ILW.COM Discussion Board - April 16 - The 2019 H1B lottery ended

Oct 21 - Filing Appeal at BIA, US Tourism

ImmigrationDaily — Wed, 21 Oct 2026 14:11:35 GMT

Comment: Filing Appeal at BIA, US Tourism

Today's Immigration Daily Issue Features Several Items of Interest, Including Articles, Blogging and News About
How Do You Lose an Appeal at the BIA? File an Appeal at the BIA,
When Will America Finally Implement the 9/11 Commission's Security Recommendations?,
CRS Report on U.S. Tourism: Recent Developments and Data
and more. Please scroll down to find the item(s) below.
Please let us know your thoughts by writing to us at editor@ilw.com

Blogging: How Do You Lose an Appeal at the BIA? File an Appeal at the BIA by Jason Dzubow

Blogging: When Will America Finally Implement the 9/11 Commission's Security Recommendations? by Nolan Rappaport

News: CRS Report on U.S. Tourism: Recent Developments and Data

Focus: Pass it On
If you find Immigration Daily a valuable resource, won't you please share it with your friends and colleagues? We thank you for it and they will too. To begin receiving your email version of Immigration Daily, simply submit your email address in the text box the top right corner of our homepage.

Headline: 'Hunted like animals': inside Trump's war on the people who build America
Click here

Headline: Trump and Republicans blame France's immigrants for riots without evidence
Click here

Headline: Tenney, Ellman clash over economy, immigration and foreign affairs in NY-24 debate
Click here

Headline: Could Ilhan Omar lose her US citizenship? Former immigration judge reacts to probe
Click here

Headline: Asian-Americans report rise in hate speech tied to immigration
Click here

Letters of the Week:

ComingsNGoings: Submit Your Announcement

If you have a professional announcement such as: New Position, Honors And Awards, Mergers & Acquisitions, New Office Address, New Appointment, New Associate, New Attorney, New Partner, that you wish to share with the Immigration Daily community, send your professional announcement to: editor@ilw.com comingsNgoings announcements is a free service

An Important disclaimer! The
information provided on this page is not legal advice.
Transmission of this information is not intended to create, and
receipt by you does not constitute, an attorney-client
relationship. Readers must not act upon any information without
first seeking advice from a qualified attorney. Copyright
1995-2017 American Immigration LLC, ILW.COM. Send correspondence
and articles to "mailto:editor@ilw.com">editor@ilw.com. Letters and articles
may be edited and may be published and otherwise used in any
medium. The views expressed in letters and articles do not
necessarily represent the views of ILW.COM.

Publisher: Sam Udani ISSN: 1930-062X

Advisory
Board: Jason Dzubow, Rami Fakhoury, Matthew Kolken, Chris Musillo,
Lory Rosenberg, Greg Siskind, Joel Stewart, Margaret Wong

News: CRS Report on U.S. Tourism: Recent Developments and Data

ImmigrationDaily — Wed, 21 Oct 2026 11:15:30 GMT

If you are having difficulty viewing this document please click here.

Article: Trump Administration Proposes $70,000 Fee on International Students Seeking Post-Graduate Employment by Aaron Reichlin-Melnick for Immigration Impact

ImmigrationDaily — Tue, 20 Oct 2026 15:34:56 GMT

Trump Administration Proposes $70,000 Fee on International Students Seeking Post-Graduate Employment

by

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick

For decades, some foreign students who graduate from an American university have been able to remain in the United States for at least one year to pursue employment through Optional Practical Training (OPT) in their field of study. Graduates of certain STEM programs are permitted to remain for an additional 24 months, allowing them to work for up to three years post-graduation. This program has fueled a rise in foreign student admissions and become a vital pipeline for top students seeking to eventually immigrate to the United States permanently.

But now the fate of the program is in limbo, as the Trump administration is proposing to levy exorbitant new fees on universities for each student seeking OPT; $70,000 for the first year of a student’s participation and $30,000 for the additional 24-month extension for STEM OPT. The fees would only apply to students who have not received an OPT recommendation from their Designated School Official when the rule goes into effect; any students currently utilizing OPT or who have applications pending would not be impacted.

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published in the Federal Register on October 8 claims that imposing these high fees is necessary to “combat fraud and abuse” in the program, although the government admits the fees would not be used to increase fraud detection and would instead be deposited as general funds in the U.S. Treasury.

How the Proposed Fees Could Affect Universities and Tuition

In addition, the Trump administration says the fees are necessary because STEM OPT applicants are competing with American tech workers, framing their argument as a fight against “large-scale replacement of American workers.” DHS is clear that one main purpose of the fees is to “discourage aliens from using the OPT program.”

Under the proposed new rule, schools themselves would be required to pay the $70,000 and $30,000 fees, rather than the applicants for OPT or their temporary employers. The Trump administration readily admits that universities could pass these costs along to American students, which could mean a sharp decline in foreign students in the U.S. or a rise in tuition rates, or both.

The rule could increase tuition for American students by reducing the overall number of international students, who generally pay higher tuition and help subsidize attendance for domestic students. A recent study by the Economic Innovation Group predicted that a $100,000 fee on STEM OPT participation would lead to an overall reduction of 35 percent of international applicants for graduate programs, forcing universities to reduce overall enrollment slots and raise tuition for Americans, and potentially leading to the cancellation of some Master’s degree programs.

This would have a significant economic impact on universities in general, and the communities in which they sit, potentially leading to layoffs and other negative impacts. Economist Michael Clemens argues in a new study that a $100,000 OPT fee would cost American universities up to $4 billion a year in lost revenue. Beyond direct impacts on communities, a massive drop in OPT and foreign STEM students would reduce the STEM pipeline into the United States, reducing our global competitiveness.

Uncertainty Alone Could Deter Future International Students

Another likely outcome of the rule would be a large-scale abandonment of OPT in general. A survey of international students studying in the United States found that 80% of students would reconsider their decision to stay if there was a $100,000 fee to participate in the full length of STEM OPT. Even if schools ended up paying for these fees, 40% fewer students said they would seek to stay here, instead returning to their home countries and taking their skills with them.

Despite these concerns, the proposed OPT rule largely ignores possible impacts on universities and American competitiveness, declaring such impacts too speculative to take fully into consideration. The rule doubles down on this uncertainty by stating the possible costs of the rule to the public could be anywhere from $32 million a year to over $8 billion a year, a staggering range.

Crucially, while the rule makes clear that the STEM OPT program is lawful, DHS issues a veiled threat against potential challenges to this new rule, stating that “without the fees proposed in this rule, it cannot operate OPT consistent with its focus on preventing fraud and may shut down the program entirely.” But this claim is somewhat undermined by the fact that the fees are not related in any way to fraud detection, with DHS admitting that any $70,000 or $30,000 payment would be “specifically earmarked for ICE [Student and Exchange Visitor Program] or immigration enforcement activities.”

What Comes Next?

DHS is currently accepting comments on the rule through November 9, 2026. After that, DHS is required to review and respond to all the comments, and then will aim to finalize the rule, with or without edits. Once the rule is finalized, lawsuits are almost certain. A similar $100,000 fee on H-1B visa petitions implemented by a Trump executive order has been blocked in two different courts.

