You have until November 10, 2026 to tell DHS what losing the grace period would mean for you

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has proposed eliminating the up to 60-day grace period that lets E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, O-1, and TN workers, and their families, remain in the United States after a job ends. The proposed rule was published on September 11, 2026 (91 Fed. Reg. 57,807), under docket number USCIS-2026-0364. Public comments are due Tuesday, November 10, 2026.

If the rule is finalized as proposed, a worker whose employment ends would be treated as out of status the very next day. That worker and every dependent family member would be expected to leave the United States immediately. There would be no time to find a new employer, file a change-of-employer petition, sell a house, break a lease, or finish a child’s school term.

The proposal also contains a lesser-known change that could significantly impact workers with approved I-140 petitions. In a single footnote, DHS proposes removing the regulatory language that currently allows eligible workers to apply for a compelling circumstances Employment Authorization Document (EAD) during the 60-day grace period following termination of employment. DHS describes this as a “technical revision,” but the practical consequence is significant: workers who lose their jobs could also lose an important opportunity to apply for temporary employment authorization while awaiting their green cards.

More than 27,000 comments have been filed so far. This post explains how to add yours, gives you a fill-in-the-blank template, and, most importantly, explains how to write a comment that DHS is legally required to take seriously.

Why your comment matters, and why it must be your own

Public comment is not a vote. DHS will not withdraw the rule because a certain number of people oppose it. What the law does require is that DHS read the comments, respond to every significant issue raised, and explain why it disagrees. If DHS finalizes the rule without adequately responding to a significant point in the record, a federal court can set the rule aside.

That changes what an effective comment looks like:

• Identical comments are grouped together. When thousands of people submit the same form letter, the agency typically treats them as one comment and responds once. Copying this template word for word adds a number to a tally. Adding your own facts adds evidence.
• DHS admitted it has no cost figures. The proposed rule states that DHS did not estimate the monetized costs of the rule. It did not count lease-termination fees, home sales, lost wages for spouses, children pulled from school, or the months it takes to get a visa appointment abroad. Your real numbers fill that gap, and DHS must address them.
• Your comment becomes part of the court record. If the rule is finalized and challenged in court, the judge will review the comments DHS received. Specific, factual comments are the ones lawyers cite.

The template below gives you the structure and the legal points. Your job is to fill it with details only you can provide.

Before you write: protect yourself

Every comment is posted publicly on regulations.gov and stays online permanently. Anyone, including a future employer or a government officer, can read it. Commenting is a lawful way to take part in rulemaking, but write as if your words will be read by everyone.

Regulations.gov itself warns: “Do not submit personally identifiable information through this form. Any personally identifiable information (e.g., name, address, phone number) included in the comment form or in an attachment may be publicly disclosed in a docket or on the Internet.” That warning applies to your attached file as well as the text box.

Do not include:

• Receipt numbers, A-numbers, passport or I-94 numbers, Social Security numbers, or visa numbers
• Your home address, phone number, or your children’s names or schools
• Your employer’s name, confidential business information, or anything your employment agreement restricts you from disclosing
• Medical details beyond what you are comfortable having public

Do not describe any period in which you worked without authorization, stayed past your authorized stay, or otherwise violated your status. A public comment is not the place to discuss your own immigration history in detail. If you are unsure whether something is safe to say, leave it out or speak with an immigration attorney first.

Be accurate. Use real figures and real experiences. Round numbers are fine (“about $4,000”); invented numbers are not. Statements made to a federal agency should be truthful.

You can comment anonymously. Regulations.gov lets you submit as an Individual, an Organization, or Anonymous. Choose Organization only if you are commenting on behalf of a company or group. A comment signed with your name and general role (for example, “H-1B software engineer in Texas since 2015”) may carry more weight, but an anonymous comment with specific facts is still valuable. Choose what you are comfortable with.

How to submit your comment on regulations.gov

Submitting takes about ten minutes once your comment is written. Do not wait until the last evening: the portal can slow down near a deadline, and comments that arrive late may not be considered.

