60 days grace period被移除的相关细则已出H1B
共115条回复
锦晖律师事务所
置顶
Comment 1: DHS must explain how this proposal can coexist with H-1B portability under INA § 214(n).
I oppose the proposed elimination of the 60-day grace period because DHS has not adequately explained how the proposal would operate together with Congress’s statutory H-1B portability framework under INA § 214(n).
Congress specifically created H-1B portability so that an H-1B worker may begin employment with a new H-1B employer upon the filing of a nonfrivolous H-1B petition, rather than waiting for approval. This statutory framework assumes that H-1B workers can move between employers in a practical and workable way.
If DHS eliminates the grace period, an H-1B worker who is laid off may be deemed to fail to maintain status immediately after employment ends. In that scenario, DHS must explain how a new employer’s subsequently filed H-1B petition can meaningfully preserve portability. If the worker is already considered out of status before the new employer can realistically prepare and file the petition, the statutory portability protection becomes substantially less effective in real-world layoff situations.
DHS should not treat H-1B the same as every other classification without separately analyzing INA § 214(n). H-1B has a unique statutory portability provision. DHS must explain why eliminating the grace period for H-1B workers does not undermine Congress’s portability scheme, or alternatively preserve a transition period at least for H-1B workers.
Comment 2: DHS should account for LCA timing in H-1B transfer cases.
For H-1B workers, a new employer often cannot file an H-1B transfer immediately. Before the I-129 petition can be filed, the employer usually needs to prepare and file a Labor Condition Application, confirm the worksite, wage level, job duties, occupational classification, and internal sponsorship approval.
This process takes time even when the employer and attorney act quickly. If the grace period is eliminated, a worker terminated unexpectedly may not have enough time for a new employer to complete the required pre-filing steps. The result is that H-1B portability may become practically unavailable in many real-world layoff situations.
DHS should specifically analyze the interaction between LCA timing, H-1B transfer preparation, and INA § 214(n) portability before eliminating the grace period for H-1B workers. A zero-day rule does not reflect how H-1B transfer filings actually work.
Comment 3: DHS must explain why the 2016 reasons supporting job mobility and employer flexibility no longer apply.
In 2016, DHS recognized that the grace period promoted worker mobility, worker stability, and employer flexibility. DHS explained that the grace period helped workers pursue new employment and helped U.S. employers facilitate changes in employment for existing and newly recruited nonimmigrant workers.
DHS may change policy, but it must provide a reasoned explanation for changing position. The proposed rule says DHS has reconsidered the issue, but it does not adequately explain what has changed since 2016 that makes the prior benefits no longer important. Job mobility, employer flexibility, and workforce stability remain important today.
If anything, layoffs, restructuring, and rapid labor market changes make a transition period more important, not less. DHS should explain why the same interests it previously recognized are now insufficient to justify any grace period at all. DHS should also explain why a reduction from 60 days to zero is reasonable, rather than a shorter grace period or a more tailored rule.
Comment 4: Eliminating the grace period would increase employer control over immigration status and undermine worker protections.
Eliminating the grace period would give employers extraordinary leverage over foreign national workers. If a worker’s lawful status ends immediately upon employment cessation, then the employer effectively controls the worker’s immigration stability by deciding when to terminate employment.
This could make workers less willing to report wage violations, discrimination, harassment, unsafe working conditions, retaliation, or other unlawful conduct. A worker may tolerate mistreatment because leaving or being terminated could immediately place the worker and family out of status.
The current grace period helps reduce this imbalance by giving workers a short period to seek another sponsor or legal option. DHS should consider the worker-protection consequences of eliminating it. Program integrity should include protecting compliant workers from excessive employer control, not increasing vulnerability after job loss.
I oppose the proposed elimination of the 60-day grace period because DHS has not adequately explained how the proposal would operate together with Congress’s statutory H-1B portability framework under INA § 214(n).
Congress specifically created H-1B portability so that an H-1B worker may begin employment with a new H-1B employer upon the filing of a nonfrivolous H-1B petition, rather than waiting for approval. This statutory framework assumes that H-1B workers can move between employers in a practical and workable way.
If DHS eliminates the grace period, an H-1B worker who is laid off may be deemed to fail to maintain status immediately after employment ends. In that scenario, DHS must explain how a new employer’s subsequently filed H-1B petition can meaningfully preserve portability. If the worker is already considered out of status before the new employer can realistically prepare and file the petition, the statutory portability protection becomes substantially less effective in real-world layoff situations.
DHS should not treat H-1B the same as every other classification without separately analyzing INA § 214(n). H-1B has a unique statutory portability provision. DHS must explain why eliminating the grace period for H-1B workers does not undermine Congress’s portability scheme, or alternatively preserve a transition period at least for H-1B workers.
Comment 2: DHS should account for LCA timing in H-1B transfer cases.
For H-1B workers, a new employer often cannot file an H-1B transfer immediately. Before the I-129 petition can be filed, the employer usually needs to prepare and file a Labor Condition Application, confirm the worksite, wage level, job duties, occupational classification, and internal sponsorship approval.