Regardless of whether the rule goes into effect, the uncertainty caused by the Trump administration’s latest attacks on OPT will likely continue to deter students from coming to this country. These impacts are already being felt. In the 2026-2027 academic year, schools reported a 10 percent drop in international student enrollment. As the United States loses its luster for some of the world’s smartest young people, impacts could be felt for years to come.

This post originally appeared on Immigration Impact Reprinted with permission.

About The Author

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick

is a Senior Fellow at the American Immigration Council. He previously worked as a Staff Attorney at the Council, working on impact litigation, Freedom of Information Act litigations, and practice advisories. Prior to joining the Council, he was an Immigrant Justice Corps Fellow placed as a Staff Attorney at the Immigration Law Unit of The Legal Aid Society in New York City, representing immigrants placed in removal proceedings because of a prior criminal conviction. Aaron holds a J.D. from the Georgetown University Law Center and a B.A. in Politics and East Asian Studies from Brandeis University

The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of
ILW.COM.

Article: How a Minnesota State 'Truth Council' Has Exposed the Harms of Operation Metro Surge by Aaron Reichlin-Melnick for Immigration Impact

ImmigrationDaily — Tue, 20 Oct 2026 15:34:00 GMT

How a Minnesota State 'Truth Council' Has Exposed the Harms of Operation Metro Surge

by

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick

Last December, thousands of agents descended on the Minneapolis metro area in a pair of federal immigration enforcement operations. What followed was chaos: federal officers arrested thousands of immigrants (some here lawfully), violently clashed with protestors, deployed tear gas in residential communities, and shot and killed two U.S. citizens, Alex Pretti and Renee Good. The operations, targeting Minneapolis’ Somali community, would turn out to be two of the largest federal enforcement operations in U.S. history.

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz signed Executive Order 26-05 in March 2026, which called for establishing a council whose aim would be to build a historical record of what happened during “Operation Metro Surge” and “Operation PARRIS.” The Truth Council’s mandate was to document the actions of federal immigration agents, the impact on the residents of Minneapolis, and the ways local organizations and individuals supported each other and protested during the operation, often at great personal risk.

The Truth Council has met 13 times since June, collecting data and hearing direct testimony from impacted community members. The interim reports released by the Truth Council paint a picture of a city thrown into chaos and dramatically disrupted for months, imposing severe economic costs not only on individual residents, but on businesses, schools, and the local government. They also make clear that this innovative effort to hold the Department of Homeland Security accountable for its actions during the operations have been valuable and could be replicated by other states facing widespread impacts of mass deportation.

Economic impact of Operations Metro Surge and PARRIS

In early September, the Truth Council published its first reports on the impacts of the federal surge. A September 9 report on the impact on wages and labor markets found that workers in the Twin Cities metro area lost $244 million in wages as the federal operation closed businesses and forced many employees to remain home. Businesses lost $445 million in revenue as they either shut their doors or saw dramatically fewer customers. In total, 60% of businesses reported a measurable drop in revenue, with restaurants and retail seeing the biggest impact.

The impact of Operations Metro Surge and PARRIS on children

Another report released on September 9 tracked the impact of the federal operations on children in the Twin Cities metro area. In total, more than 70 Minnesota children were detained between December 1, 2025, and March 10, 2026, many of whom were detained for weeks and some deported.

Children’s education in particular was impacted. 80% of public school leaders statewide reported that the federal operations “negatively impacted students’ ability to learn,” with more than 75% of schools reporting that absences increased during the surge. One school district reported that nearly 30% of its students avoided going to school in the week after federal agents detained a student.

Many children also missed healthcare appointments during the surge, as they remained at home out of fear of leaving the house, with an 80% increase in missed pediatric care for Spanish-speaking families.

Food insecurity also increased during this time, as students missed meals that they would have received at school. In total, Minneapolis schools served over 183,000 fewer meals in January than compared to the previous year. A separate report released by the Truth Council drives home this impact, revealing that requests for food assistance from the Twin Cities United Way nearly doubled in January.

Widespread use of force and threats by federal officers

On September 29, the Truth Council published a report collecting crowd-sourced volunteer data testimony on federal misconduct. The report brings together nearly 4,200 individual reports of actions taken by federal immigration officers during the two operations and in the months after. In 431 of these actions — more than 10% — observers reported threats or other hostile actions made by federal agents, with 287 of those directed at the observers themselves. In 55 cases, the officer drew their gun, and in 60 cases, their officer drew a weapon such as a taser or a pepper ball gun.

This latter finding comes just as Minnesota seeks to hold ICE officer Gregory Moran Jr. for an incident in February where the state alleges that he drew his weapon and pointed it at a Minnesota man in an accused road rage incident, after he was blocked from driving on the shoulder in his unmarked rental SUV.

Measuring the groundswell of opposition to the federal surge

The reports also highlight the ways in which the Minneapolis volunteers came together to support individuals impacted by the federal surge. According to another report released on September 29, three organizations alone (Faith in Minnesota, MN Unidos, and the Immigrant Defense Network) carried out over 100,000 trainings for volunteers seeking to help. Mutual Aid networks helped provide over $21 million for rent relief in the Twin Cities metro area, with 42 separate faith, school, and neighborhood funds providing immediate rent relief.

Faith in Minnesota, a faith-based community organization, testified that it alone raised $7.7 million in mutual aid and trained 6,500 people. Amazingly, just 1% said they would not volunteer again in the future, despite “threats and other significant challenges faced.” Of their volunteers, 81% said “protecting my community” was a top motivation for volunteering, followed by “faith or spiritual calling” at 69% and “anger or urgency” at 65%. This level of volunteer engagement fueled the groundswell of opposition that the Trump administration faced during Operations Metro Surge and PARRIS.

Educating the public on the federal government’s actions

Finally, on September 29, the Truth Council also published a data report collecting information on the immigration policies and systems which led to the harms of Operations Metro Surge and PARRIS One portion of that report examines the claim made by federal officials that the operation targeted “the worst of the worst.”

The Truth Council found that DHS listed 677 people on its “worst of the worst” website from the Minnesota operations. However, the Minnesota Department of Corrections audited each case, and determined that 72% (487) had never served time for a felony in Minnesota, and that 27% were in fact directly transferred to ICE through existing procedures. The Truth Council’s final meeting occurred on October 13 and a final report is forthcoming.

This experiment in accountability – following the Illinois Accountability Commission’s documentation of “Operation Midway Blitz – has proven that local communities have a vital role in building a historical record of the impact of mass deportation operations. And while the Trump administration has since abandoned the mass raids that characterized Operations Metro Surge and PARRIS (opting for ramping up enforcement more ("quietly"), the harm that was caused remains visible in Minneapolis.

This post originally appeared on Immigration Impact Reprinted with permission.

About The Author

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick
is a Senior Fellow at the American Immigration Council. He previously worked as a Staff Attorney at the Council, working on impact litigation, Freedom of Information Act litigations, and practice advisories. Prior to joining the Council, he was an Immigrant Justice Corps Fellow placed as a Staff Attorney at the Immigration Law Unit of The Legal Aid Society in New York City, representing immigrants placed in removal proceedings because of a prior criminal conviction. Aaron holds a J.D. from the Georgetown University Law Center and a B.A. in Politics and East Asian Studies from Brandeis University

The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of
ILW.COM.