1. Write your comment first in a word processor using the template below. Save it as a Word document or PDF.
2. Go to the proposed rule at gov/document/USCIS-2026-0364-0001. Confirm the page shows docket USCIS-2026-0364 and the title “Eliminating the Discretionary 60-Day Grace Period.”
3. Click the blue “Comment” button.
4. Paste a short version into the comment box, for example your opening paragraph and personal story. The text box is limited to 5,000 characters, which is why we recommend attaching the full version.
5. Attach your full comment as a Word or PDF file using the upload area below the text box. Add a line in the text box such as “Please see my full comment in the attached file.” Valid file types include: bmp, docx, gif, jpg, jpeg, pdf, png, pptx, rtf, sgml, tif, tiff, txt, wpd, xlsx, xml.
6. Fill in the optional fields as you choose (see “Before you write” above). Select whether you are submitting as an Individual, an Organization, or Anonymous. Remember that anything you enter, including your name, may be made public.
7. Check the box confirming you have read the privacy notice, then click “Submit Comment.”
8. Save your Comment Tracking Number. The confirmation page shows a tracking number. Screenshot it or write it down; you can use it to confirm your comment was received.

Comments may take several days to appear publicly on the docket. That delay is normal and does not mean your comment was lost.

Deadline: November 10, 2026. Regulations.gov comment periods generally close at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date; aim to submit by November 9.

The template

Replace everything in [BRACKETS] with your own information. The numbered points in Part 3 are a menu: keep the ones that apply to you, delete the rest, and add a sentence or two of your own experience under each one you keep. A shorter comment with real details is stronger than a long one copied in full.

To: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security

Re: DHS Docket No. USCIS-2026-0364, RIN 1615-AD22, “Eliminating the Discretionary 60-Day Grace Period,” 91 Fed. Reg. 57,807 (Sept. 11, 2026)

Date: [DATE]

I submit this comment in opposition to the proposed rule and ask DHS to withdraw it.

Part 1. Who I am

I am a [CLASSIFICATION, e.g., H-1B / L-1 / O-1 / TN / E-2 / H-4 / L-2] [worker / dependent spouse] who has lived in the United States for [NUMBER] years. I work as a [GENERAL JOB TITLE, e.g., software engineer, physician, mechanical engineer] in [STATE]. [If applicable: My employer has filed an immigrant petition for me, and I am waiting for a green card because of the visa backlog. I expect to wait about [NUMBER] more years.]

Part 2. What this rule would mean for my family

[Describe your situation in 4 to 8 sentences. Use real numbers. Questions to answer:]

• [Who lives with you? Spouse, children (ages only, no names), parents?]
• [Do you own a home or rent? What would it cost to break your lease or sell quickly? Do you have a mortgage?]
• [Are your children in school here? Were they born here or have they lived anywhere else?]
• [Does your spouse work on an H-4, L-2, or E EAD? What would your household lose if their work authorization ended the same day?]
• [Have you been laid off before, or seen coworkers laid off? How long did it take to find a new job and have the new petition filed?]
• [How long would it take to get a visa appointment in your home country if you had to leave and reenter?]

Example: “I have lived in Texas for eleven years on an H-1B visa. My approved I-140 means I am waiting in the green card backlog. My wife works on an H-4 EAD as a nurse, and our two children, ages 7 and 12, have never lived anywhere else. We have a mortgage. If I were laid off on a Friday, this rule would make my whole family out of status by Saturday. We could not sell our house, withdraw our children from school, or find a new job in one day. When I was laid off in 2023, it took me five weeks to find a new employer and have the petition filed. Under this rule, I would have had zero days.”

Part 3. Why the rule should be withdrawn

[Keep the points that apply to you. Add your own experience under each.]