This process takes time even when the employer and attorney act quickly. If the grace period is eliminated, a worker terminated unexpectedly may not have enough time for a new employer to complete the required pre-filing steps. The result is that H-1B portability may become practically unavailable in many real-world layoff situations.
DHS should specifically analyze the interaction between LCA timing, H-1B transfer preparation, and INA § 214(n) portability before eliminating the grace period for H-1B workers. A zero-day rule does not reflect how H-1B transfer filings actually work.
Comment 3: DHS must explain why the 2016 reasons supporting job mobility and employer flexibility no longer apply.
In 2016, DHS recognized that the grace period promoted worker mobility, worker stability, and employer flexibility. DHS explained that the grace period helped workers pursue new employment and helped U.S. employers facilitate changes in employment for existing and newly recruited nonimmigrant workers.
DHS may change policy, but it must provide a reasoned explanation for changing position. The proposed rule says DHS has reconsidered the issue, but it does not adequately explain what has changed since 2016 that makes the prior benefits no longer important. Job mobility, employer flexibility, and workforce stability remain important today.
If anything, layoffs, restructuring, and rapid labor market changes make a transition period more important, not less. DHS should explain why the same interests it previously recognized are now insufficient to justify any grace period at all. DHS should also explain why a reduction from 60 days to zero is reasonable, rather than a shorter grace period or a more tailored rule.
Comment 4: Eliminating the grace period would increase employer control over immigration status and undermine worker protections.
Eliminating the grace period would give employers extraordinary leverage over foreign national workers. If a worker’s lawful status ends immediately upon employment cessation, then the employer effectively controls the worker’s immigration stability by deciding when to terminate employment.
This could make workers less willing to report wage violations, discrimination, harassment, unsafe working conditions, retaliation, or other unlawful conduct. A worker may tolerate mistreatment because leaving or being terminated could immediately place the worker and family out of status.
The current grace period helps reduce this imbalance by giving workers a short period to seek another sponsor or legal option. DHS should consider the worker-protection consequences of eliminating it. Program integrity should include protecting compliant workers from excessive employer control, not increasing vulnerability after job loss.
已获得 1 大米
Yifdaddy
置顶
https://www.regulations.gov/document/USCIS-2026-0364-0001
已经可以评论了
让gpt总结了几个点：
1. Congress specifically created H-1B portability under INA §214(n). DHS 删除 grace period 后，必须解释 失业 → status immediately ends → 新雇主随后提交 I-129 的情况下，§214(n) 如何继续有效。
同时，DHS 将 H-1B 与另外 7 类一刀切，却没有充分解释为什么 H-1B 独有的 statutory portability 不需要区别分析。
2. DHS 对 USCIS administrative burden 精确量化到 190万件、5.77%、0.59%、1.70%、<0.1%，但对取消 grace period 后转移给 EOIR/ICE/DOJ 的负担只使用 “marginal/minor increase”等定性描述。
DHS 同时承认重大 reliance，却没有同等程度地量化/解释这些 reliance interests 为什么被 government interests outweighed。
3. DHS 估算平均每年约 20.8万 dependents，同时明确承认无法可靠估计其中多少依赖 grace period。
但在最终认定 reliance interests 被 outweighed 时，没有充分解释这个重大uncertainty 如何影响其分析
4. 2016 DHS 明确认为 grace period 有利于 job mobility、worker stability、employer flexibility。
2026 DHS 可以改变政策，但必须合理解释：为什么这些此前由 DHS 自己认定的重要利益现在不再值得保留，以及发生了什么变化使 60→0 成为合理选择。
希望大家可以积极去评论
已经可以评论了
让gpt总结了几个点：
1. Congress specifically created H-1B portability under INA §214(n). DHS 删除 grace period 后，必须解释 失业 → status immediately ends → 新雇主随后提交 I-129 的情况下，§214(n) 如何继续有效。
同时，DHS 将 H-1B 与另外 7 类一刀切，却没有充分解释为什么 H-1B 独有的 statutory portability 不需要区别分析。
2. DHS 对 USCIS administrative burden 精确量化到 190万件、5.77%、0.59%、1.70%、<0.1%，但对取消 grace period 后转移给 EOIR/ICE/DOJ 的负担只使用 “marginal/minor increase”等定性描述。
DHS 同时承认重大 reliance，却没有同等程度地量化/解释这些 reliance interests 为什么被 government interests outweighed。
3. DHS 估算平均每年约 20.8万 dependents，同时明确承认无法可靠估计其中多少依赖 grace period。
但在最终认定 reliance interests 被 outweighed 时，没有充分解释这个重大uncertainty 如何影响其分析
4. 2016 DHS 明确认为 grace period 有利于 job mobility、worker stability、employer flexibility。
2026 DHS 可以改变政策，但必须合理解释：为什么这些此前由 DHS 自己认定的重要利益现在不再值得保留，以及发生了什么变化使 60→0 成为合理选择。
希望大家可以积极去评论
✨ 您正在体验新版论坛UI