Oct 20 - Operation Metro Surge, H1B Executive Actions

ImmigrationDaily — Tue, 20 Oct 2026 15:29:01 GMT

Comment: Operation Metro Surge, H1B Executive Actions

Today's Immigration Daily Issue Features Several Items of Interest, Including Articles, Blogging and News About
How a Minnesota State 'Truth Council' Has Exposed the Harms of Operation Metro Surge,
Trump Expanded Mandatory Immigration Detention. Will the Supreme Court Uphold It?,
CRS Report on H-1B Executive Actions in 2026
and more. Please scroll down to find the item(s) below.
Please let us know your thoughts by writing to us at editor@ilw.com

Article: How a Minnesota State 'Truth Council' Has Exposed the Harms of Operation Metro Surge by Aaron Reichlin-Melnick for Immigration Impact

Blogging: Trump Expanded Mandatory Immigration Detention. Will the Supreme Court Uphold It? by Nolan Rappaport

News: CRS Report on H-1B Executive Actions in 2026

Headline: Trump attacks 'migrants and communists' as he tries to exploit France unrest
Click here

Headline: Trump officials soften approach to key immigration policy ahead of midterms
Click here

Headline: Immigration protests 'could get worse', says Badenoch
Click here

Headline: Mahmoud Khalil Appeals to Supreme Court to Halt Deportation
Click here

Headline: Trump's deportation crackdown may influence how Catholics vote in midterms
Click here

Immigration Business Plan
ImmigrationBusinessPlan.com has been drafting immigration business plans daily exclusively to support E-2, L-1, EB-5 visas since 2004. What sets us apart is the fact we are a boutique firm and not a factory. Given our strong expertise in U.S. business immigration, we even draft part of RFE letters for law firms. We are storytellers. U.S. business immigration is our subject. Our business plan is our voice. Our mission is to pave the way for your clients' visa approval. Supporting Visa Applicants & Lawyers Nationwide for Over A Decade. Find out more: Call us at 888-278-7775, Email us at: info@ImmigrationBusinessPlan.com Visit us at ImmigrationBusinessPlan.com

Letters of the Week:

Publisher: Sam Udani ISSN: 1930-062X

Advisory
Board: Jason Dzubow, Rami Fakhoury, Matthew Kolken, Chris Musillo,
Lory Rosenberg, Greg Siskind, Joel Stewart, Margaret Wong

News: CRS Report on H-1B Executive Actions in 2026

ImmigrationDaily — Tue, 20 Oct 2026 15:16:32 GMT

If you are having difficulty viewing this document please click here.

Oct 19 - CRS on H2A Wage Methodology

ImmigrationDaily — Mon, 19 Oct 2026 13:48:37 GMT

Comment: CRS on H2A Wage Methodology

Today's Immigration Daily Issue Features Several Items of Interest, Including Articles, Blogging and News About
CRS Report on New Adverse Effect Wage Rate Methodology for Temporary Employment of H-2A Nonimmigrants in the United States
and more. Please scroll down to find the item(s) below.
Please let us know your thoughts by writing to us at editor@ilw.com

News: CRS Report on New Adverse Effect Wage Rate Methodology for Temporary Employment of H-2A Nonimmigrants in the United States

Headline: With an ad aimed at Trump, this Republican exposed GOP angst about Latino voters
Click here

Headline: Immigrants from Ukraine and Sudan to keep deportation protections for now
Click here

Headline: Legal Immigration Fell Sharply Under Trump Policies Adopted Early This Year
Click here

Headline: Former commerce secretary voices concerns on immigration policy
Click here

Headline: Migrant found dead at Laredo ICE facility
Click here

International Evaluations

International Evaluations is the trusted provider of credential evaluations, RFEs, expert opinions, and translations for US immigration. International Evaluations specialize in providing highly qualified academic, work experience, and professional position credential evaluations required for use in US immigration, employment, education, and professional licensing. International Evaluations are aware that each case is different, and the requirements are also specific. Therefore, take care of each case and attempt to solve them according to the client’s specifications. Our professional attitude, competitive rates, on-time guarantees, and personalized service makes International Evaluations the top choice for immigration lawyers, employers, and individuals. Website: https://www.internationalevaluations.com/ Phone: Office: (510) 770-8700 , Cell: (510) 830-8771. Email: info@internationalevaluations.com

Letters of the Week:

Publisher: Sam Udani ISSN: 1930-062X

Advisory
Board: Jason Dzubow, Rami Fakhoury, Matthew Kolken, Chris Musillo,
Lory Rosenberg, Greg Siskind, Joel Stewart, Margaret Wong

News: CRS Report on New Adverse Effect Wage Rate Methodology for Temporary Employment of H-2A Nonimmigrants in the United States

ImmigrationDaily — Mon, 19 Oct 2026 07:51:22 GMT

If you are having difficulty viewing this document please click here.

Oct 16 - Extension Deference Ends, CRS on Federal Funding Conditions

ImmigrationDaily — Fri, 16 Oct 2026 13:44:21 GMT

Comment: Extension Deference Ends, CRS on Federal Funding Conditions

Today's Immigration Daily Issue Features Several Items of Interest, Including Articles, Blogging and News About
Proposed Rule to End Deference in H-1B and Other Nonimmigrant Visa Extensions,
CRS Report on Federal Funding Conditions: Constitutional Limits from the Spending Clause and Related Legal Doctrines
and more. Please scroll down to find the item(s) below.
Please let us know your thoughts by writing to us at editor@ilw.com

Blogging: Proposed Rule to End Deference in H-1B and Other Nonimmigrant Visa Extensions by Chris Musillo

News: CRS Report on Federal Funding Conditions: Constitutional Limits from the Spending Clause and Related Legal Doctrines

Headline: US probes Omar's decades-old immigration paperwork with eye toward deportation, sources say
Click here

Headline: Trump administration sued over accelerated immigration process for migrant kids
Click here

Headline: Manhattan DA charges woman with stealing $25K in immigration fraud scheme
Click here

Headline: Bonta files 100th lawsuit against Trump administration, this time seeking to block ICE activity at state courthouses
Click here

Headline: Oaxacan festival postponed second year in a row because of immigration crackdown
Click here

Letters of the Week:

Publisher: Sam Udani ISSN: 1930-062X

Advisory
Board: Jason Dzubow, Rami Fakhoury, Matthew Kolken, Chris Musillo,
Lory Rosenberg, Greg Siskind, Joel Stewart, Margaret Wong

News: CRS Report on Federal Funding Conditions: Constitutional Limits from the Spending Clause and Related Legal Doctrines

ImmigrationDaily — Fri, 16 Oct 2026 07:46:47 GMT

If you are having difficulty viewing this document please click here.