1. The rule undermines Congress’s protections for workers changing employers.

Congress created H-1B portability under INA section 214(n) so eligible H-1B workers could begin working for a new employer upon the filing of a qualifying petition. Under current regulations, the 60-day grace period gives a worker who loses a job time to find another employer, obtain a certified Labor Condition Application, and have a new H-1B petition filed without first leaving the United States.

Without the grace period, a worker who loses a job may immediately fall out of status, making it significantly harder to qualify for an extension of stay or begin employment with a new employer under the portability provisions. The worker could instead be required to leave the country and seek readmission, even when another U.S. company is ready to hire them.

Congress also enacted INA section 204(j) to provide flexibility for certain employment-based green card applicants to change jobs. Eliminating the grace period undermines the broader goal of allowing skilled workers to move between employers without unnecessary immigration disruptions.

[Describe how long it would take you to find a new employer and complete the petition process. If you have changed H-1B employers before, explain how long it took.]

2. The rule removes an important opportunity to apply for a compelling circumstances work permit.

In footnote 19 of the proposed rule (91 Fed. Reg. at 57,812 n.19), DHS proposes removing the reference to the 60-day grace period from 8 CFR 204.5(p)(1)(i). DHS describes this as a “technical revision,” but it has real consequences.

Currently, certain workers with approved I-140 immigrant petitions can apply for a compelling circumstances Employment Authorization Document (EAD) during the 60-day grace period, provided they meet the other eligibility requirements. This can provide a potential safety net for workers facing serious hardship, particularly those stuck in lengthy green card backlogs.

Removing this language would eliminate that filing opportunity for workers who have already entered the grace period. DHS identifies the change only in a footnote without separately analyzing its effects on workers who may need this form of employment authorization. DHS should retain this regulatory protection regardless of what it ultimately decides about the 60-day grace period.

[If you have an approved I-140, explain how long you have been waiting for a green card and why losing your job could create compelling circumstances for your family.]

3. Families and children should not be expected to leave the country immediately.

Under the proposed rule, a worker and dependent family members who rely on that worker’s status could begin failing to maintain their nonimmigrant status the day after the worker’s employment ends, unless they have another basis to remain lawfully in the United States.

DHS’s own Table 4 reports an average of more than 208,000 dependent approvals annually in the affected classifications over the five-year period it examined. DHS acknowledges that it cannot reliably estimate how many dependents would actually be affected by eliminating the grace period. Despite that uncertainty, DHS concludes that the effect on family well-being would be negligible.

For families who have spent years building their lives in the United States, the consequences are anything but negligible. Children attend American schools. Families own homes, sign leases, and have financial obligations. Some spouses have their own careers and employment authorization tied to the principal worker’s immigration status.

Other nonimmigrant categories receive transition periods when their qualifying activities end. For example, qualifying F-1 students generally receive 60 days following completion of their programs, while J-1 exchange visitors generally receive 30 days. Workers and families should likewise have a reasonable period to make arrangements following an unexpected job loss.

[Describe your spouse, children, housing situation, and the practical difficulties your family would face if required to leave the United States immediately.]

4. Workers and employers have relied on the 60-day grace period for nearly a decade.

The 60-day grace period has been part of the immigration regulations since January 2017. USCIS has also published guidance titled “Options for Nonimmigrant Workers Following Termination of Employment,” explaining how workers can use the grace period to pursue other immigration options.

Workers and employers have relied on these rules when making employment, housing, education, and family decisions. DHS acknowledges these reliance interests in the proposed rule at 91 Fed. Reg. 57,815–57,816, but concludes that eliminating the grace period is justified. That conclusion does not adequately account for the disruption caused to families and employers who have planned around a longstanding regulation.

The fact that the grace period is discretionary does not mean that people have not reasonably relied on its availability. DHS should carefully evaluate those reliance interests before eliminating a protection it has maintained and publicly explained for nearly ten years.

[Explain how long you have lived in the United States, what commitments you have made here, and how the existence of the grace period has affected your employment or family decisions.]

