How to Use This

This is a starting point, not a form letter. Agencies group identical comments together and give them very little weight, so the single most important thing you can do is put this in your own words and add your real situation. Change the wording, reorder the paragraphs, cut what does not apply to you, and add a sentence or two about your own life. A short, specific, personal comment beats a long, generic one every time.

Where to submit: Go to regulations.gov and search for docket number USCIS-2026-0067, then use the “Comment” button. You can also cite the rule as RIN 1615-AC98, 91 FR 34352.

Deadline: Comments must be received on or before August 4, 2026.

A few cautions. Comments can be posted publicly, so do not include sensitive personal details you would not want online, such as your A-number, full date of birth, or case receipt numbers. Use your real experience but keep it general. Stay respectful and factual. Rude or threatening comments get set aside instead of counted.

Fill in anything shown in [brackets and highlight]. Delete this “How to Use” section before you submit.

The Comment

Docket No. USCIS-2026-0067

RIN 1615-AC98

Re: Clarification of Discretionary Employment Authorization for Certain Aliens, 91 FR 34352

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to oppose this proposed rule. [Introduce yourself in one or two sentences. For example: I am an F-1 student authorized for STEM OPT and I work as a [job title] at a company in [state]. Or: I am the spouse of an H-1B worker and I hold an H-4 employment authorization document. Or: I am waiting on my green card and I work under an employment authorization document based on my pending application.] This rule would directly affect my ability to work lawfully in the United States, and I do not believe the Department has justified the changes it proposes.

My central concern is that the rule takes categories of work authorization that have always functioned as eligibility based and predictable, and rewrites the general provisions at 8 CFR 274a.12(c) and 274a.13 so that a single arrest becomes a basis to deny the work permit. Under the rule as written, an applicant who has merely been arrested for, charged with, or indicted for any criminal act is presumed not to warrant a favorable exercise of discretion, and that presumption applies even where the charge was dropped, dismissed, resolved through a diversion program, or later sealed or expunged. Treating an arrest that led to no conviction as the deciding factor is fundamentally unfair. In our legal system an arrest is not proof of wrongdoing, and a dismissal or expungement is supposed to mean the matter is closed. This rule would turn a closed, favorable outcome into a permanent mark against a person’s ability to earn a living.

This is a sharp and unexplained departure from how these cases are handled today. Right now, when an applicant has an old arrest with no conviction, the agency asks for the court records, the final disposition, and evidence of the person’s positive equities, and it weighs everything together. Applicants with clean dispositions and strong records are routinely approved under that individualized balancing. The proposed rule would replace that balancing with a near automatic presumption of denial, and the only way the rule allows an applicant to overcome it is by showing a significant countervailing public interest, which the Department describes almost entirely as assisting law enforcement. Ordinary students, spouses, and green card applicants have no realistic way to make that showing. In effect, the rule strips away the very factors, family, work history, tax compliance, community ties, and a favorable case outcome, that currently allow these applications to be approved. The Department does not acknowledge that it is reversing its own working practice, and it does not explain why that reversal is justified. A change of this magnitude, made without a reasoned explanation and without accounting for the reliance interests of people who are lawfully working today, is arbitrary.

[INSERT THE CATEGORY PARAGRAPH THAT FITS YOU FROM THE OPTIONS BELOW, OR WRITE YOUR OWN.]

I am also concerned about the requirement that every applicant in these categories submit biometrics for every initial and renewal filing. For people who present no identified security concern, this adds cost, adds processing delay, and creates a new way for an application to be denied simply because of a missed or mis-scheduled appointment. Layering this universal requirement on top of the discretionary presumption compounds the burden on families and employers who have done nothing wrong.

Finally, the rule’s statement that these decisions are within the sole and unreviewable discretion of the agency would leave applicants with no meaningful recourse when a work permit is wrongly denied. Combined with a presumption triggered by a bare arrest, that is a recipe for erroneous denials that no one can correct.

For these reasons I urge the Department to withdraw this rule. At a minimum, I ask the Department to exclude eligibility based categories, including F-1 practical training under (c)(3), H-4 spouses under (c)(26), and applicants for adjustment of status under (c)(9), from the criminal history presumption, and to preserve the individualized, totality of the circumstances review that currently allows these applications to be fairly decided.

Thank you for considering my comment.

Respectfully,

[Your name, or “A concerned F-1 student” / “A concerned H-4 spouse” / “A concerned adjustment applicant” if you prefer not to use your name]

[City, State]

Optional Category Paragraphs

Pick the one that describes you, edit it to match your real situation, and drop it into the spot marked above. If more than one applies, you can combine them.

If you are on F-1 OPT or STEM OPT:

I am an international student, and my practical training is the reason I chose to study in the United States and the bridge between my degree and my career. Practical training has always been a straightforward process. My school certifies my eligibility, I file on time, and I receive my card. This rule injects broad discretion and a criminal history standard into that process for the first time. Many students have a minor, years old incident on their record, a citation, a misunderstanding, a charge that was dismissed, that never affected their studies or their standing. Under this rule, that kind of long resolved matter could cost a student the ability to complete the training their degree was built around, and could cost an American employer a worker they invested in training. That serves no one.

If you hold an H-4 EAD:

I am the spouse of an H-1B worker, and my work authorization allows our family to build a stable life while we go through the immigration process the right way. My ability to work supports our household, and in many cases our children, some of whom are United States citizens. Punishing a family’s breadwinner over an arrest that led to no conviction, or over a matter that was dismissed or expunged years ago, would cause real financial harm to families who are following the rules. The rule treats spouses like me as if we were a security concern, when in reality we are simply trying to work and support the people who depend on us.

If you have an EAD based on a pending adjustment of status application:

I am waiting for a decision on my green card, and my employment authorization is what allows me to keep working and supporting myself while I wait, often for years. This rule would let the agency take away my ability to work in the meantime, based on a discretionary criminal judgment, even though my underlying green card application is still pending and may well be approved. Losing the right to work during that wait would be devastating, and it would happen before anyone has even made a final decision on my case. Interim work authorization exists precisely so that people are not left in limbo, and this rule undermines that purpose.

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.