Oct 15 - Automatic Extensions End, Immigration Civil Penalties

ImmigrationDaily — Thu, 15 Oct 2026 13:36:46 GMT

Comment: Automatic Extensions End, Immigration Civil Penalties

Today's Immigration Daily Issue Features Several Items of Interest, Including Articles, Blogging and News About
Renée Good’s Family Files Lawsuits Challenging Federal Immunity as ICE Shootings Continue,
DHS Finalizes Rule on Immigration Civil Penalties,
DHS Finalizes Rule Ending Automatic EAD Extensions
and more. Please scroll down to find the item(s) below.
Please let us know your thoughts by writing to us at editor@ilw.com

Article: Renée Good’s Family Files Lawsuits Challenging Federal Immunity as ICE Shootings Continue by Nayna Gupta for Immigration Impact

News: DHS Finalizes Rule on Immigration Civil Penalties

News: DHS Finalizes Rule Ending Automatic EAD Extensions

Headline: Tension erupts during House midterm debate as Lawler fact-checks New York Democrat opponent on immigration
Click here

Headline: Exclusive: Judge limited Justice Department access to Rep. Ilhan Omar’s records in sprawling immigration fraud probe
Click here

Headline: ‘Will I be next?’: Maine immigrants traumatized by latest ICE shooting
Click here

Headline: DHS rejects watchdog’s call for ICE to use auto-activated body cameras
Click here

Headline: Immigration attorney discusses ICE activity across Central Valley
Click here

Letters of the Week:

Publisher: Sam Udani ISSN: 1930-062X

Advisory
Board: Jason Dzubow, Rami Fakhoury, Matthew Kolken, Chris Musillo,
Lory Rosenberg, Greg Siskind, Joel Stewart, Margaret Wong

Article: Renée Good’s Family Files Lawsuits Challenging Federal Immunity as ICE Shootings Continue by Nayna Gupta for Immigration Impact

ImmigrationDaily — Thu, 15 Oct 2026 10:24:37 GMT

Renée Good’s Family Files Lawsuits Challenging Federal Immunity as ICE Shootings Continue

by

Nayna Gupta

The increasingly violent reality of the Trump administration’s mass deportation agenda came into sharp focus again last week when plainclothes ICE officers opened fire on a car in New York City within seconds of surrounding the vehicle, wounding 28-year-old Oscar Belgal while his terrified 5-year-old son sat in the back seat. This alarming use of force, echoing across the country as communities grapple with a sharp rise in immigration enforcement violence, provides context for a major legal battle unfolding in Minnesota.

Just days before the New York shooting, the family of Renée Good, a 37-year-old mother of three who was shot and killed by a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer in Minneapolis earlier this year, filed two significant federal lawsuits against the U.S. government and top administration officials.

Good’s family and lawyers seek to use two distinct legal paths to force accountability through the U.S. federal courts, even though doctrines such as qualified and sovereign immunity usually protect federal law enforcement officers and the administration’s top political leaders from facing civil rights lawsuits. The twin lawsuits target both the officer that killed Good and the systemic policies that the lawsuit claims made her death inevitable and near-guaranteed impunity for the officer’s deadly use of force.

Minneapolis deadly encounter

On January 7, 2026, during a tense confrontation between protesters and federal immigration officers deployed to Minneapolis as a part of the administration’s “Operation Metro Surge,” ICE officer Jonathan Ross fired three shots into Good’s car as she attempted to drive away. One bullet struck her in the head, killing her.

While the Trump administration initially claimed that Good was a “domestic terrorist” trying to run over the officer, the lawsuit argues that video footage clearly shows Good steering her vehicle away and talking to the officers using deescalating language. Good was a U.S. citizen and had no criminal history. After Good’s death, the administration neither indicted nor fired Ross and he is still in the agency as an active ICE officer.

A double attack on impunity

To overcome the significant legal doctrines that protect ICE officers and the federal government from liability, the lawsuits — filed by Good’s partner and her brother — rely on a two-part approach primarily via two legal statutes.

Federal Tort Claims Act

The first claim uses the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and names the United Sates as the sole defendant. It accuses the government of battery, assault, false imprisonment, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress that directly caused Good’s wrongful death. By using the FTCA, Good’s family and attorneys seek to hold the Trump administration liable for torts committed by federal immigration officers acting within the scope of their federal employment.

Typically, sovereign immunity protects the U.S. government from lawsuits; but Congress’ enactment of the FTCA provides an exception giving victims injured by government actions a mechanism for filing a lawsuit to seek damages. In the Good lawsuit, the FTCA legal claim focuses primarily on the mechanics of the shooting itself and the immediate liability of the government.

Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871

Parallel to the FTCA claim is the second and more politically explosive lawsuit, which uses a provision of the Reconstruction-era Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871. Congress designed the law to protect citizens from organized and systemic civil rights violations. At that time, local and state authorities routinely refused to prosecute Ku Klux Klan members for violence they inflicted upon newly freed Black Americans. Congress responded by enacting this law to explicitly enforce the newly ratified Fourteenth Amendment and ensure protection of civil and voting rights.

The Good lawsuit brings claims under two provisions of the statute, 42 U.S.C. Section1985(3) and 1986, to allege a broad Trump administration conspiracy to violate civil rights, naming not only Officer Ross, but also senior administration officials including Stephen Miller, Tom Homan, and former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem.

The Section 1985(3) claim alleges that these officials conspired with private actors, including far-right online provocateurs whose allegations against the Somali community in Minnesota led directly to the administration’s Operation Metro Surge, as well as private corporations whose technology was used to target neighborhoods for enforcement and track observers and protestors. The Section 1986 claim arises from the officials’ failure to prevent the wrongs of the alleged conspiracy.

At the core of the Ku Klux Klan Act claim, Good’s lawyers argue that her death was not an isolated operational error, but the “predictable result” of an unconstitutional campaign driven by racial animus targeting Hispanic and Somali communities. The family alleges that Trump administration officials deliberately structured federal immigration crackdowns to encourage aggressive, hostile confrontations, while signaling to rank-and-file officers that they would never face legal consequences for using excessive force.

Bringing claims under Sections 1985 and 1986 avoids the strict legal limitations of “Bivens actions” which in the past allowed individuals to sue federal enforcement officers for Fourth Amendment violations but which the Supreme Court has heavily curtailed in recent decades.

Systemic reckoning or indefinite impunity?

By linking executive policy to field-level operations, the lawsuit seeks to provide an alternative route to challenge immunity for high-ranking political appointees. If the federal court moves the case forward, it could establish a major precedent for holding top level administration officials accountable for the actions of ICE field officers. If the court does not allow the lawsuit to proceed, then the only way to ensure individual officials’ accountability for unlawful immigration enforcement violence will be for Congress to make overdue changes to outdated immigration laws which for decades have permitted immigration agent officers and agencies to operate with significant impunity. Congress could pass a law that would create a clear cause of action so that victims of constitutional violations committed by federal law enforcement officers can sue in federal court. When local police officers violate the Constitution, they can be sued in federal court; but when federal law enforcement agents commit the same violations there is no parallel recourse.

While the Good family seeks unspecified compensatory damages, their primary focus is public accountability. At an emotional Minneapolis press conference, Renee Good’s partner Becca Good stated: “The whole world had to watch as our entire universe was destroyed. We were all robbed.”

Following so closely on the heels of the recent New York City ICE shooting, the Renee Good lawsuits will test whether the federal judiciary is willing to hold federal officers accountable or continue to allow them to operate with near impunity on American soil.

This post originally appeared on Immigration Impact Reprinted with permission.

About The Author

Nayna Gupta
is a Policy Director at the American Immigration Council.

The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of
ILW.COM.