5. The rule creates serious uncertainty about when employment actually ends.

Under the proposal, the consequences of losing employment become immediate, yet the date employment legally ends is not always clear. Workers may receive advance notice of termination, remain on payroll during a notice period, receive severance, be placed on furlough, or experience disputes about their final employment date.

Removing the grace period makes these distinctions much more consequential. A disagreement about the date employment ended could determine whether a worker maintained lawful nonimmigrant status or whether a subsequent immigration filing was timely.

The current grace period provides a limited transition period that reduces the consequences of these uncertainties. DHS should clearly define cessation of employment and address paid notice periods, furloughs, and other employment arrangements before imposing immediate immigration consequences.

[If you have experienced a layoff, furlough, paid notice period, or uncertainty about your last day of employment, explain what happened.]

6. Eliminating the grace period gives employers more power over vulnerable workers.

The 60-day grace period provides workers with some protection against becoming immediately dependent on their employer’s decisions. Without it, a worker who reports unpaid wages, discrimination, harassment, or unsafe working conditions could face the additional risk of losing immigration status immediately if the employer retaliates by terminating employment.

Federal law provides protections for H-1B workers who report certain employer violations, including under INA section 212(n)(2)(C)(iv). However, those protections may be less effective in practice if workers fear that termination could result in immediate loss of status and disruption to their families.

The 60-day grace period helps reduce this imbalance by giving terminated workers limited time to pursue new employment or another immigration option.

[If you have been afraid to report a workplace problem because of your immigration status, explain why. Include only information you are comfortable making public.]

7. DHS has not fully calculated the economic costs of eliminating the grace period.

DHS acknowledges that it has not quantified several significant economic costs associated with the proposed rule. These costs can include lost wages, additional unemployment, international travel, housing losses, and reduced productivity for U.S. businesses.

The proposal identifies a median annual wage of $131,000 for a particular group of H-1B workers who changed employers during the grace period in FY 2025. A worker earning that amount could lose approximately $10,900 in gross wages for each additional month of unemployment.

The costs to families could be substantially greater when a dependent spouse also loses employment authorization or a family must pay to relocate internationally. DHS should not dismiss these consequences merely because it cannot precisely calculate them with the available data. It should obtain additional information and evaluate the costs before eliminating the regulation.

[Estimate your potential financial losses, including monthly income, spouse’s income, mortgage or rent obligations, airfare, moving expenses, and other expenses.]

8. DHS could reduce its administrative burden without eliminating the grace period.

DHS argues that the grace period creates an administrative burden because officers must determine whether a petition or application relies on the grace period and whether the applicant qualifies. At 91 Fed. Reg. 57,814, DHS explains that applicants do not always proactively identify their reliance on the grace period, requiring officers to review filings to determine whether it applies.

DHS reports that more than 1.9 million petitions or applications potentially required this initial assessment between October 2017 and May 2026, even though only a relatively small subset involved workers actually using the grace period.

DHS could simply revise Forms I-129 and I-539 and their instructions to require applicants to identify whether they are relying on the 60-day grace period and provide the date employment ended. USCIS officers could then more easily identify which filings require additional review rather than independently investigating whether the grace period might apply.

DHS could also consider making the 60-day period automatic rather than discretionary. That would reduce the need for individualized decisions about whether to shorten or eliminate the grace period, while preserving a reasonable transition period for workers and families.

DHS should more fully evaluate these alternatives instead of eliminating the grace period entirely.

9. The rule would hurt American employers trying to hire qualified workers.

Eliminating the grace period would not just harm foreign workers. It would also make it harder for U.S. companies to hire talented individuals who are already living and working in the United States. DHS’s own Table 3 estimates that approximately 3,795 workers annually had new Form I-129 petitions filed by new employers during the grace period, based on its five-year averages.

Without the grace period, some of these workers would have to depart the United States and complete additional immigration processing abroad before they could begin working for a new employer. That could cause employers to lose qualified candidates, delay important projects, incur additional immigration costs, and experience lost productivity. Small businesses may be particularly affected because they often lack the resources to manage unexpected international immigration processing and prolonged hiring delays.

