oversight cannot depend on reconstructing events after the fact with limited information.
The discretionary grace period allows foreign workers to remain in the United States and seek new employment after the job that justified their admission has ended. This extends the practical reach of employment-based immigration programs beyond the original qualifying employment and allows foreign workers to pursue positions that could otherwise be filled by qualified American workers. Eliminating this regulatory extension, alongside mandatory employer reporting and meaningful enforcement, would establish a clearer standard for compliance and reduce the administrative burden on government agencies. Employment-based immigration programs should not operate without reliable oversight or leave the government responsible for monitoring the consequences of employment relationships that sponsoring employers are best positioned to report.
We therefore urge DHS to:
Finalize the elimination of the discretionary 60-day grace period.
Require employers to promptly notify USCIS when covered employment ends, establish a reliable record of termination dates, and enforce compliance.
Publish data on covered workers whose employment ends each year, the timeliness of employer notifications, and the subsequent resolution of their cases.
Review other regulatory provisions that extend employment-based status or authorized stay beyond qualifying employment, with particular attention to congressional intent, program integrity, and effective oversight.
The 60-day grace period was created through regulation, not mandated by Congress, and expanded the government’s responsibilities without corresponding employer reporting safeguards. Eliminating it is a necessary step toward reducing reliance on employment-based immigration and restoring accountability over the admission and continued presence of foreign workers.
We urge DHS to finalize this rule.
nomoreh1bs.com
Sources
DHS proposed rule, Eliminating the Discretionary 60-Day Grace Period, Federal Register 2026-18631, docket USCIS-2026-0364 (including the figure of more than 1.9 million petitions and applications requiring a grace-period assessment since fiscal year 2018).
Our Comment: Eliminating the Discretionary 60-Day Grace Period
We support this proposed rule and urge DHS to finalize it.
H-1B, L-1, and the other employment-based nonimmigrant classifications covered by this rule are tied to specific employment with a specific employer. That employment is the basis on which the worker is admitted. When the qualifying employment ends, the basis for that worker’s presence in the United States changes. Before January 2017, workers whose employment ended generally did not have a discretionary grace period of this kind. The 60-day grace period was created by regulation in November 2016, expanding the period during which foreign workers could remain in the country after the employment that justified their admission had ended.
This was a consequential expansion of immigration benefits initiated by executive regulation, without a mandate from Congress. The executive branch unilaterally extended the period during which foreign workers could remain in the United States after their qualifying employment ended, altering the practical operation of employment-based immigration programs without corresponding safeguards for accountability and oversight. This change weakened the connection between employment-based status and the qualifying job while providing additional flexibility to employers and foreign workers at the expense of effective oversight and enforcement.
Employers are best positioned to know when employment ends, yet the current framework lacks a reliable, mandatory reporting process that consistently informs USCIS of that event. As a result, agencies must reconstruct employment histories, evaluate inconsistent evidence of termination dates, and assess eligibility for continued authorized stay. DHS states that more than 1.9 million petitions and applications have required USCIS to assess grace-period eligibility since fiscal year 2018, often relying on evidence such as payroll records because there is no standardized proof of termination. These demands divert resources from vetting, fraud detection, and enforcement. Employers should not be permitted to sponsor foreign labor while leaving the government to bear the administrative and enforcement costs when that employment ends.
The absence of reliable employer reporting also creates opportunities for abuse. When employment ends but USCIS is not promptly informed, it becomes more difficult to verify whether a claimed position is genuine, whether a worker continues to satisfy the requirements of their status, or whether an employment arrangement exists primarily to facilitate immigration benefits. These gaps can make it harder to identify sham positions, inaccurate reporting, and other forms of noncompliance. Effective oversight cannot depend on reconstructing events after the fact with limited information.
The discretionary grace period allows foreign workers to remain in the United States and seek new employment after the job that justified their admission has ended. This extends the practical reach of employment-based immigration programs beyond the original qualifying employment and allows foreign workers to pursue positions that could otherwise be filled by qualified American workers. Eliminating this regulatory extension, alongside mandatory employer reporting and meaningful enforcement, would establish a clearer standard for compliance and reduce the administrative burden on government agencies. Employment-based immigration programs should not operate without reliable oversight or leave the government responsible for monitoring the consequences of employment relationships that sponsoring employers are best positioned to report.
We therefore urge DHS to:
The 60-day grace period was created through regulation, not mandated by Congress, and expanded the government’s responsibilities without corresponding employer reporting safeguards. Eliminating it is a necessary step toward reducing reliance on employment-based immigration and restoring accountability over the admission and continued presence of foreign workers.
We urge DHS to finalize this rule.
nomoreh1bs.com
Sources