News: DHS Finalizes Rule Ending Automatic EAD Extensions

ImmigrationDaily — Thu, 15 Oct 2026 08:54:54 GMT

[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 197 (Wednesday, October 14, 2026)]

[Rules and Regulations]

[Pages 65306-65368]

From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[FR Doc No: 2026-20955]

[[Page 65305]]

Vol. 91

Wednesday,

No. 197

October 14, 2026

Part II

Department of Homeland Security

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

8 CFR Part 274a

Removal of Automatic Extensions for Certain Employment Authorization

Documents; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 91 , No. 197 / Wednesday, October 14, 2026 /

Rules and Regulations

[[Page 65306]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

8 CFR Part 274a

[CIS No. 2859-26; DHS Docket No. USCIS-2025-0271]

RIN 1615-AD05

Removal of Automatic Extensions for Certain Employment

Authorization Documents

AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On October 30, 2025, DHS published an interim final rule (IFR)

that amended DHS regulations to end the practice of automatically

extending the validity of employment authorization documents (Forms I-

766 or EADs) for aliens who have timely filed an application to renew

their EAD in certain employment authorization categories. This final

rule responds to comments received on the IFR and reaffirms and

finalizes the provisions of the IFR. Ending the automatic extension of

EADs enhances benefit integrity and prioritizes the proper vetting and

screening of aliens before granting a new period of employment

authorization and/or a new EAD.

DATES: This final rule is effective on October 14, 2026.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Business and Foreign Workers Division,

Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration

Services (USCIS), DHS, 5900 Capital Gateway Drive, MD, Camp Springs,

20746; telephone (240) 721-3000 (this is not a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary

A. Basis and Purpose

B. Legal Authority

C. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action

D. Costs and Benefits

II. Background

A. Legal Authority

B. Automatic Extension of Employment Authorization and

Documentation

C. Increasing the Automatic Extension Period From a Maximum of

180 Days to a Maximum of 540 Days

D. The 2025 Interim Final Rule Removed Automatic Extensions for

Certain Employment Authorization Documents

1. Added New 8 CFR 274a.13(e)

2. Modified the Heading of 8 CFR 274a.13(d)

E. Severability

III. Changes in the Final Rule

IV. Response to Public Comments on the Interim Final Rule

A. Summary of Comments

B. Comments in Support of the Rule

C. Comments in Opposition to the Rule and Mixed Comments

1. DHS Legal Authority

i. DHS Statutory Authority and Congressional Intent

ii. Constitutional Concerns

iii. International Law and Refugee Protections

2. DHS Justification and Need for the Rule

i. Security Rationale for the Rule

a. General Security Rationale Comments

b. Lack of Evidence Supporting Security Rationale

c. Prior Vetting of Renewal Applicants and Existing Security

Measures

d. Rule Would Not Strengthen Security

e. Other Comments on Security Rationale

ii. Consistency in USCIS Rationale and Reversal of Longstanding

Policy

iii. Lack of Acknowledgement of the Backlog and Other

Operational Realities

iv. ``Proper Planning'' Rationale

3. Rationale for Eliminating the Automatic Extension of EADs

4. Impact on USCIS Processing

i. Administrative Burden and Efficiency

ii. Processing Timelines

iii. Procedural Fairness

iv. General or Mixed Feedback on USCIS Processing

5. Combined Impacts on Individuals, Employers, the Economy, and

Specific EAD Categories

i. Impacts on Aliens, Families, and Communities

a. General Hardship, Fairness, Educational Disruptions, and

Family Impacts

b. Mental Health and Vulnerability, Including Risk of

Exploitation

c. Identification, Driver's Licenses, and Access to Services

ii. Employment, Employers, and Economic Impacts

a. Employer Burdens, Business Continuity, and Sector Specific

Concerns

b. Immigrant Contributions to the Economy and Macroeconomic and

Local Economic Impacts of the Rule

iii. Relief for Specific Immigration Categories

a. Impact on Refugees, Asylees, Asylum Seekers, Unaccompanied

Alien Children (UACs), and Other Humanitarian Categories

b. Impact on Employment-Based Nonimmigrants, Their Dependents,

and Employment-Based Green Card Applicants

6. Clarification Request

7. Recommendations for the Automatic Extension and EAD Validity

Period

i. Maintain the Automatic Extension, Including Various Lengths

of the Extension Period

ii. Consecutive EAD Validity Periods

iii. Allowing Application Filing Earlier Than 180 days

iv. Enhanced Vetting

8. Processing Capacity and Timelines

i. Timely Processing of Renewals

ii. Increase Resources and Staffing

iii. Prioritize Initial EAD Reviews

9. Coordination, Guidance, and Outreach

i. Additional Guidance and Communication

ii. Accountability

10. Other Alternatives and Recommendations

11. Administrative Procedure Act

i. ``Good Cause'' for Bypassing the Notice and Comment Period

ii. ``Foreign Affairs'' Exception

iii. Reasoned Decision-Making Requirement

iv. Arbitrary and Capricious/Procedural Deficiencies That

Violate the APA

v. Reliance Interests

vi. Failure To Consider Alternatives

vii. Comment Period

viii. Comment Submission Requirements

12. Regulatory Impact Analysis

i. Methodology

ii. Impact on Individuals

iii. Impact on the U.S. Economy, Employers, and Labor Force

iv. Other Comments on the RIA

13. Regulatory Flexibility Act

14. Paperwork Reduction Act

15. General Comments on Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

D. Additional Out of Scope Comments

V. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

A. Administrative Procedure Act: Delayed Effective Date

B. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review),

Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review),

and 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation)

1. Affected Population

2. Economic Impacts of the Final Rule

Module A

Module B

Module C

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)

E. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

F. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

G. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

H. Family Assessment

I. Executive Order 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)

J. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

K. Paperwork Reduction Act

List of Subjects and Regulatory Amendments

Table of Abbreviations

APA--Administrative Procedure Act

CBP--U.S. Customs and Border Protection

CDAO--Chief Data and Analytics Office

CFR--Code of Federal Regulations

CRA--Congressional Review Act

DHS--U.S. Department of Homeland Security

EAD--employment authorization document

E.O.--Executive Order

Form I-765--Application for Employment Authorization

FY--Fiscal Year

HSA--Homeland Security Act of 2002

ICE--U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

IFR--Interim final rule

IIRIRA--Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act

of 1996

INA--Immigration and Nationality Act

ISO--Immigration Service Officer

[[Page 65307]]

NEPA--National Environmental Policy Act

OMB--Office of Management and Budget

OPQ--Office of Performance and Quality

PRA--Paperwork Reduction Act

SBREFA--Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

Secretary--Secretary of Homeland Security

TFR--Temporary final rule

UMRA--Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

U.S.C.--United States Code

USCIS--U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

I. Executive Summary

A. Basis and Purpose

DHS's mission is to safeguard the American people, our homeland,

and our values with honor and integrity. In service of that mission,

DHS protects the United States from threats by terrorists, criminals,

smugglers, transnational criminal organizations, failed-state actors,

and unpredictable lone offenders that constitute present and future

threats to public safety and national security.

USCIS issues EADs to certain classes of aliens. These documents are

valid for a specified period. Aliens who intend to continue their

employment beyond the date specified on their EAD must generally file

an application to renew their employment authorization and/or EAD.

The automatic extension of the validity of an EAD grants the alien

the benefit of extending his or her expired employment authorization

and/or EAD merely by filing a timely renewal EAD application and

without first completing adjudicative review and related vetting,

including resolution of any derogatory information identified during

the vetting process. That is, the automatic extension allows for the

granting of the benefit without USCIS first performing the following

actions: an eligibility determination, completing vetting and screening

checks, resolving potential hits of derogatory information in

connection with the alien, and a determination that the employment

authorization should be granted in the exercise of discretion, if

applicable.