DHS assumes that affected employers may hire other qualified workers, but that does not account for the specialized skills, experience, training, and institutional knowledge that individual employees bring to their positions. American employers should not be forced to lose access to qualified workers simply because those workers experienced a temporary period of unemployment.

[If applicable, describe how a job change allowed you to contribute to a U.S. company, or how difficult it would be for an employer to replace your specialized skills.]

10. DHS should explain why its statutory interpretation requires eliminating a reasonable transition period.

DHS argues that employment-based nonimmigrant status should remain tied to the qualifying employment or activity and that the grace period is inconsistent with that statutory framework.

However, the fact that employment is a condition of nonimmigrant status does not necessarily mean DHS lacks authority to establish a reasonable transition period when that employment unexpectedly ends. DHS adopted the grace period in 2016 to facilitate employment changes, provide stability to workers and their families, and help U.S. employers retain access to skilled workers. DHS should explain more fully why those objectives no longer justify the existing regulation and why its interpretation of the immigration statutes warrants eliminating a transition period that has operated for nearly a decade.

Thank you for considering my comment.

[YOUR NAME, or “Anonymous”]

[GENERAL DESCRIPTION, e.g., “H-1B engineer, Houston, Texas”]

How to make your comment count

Lead with your story, then the law. Your personal facts are the part DHS cannot find anywhere else. Put them near the top so they are read.

Use numbers. “It would be expensive” is an opinion. “Breaking my lease costs two months’ rent, about $5,200, and the visa appointment wait in my home country is currently about four months” is evidence. DHS said it did not put a dollar figure on the rule’s costs; every real number you give makes that omission harder to defend.

Answer DHS’s reasons directly. DHS says it is eliminating the grace period because the law does not require it and because deciding each case takes officer time. Points 4 and 8 in the template respond to those two reasons. Comments that engage the agency’s own reasoning are harder to dismiss than comments that simply oppose.

Stay calm and specific. Anger, insults, and political arguments are easy for an agency to set aside. A respectful, factual comment from someone who will live with the consequences is not.

One comment per person, but every person can comment. Do not submit the same comment several times. Instead, ask your spouse to write their own comment about losing their work authorization, and ask friends, coworkers, and family to write theirs. Each one should describe that person’s own situation.

Ask your employer to comment too. Employers can describe what they lose when a skilled worker must leave immediately: recruiting costs, unfinished projects, and return-transportation costs the rule would newly require of H-1B and O-1 employers. Comments from small businesses are especially useful, because DHS concluded the rule has no significant impact on small entities.

Final checklist

• ☐ All [BRACKETS] replaced or deleted
• ☐ Points that do not apply to me removed
• ☐ At least one specific number or fact from my own life included
• ☐ No receipt numbers, A-numbers, passport numbers, addresses, or children’s names
• ☐ Nothing describing a past status violation or unauthorized work
• ☐ Docket number USCIS-2026-0364 at the top
• ☐ Submitted before 11:59 p.m. Eastern on November 10, 2026 (ideally by November 9)
• ☐ Comment Tracking Number saved

For more information or to discuss How to Oppose DHS’s Proposal to Eliminate the 60-Day Grace Period, please schedule a consultation here.

By: Emily Neumann

Emily Neumann is Managing Partner at Reddy Neumann Brown PC with over 15 years of experience practicing US immigration law providing services to U.S. businesses and multinational corporations. Emily has helped transform the firm from a solo practice to Houston’s largest immigration law firm focused exclusively on U.S. employment-based immigration.  She received her Bachelor’s degree in Biology from Central Michigan University and her Juris Doctorate degree from the University of Houston Law Center. Emily has been quoted in Bloomberg Law, U.S. News & World Report, Inside Higher Ed, and The Times of India on various hot topics in immigration. She is a member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association and Society for Human Resource Management.