On October 30, 2025, DHS issued an IFR titled, ``Removal of the

Automatic Extension of Employment Authorization Documents,'' with a

request for comment. See 90 FR 48799 (Oct. 30, 2025). The IFR amended

DHS regulations to end the practice of automatically extending the

validity of EADs for aliens in certain employment authorization

categories who timely filed an application to renew their EAD. After

careful consideration of the public comments submitted in connection

with the IFR, DHS is reaffirming and finalizing the IFR without

changes. The rationale and reasoning provided in the preamble for the

IFR remains unchanged with respect to the regulatory amendments, and

DHS, therefore, adopts such reasoning also to support this final rule.

In reaffirming and finalizing the changes made in the IFR, the

purpose of this rule remains the same as articulated in the IFR: to

prioritize the proper vetting and screening of aliens and ensure

continued eligibility before granting a new period of employment

authorization and/or a new EAD by ending the practice of automatically

extending the validity of employment authorization and/or EADs for

certain employment authorization categories.

Ending the practice of providing automatic extensions of EADs is

consistent with Section 16 of President Trump's directive in Executive

Order (E.O.) 14159, Protecting the American People Against Invasion,

which directs the Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with

the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, to take all

appropriate action to align any departmental activities with the

policies set out by the President and to ensure, among others, ``that

employment authorization is provided in a manner consistent with

section 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a),

and that employment authorization is not provided to any unauthorized

alien in the United States.'' \1\ It is also consistent with Section 2

of E.O. 14161, Protecting the United States From Foreign Terrorists and

Other National Security and Public Safety Threats, which directs the

Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland

Security, the Attorney General, and the Director of National

Intelligence to ``identify all resources that may be used to ensure

that all aliens seeking admission to the United States, or who are

already in the United States, are vetted and screened to the maximum

degree possible.'' \2\

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

\1\ See E.O. 14159, Protecting the American People Against

Invasion (Jan. 20, 2025), 90 FR 8443, 8446 (Jan. 29, 2025).

\2\ See E.O. 14161, Protecting the United States from Foreign

Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats

(Jan. 20, 2025), 90 FR 8451, 8451 (Jan. 30, 2025).

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

B. Legal Authority

The legal basis of this rulemaking is found in section 103(a) of

the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1103(a), which

authorizes the Secretary to administer and enforce the immigration and

nationality laws and establish such regulations as the Secretary deems

necessary for carrying out such authority, and section 101(b)(1)(F) of

the Homeland Security Act (HSA), 6 U.S.C. 111(b)(1)(F), which

establishes as a primary mission of DHS the duty to ``ensure that the

overall economic security of the United States is not diminished by

efforts, activities, and programs aimed at securing the homeland.''

C. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action

This final rule adopts the IFR as final, without any changes, after

careful consideration of the comments received. Accordingly, DHS is

adopting as final the following changes that the IFR has made:

Revised the heading of 8 CFR 274a.13(d) to clearly

indicate that the up-to-540-day automatic extension period only applies

to renewal EAD applications filed before October 30, 2025.

Added new 8 CFR 274a.13(e). The new provision explains

that, unless otherwise provided in 8 CFR 274a.13(d), by law, or through

a Federal Register notice for Temporary Protected Status (TPS)-related

employment documentation, the validity period of an expired or expiring

Employment Authorization Document and/or employment authorization will

not be automatically extended by a renewal EAD application filed on or

after October 30, 2025.

DHS explained in the IFR that the IFR did not impact the validity

of EADs that were automatically extended prior to October 30, 2025. It

also explained that the IFR did not impact automatic extensions of EADs

and/or employment authorization provided by law or Federal Register

notices, such as those for TPS applicants pursuant to section 244 of

the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1254a, and 8 CFR part 244.\3\ This final rule

similarly does not impact these provisions.

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

\3\ However, on July 4, 2025, Congress passed and the President

signed into law sections 100003(c) and 100012(a) of the One Big

Beautiful Bill Act, Public Law 119-21, 139 Stat.72 (July 4, 2025)

(H.R 1), which limit the validity period of any employment

authorization for aliens granted TPS under section 244 of the INA, 8

U.S.C. 1254a, to a period of one year or for the duration of the

designation of TPS, whichever is shorter.

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

D. Costs and Benefits

This final rule has been designated a ``significant regulatory

action'' and economically significant as defined under section 3(f)(1)

of E.O. 12866, because its annual effects on the economy may exceed

$100 million in any year of the analysis. Accordingly, this rule has

been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

[[Page 65308]]

This final rule reaffirms and finalizes changes made by the IFR to

DHS regulations to end the practice of automatically extending the

validity of employment authorization documents (Forms I-766 or EADs)

for aliens who have timely filed an application to renew their EAD in

certain employment authorization categories. The purpose of this change

is to prioritize the proper vetting and screening of aliens and ensure

continued eligibility before granting a new period of employment

authorization and/or a new EAD. This final rule does not affect the

validity of EADs that were automatically extended prior to the IFR. In

previous rules providing for the automatic extension of EADs based on

the timely filing of a renewal EAD application, DHS attempted to

stabilize aliens' earnings and avoid labor turnover costs of employers.

However, as explained in the IFR, the Department has shifted focus to

prioritizing public safety and national security, and ensuring that

aliens continue to be eligible and merit a favorable exercise of

discretion, as applicable, before being granted continued employment

authorization. See 90 FR 48799, 48816 (Oct. 30, 2025).

DHS has prepared two types of quantified estimates of the impacts

generated by this final rule. For a single 18-month window (starting in

May 2027) from about 20,000 to 33,000 EADs are estimated to lapse,

based on several assumptions. This rule may result in some EAD holders

incurring a loss of earnings (``reduced earnings'') because of USCIS

process delays for renewal EAD applications, as under this rule there

could be disruption to their earnings due to a lapsed EAD. Such

earnings loss to aliens could comprise beneficial transfers to other

U.S. workers if the substitution of the latter for the former is

relatively frictionless. Additionally, to the extent this rule affects

EAD holders' jobs going unfilled, there will be impacts to tax

transfers from businesses and employees to the Federal Government.\4\

This rule will also generate labor turnover costs to businesses that

employ the affected-lapsed EAD holders, as under this rule there would

be a disruption to the EAD holders' employment authorization and/or

document validity. In conducting these estimates DHS emphasizes that

variation in factors involved in the impact, including impact

processing times, filing volumes, the timing of renewal filings, and

underlying benefit requests, will cause variation in the impacts.

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

\4\ This rule could also result in a reduction in State and

local tax revenue, but this impact is not quantified in this

analysis due to variations in state and local tax laws and

individual's tax scenarios.

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

Due to variation in future populations and process times, there is

likely to be substantial variation in the impact estimates. For this

reason, DHS develops wide ranges capturing a high and low bound for the

estimates, in terms of the means (expected value). This rule is

estimated to result in $138.1 million in lost productivity costs to

employers that are not able to easily replace aliens with lapsed EADs,

costs of $312.1 million to U.S. employers from potential labor

turnover, transfers due to earnings changes worth $138.1 million from

employment-authorized aliens to replacement workers and is expected to

generate tax reduction impacts of $14.5 million over an 18-month

period. Approximately 1,700 and 2,800 employers are estimated to be

impacted.

Section V.B. provides an A-4 accounting statement supporting the

analysis and the accompanying economic analysis details the data and

methodology supporting the impact estimates.

II. Background

A. Legal Authority

The Secretary of Homeland Security's (Secretary) authority for the

regulatory amendments made in this final rule are found in various

sections of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and the HSA, Public Law

107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (codified in part at 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

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.\5\ Further authority

for this rule is found in:

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

\5\ Although several provisions of the INA discussed in this

final 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 6 U.S.C. 202(3), 251,

271(b), 542 note, 557; 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(1) and (g), 1551 note;

Nielsen v. Preap, 586 U.S. 392, 397 n.2 (2019).

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

Section 208(d)(2) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1158(d)(2), which

provides the Secretary with authority to grant employment

authorization, in his or her discretion, to applicants for asylum if

180 days have passed since filing an application for asylum;

Section 214 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1184, including section

214(a)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1184(a)(1), which authorizes the

Secretary to prescribe, by regulation, the time and conditions of the

admission of nonimmigrants;

Section 244(a)(1)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1254a(a)(1)(B),

which states that the Secretary shall authorize employment and provide

evidence of employment authorization for aliens who have been granted

Temporary Protected Status;

Section 274A(b) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1324a(b), which

provides for the employment verification system and outlines employment

eligibility verification requirements;

Section 274A(h)(3)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1324a(h)(3)(B),

which recognizes the Secretary's authority to extend employment

authorization to aliens in the United States; \6\ and

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

\6\ Courts have acknowledged that Congress delegated authority

to DHS to grant or extend employment authorization to certain

classes of aliens. See, e.g., Wash. All. of Tech. Workers v. DHS, 50

F.4th 164, 191-192 (D.C. Cir. 2022) (``What matters is that section

1324a(h)(3) expressly acknowledges that employment authorization

need not be specifically conferred by statute; it can also be

granted by regulation.''). DHS is exercising this discretionary

authority consistent with all applicable authorities, including the

referenced authorities in the HSA, and sections 103, 208, 214, 244,

and 274A(h)(3) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1158, 1184, 1254a, and

1324a(h)(3), as well as the Administrative Procedure Act at 5 U.S.C.

553. See Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 144 S. Ct. 2244, 2263

(2024) (``In a case involving an agency, of course, the statute's

meaning may well be that the agency is authorized to exercise a

degree of discretion. Congress has often enacted such statutes. For

example, some statutes `expressly delegate' to an agency the

authority to give meaning to a particular statutory term. Others

empower an agency to prescribe rules to `fill up the details' of a

statutory scheme, or to regulate subject to the limits imposed by a

term or phrase that leaves agencies with flexibility, such as

`appropriate' or `reasonable.' '') (internal citations omitted).

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

Sections 100003(c) and 100012(a) of the One Big Beautiful

Bill Act, Public Law 119-21 (July 4, 2025), which limit the validity

period of any employment authorization for aliens granted TPS under

section 244 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1254a, to either a period of one year

or for the duration of the designation of TPS, whichever is shorter.

B. Automatic Extension of Employment Authorization and Documentation

Before November 2016, 8 CFR 274a.13(d) stated that USCIS would

adjudicate an EAD application within 90 days of receipt. If USCIS did

not adjudicate the EAD application within that timeframe, the alien was

eligible to request an interim EAD with a validity period not to exceed

240 days.\7\

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

\7\ See 8 CFR 274a.13(d) (2016).

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

On November 18, 2016, as part of DHS's efforts to implement the

American Competitiveness in the

[[Page 65309]]

Twenty-first Century Act of 2000 (AC21), DHS published a final rule

that eliminated Interim EADs and replaced them with a maximum 180-day

automatic extension period for certain renewal applicants.\8\

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

\8\ See 81 FR 82398 (Nov. 18, 2016) (AC21 Final Rule).

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

C. Increasing the Automatic Extension Period From a Maximum of 180 Days

to a Maximum of 540 Days

Since the promulgation of the final rule authorizing up to 180-day

automatic extension period for certain renewal EAD applicants, USCIS'

ability to process both initial and renewal EAD applications within

USCIS' targeted processing times was adversely impacted by a variety of

temporary circumstances.\9\ In May 2022 \10\ and April 2024,\11\ DHS

temporarily increased the automatic extension from up to 180 days to up

to 540 days. The May 2022 and April 2024 temporary final rules were

intended to reduce the number of renewal EAD applicants eligible for an

automatic extension of their EAD validity under 8 CFR 274a.13(d)

experiencing lapses in their employment authorization and/or EAD

validity because of USCIS processing delays.

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

\9\ See 87 FR 26614, 26617-26 (May 4, 2022) (identifying USCIS'

precarious fiscal status, the COVID-19 public health emergency, and

dramatic increases in Form I-765 filings); see also 89 FR 24628,

24634-40 (Apr. 8, 2024) (identifying an increase in referrals to

USCIS for Credible Fear Assessment and an increase in affirmative

and defensive asylum filings as contributing factors to increased

EAD processing times).

\10\ 87 FR 26614 (May 4, 2022) (temporarily increased the

automatic extension period to up to 540 days).

\11\ 89 FR 24628 (Apr. 8, 2024) (temporarily increased the

automatic extension period to up to 540 days).

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

DHS also issued a final rule in December 2024 \12\ that

indefinitely increased the up to 540-day automatic extension for

certain applications pending on May 4, 2022, or properly filed on or

after May 4, 2022. That rule was intended to reduce the effects of

unknown future circumstances that could significantly impact EAD

renewal processing times.\13\

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

\12\ See 89 FR 101208 (Dec. 13, 2024) (permanently increased the

automatic extension period to up to 540 days).

\13\ See 89 FR 101210 (``When unforeseen future circumstances

cause processing times to extend beyond 180 days and result in large

scale lapses in renewal EADs, this permanent adjustment of the

automatic extension period to 540 days will result in benefits and

cost savings, such as stabilized earnings and avoided labor turnover

costs.'').

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

D. The 2025 Interim Final Rule Removed Automatic Extensions for Certain

Employment Authorization Documents

The IFR amended DHS regulations to end the practice of

automatically extending the validity of certain EADs. See 8 CFR

274a.13(e). The IFR did not impact the automatic extensions already

granted to renewal EAD applicants under 8 CFR 274a.13(d)(1), if the

renewal EAD application was filed before October 30, 2025. See 8 CFR

274a.13(d). The IFR also did not impact automatic extensions otherwise

provided by law or in an applicable Federal Register notice regarding

procedures for renewing TPS-related employment documentation pursuant

to section 244 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1254a, and 8 CFR part 244.\14\ See

8 CFR 274a.13(e).

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

\14\ DHS notes, however, that sections 100003(c) and 100012(a)

of H.R. 1, Public Law 119-21 (2025), 139 Stat. 221 (2025) (codified

at 8 U.S.C. 1802-1815), limits the validity period of any employment

authorization for aliens granted TPS under section 244 of the INA, 8

U.S.C. 1254a, to a period of 1 year or for the duration of the

designation of TPS, whichever is shorter.

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

The IFR made two changes to the regulations governing EAD, as

discussed below.

1. Added New 8 CFR 274a.13(e)

The IFR added a new paragraph (e) that went into effect immediately

with the publication of the IFR on October 30, 2025. With 8 CFR

274a.13(e), DHS eliminated the practice of providing automatic

extension periods for employment authorization and/or EAD validity for

up to 540 days for renewal applications filed on or after October 30,

2025. Therefore, renewal EAD applicants no longer receive an up to 540-

day automatic extension of their employment authorization and/or EAD

validity if they file their application on or after October 30, 2025.

See 8 CFR 274a.13(e).

Except as otherwise provided by law, in 8 CFR 274a.13(d), or in

accordance with an applicable Federal Register notice regarding

procedures for renewing TPS-related employment documentation, an

alien's employment authorization and/or EAD validity will expire as

explained in the following paragraphs:

For those aliens who are employment authorized incident to status

under 8 CFR 274a.12(a), unless otherwise provided by law, their EAD

will expire on the day after the end validity date stated on the face

of the EAD. See 8 CFR 274a.13(e)(1). Because the alien's employment

authorization is tied to the alien's status in the United States, the

alien's employment authorization will not expire on the date indicated

on the EAD. Instead, the alien's employment authorization will expire

or terminate on the same date the alien's status in the United States

expires or terminates.

For example, an alien in L-2 nonimmigrant status as the spouse of

an L-1 nonimmigrant is employment authorized incident to status. See

INA sec. 214(c)(2)(E), 8 U.S.C. 1184(c)(2)(E). If the L-2 nonimmigrant

chooses to apply for an EAD to evidence his or her employment

authorization, the EAD will expire as of the date indicated on the face

of the EAD. In some cases that may be the same date as the expiration

of the L-2's nonimmigrant status. But in other cases, the L-2 status

expiration date may be after the EAD expiration date, particularly if

the L-2 nonimmigrant travelled outside of the United States after

obtaining an EAD and, upon return to the United States, was provided a

new status expiration date that will expire after the EAD expires.\15\

In that scenario, the L-2 nonimmigrant would remain employment

authorized while in L-2 nonimmigrant status, even after the EAD

expires, but the expired EAD would no longer be a valid document to

evidence the L-2 nonimmigrant's employment authorization.\16\ Once the

alien is no longer in L-2 status (for example, the L-2 nonimmigrant

status expires), the alien would no longer be employment authorized as

an L-2 nonimmigrant because such employment authorization is dependent

on being in L-2 nonimmigrant status.

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

\15\ In this case, the new status expiration date is the date

stated on the alien's Form I-94, Arrival Departure document.

\16\ An L-2 can still have other evidence of documentation of

employment authorization, such as a Form I-94, Arrival/Departure

Record, designated with the L-2S classification.

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

For aliens who are not employment authorized incident to their

immigration status and who instead must obtain employment authorization

from USCIS, pursuant to 8 CFR 274a.12(c) before accepting employment in

the United States, such as adjustment of status applicants or aliens

with a pending asylum application, USCIS determines the length of the

period of employment authorization in the exercise of its discretion

and thereafter issues an EAD reflecting the validity period.\17\

Therefore, the EAD will expire and the employment authorization will

terminate the day after the end validity

[[Page 65310]]

date stated on the face of the EAD based upon the situations outlined

in 8 CFR 274a.14, or for aliens with employment authorization under 8

CFR 274a.12(c)(19) based on a pending TPS application, pursuant to

section 244 of the Act and 8 CFR part 244 \18\ See 8 CFR 274a.13(e)(2).

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

\17\ Employment authorization granted pursuant to 8 CFR

274a.12(c) is generally granted in the discretion of the Secretary.

See 8 CFR 274a.13(a)(1) (``The approval of applications filed under

8 CFR 274a.12(c), except for 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(8), are within the

discretion of USCIS.'').

\18\ For example, employment authorization may also end prior to

the expiration date displayed on the EAD, in accordance with 8 CFR

274a.14, if exclusion or deportation proceedings are instituted

against the alien; if a condition upon which the EAD was granted has

not been met or no longer exists; or upon a showing that the

information contained in the request for an EAD was not true and

correct.

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

For example, an alien with a pending adjustment of status

application (Form I-485) has an EAD that expires on May 30, 2026. The

alien's adjustment of status application has not been adjudicated and

continues to be pending. The alien is eligible to apply for a renewal

EAD based on the pending adjustment of status application. The alien

applies for a renewal of the EAD on February 4, 2026, which is after

the October 30, 2025, effective date of the IFR. The alien will

maintain continuous employment authorization if his or her renewal

application is granted before his or her current employment

authorization expires on May 30, 2026. If the renewal EAD application

remains unadjudicated on May 31, 2026, the alien cannot continue to

work for his or her employer on or after May 31, 2026, unless the alien

is employment authorized on a separate basis. See 8 CFR 274a.13(e). If

the renewal EAD application is subsequently approved, the alien would

again be employment authorized and may resume employment during the

validity period stated on the new EAD. The longer an alien waits to

file a renewal EAD application, the more likely it is that he or she

may experience a temporary lapse in his or her employment authorization

and/or EAD validity.

2. Modified the Heading of 8 CFR 274a.13(d)

On December 13, 2024, DHS published a final rule amending 8 CFR

274a.13(d) to permanently increase the automatic extension period for

certain employment authorization and/or EAD validity. The rule became

effective on January 13, 2025.\19\ DHS is retaining the provision

granting an automatic extension for those aliens who had timely filed a

renewal EAD request before October 30, 2025, and who otherwise meet the

requirements of 8 CFR 274a.13(d). The IFR amended 8 CFR 274a.13(d) by

revising the paragraph's heading to reflect that the paragraph applies

to renewal requests properly filed before October 30, 2025, to avoid

confusion between the automatic extension period granted under 8 CFR

274a.13(d) for those renewal EAD requests filed prior to October 30,

2025, and those filed on the day of or after the publication of the

IFR. With this final rule, DHS is adopting and finalizing the changes

made by the IFR and not making any additional changes to the

regulations.

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

\19\ See 89 FR 101208 (Dec. 13, 2024).

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

This change to the heading of 8 CFR 274a.13(d) ensures that the IFR

and this rule do not retroactively affect those aliens who have already

timely and properly filed a renewal EAD application before October 30,

2025. For these aliens, an EAD that appears on its face to be expired

(``facially expired'') is considered unexpired under this rule for up

to 540 days from the expiration date on the front of the EAD when

combined with a Notice of Action (Form I-797C) indicating timely filing

(that is, the receipt notice for the Form I-765 issued by USCIS has a

receipt date that is before the expiration date on the EAD and before

October 30, 2025) of the renewal application based on the same

employment eligibility category as stated on the facially expired EAD

(or in the case of an EAD and I-797C notice) that contains either an

A12 or C19 category code, the category codes need not match). In those

cases, the alien's facially expired EAD is considered unexpired for up

to 540 days from the expiration date on the face of the EAD.\20\

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

\20\ If an adjustment of status applicant's (C09) EAD card is

combined with the advance parole authorization, i.e., the applicant

is issued a combo card (in this case, the EAD itself has an

annotation ``SERVES AS I-512 ADVANCE PAROLE''), the up-to-540-day

automatic extension under 8 CFR 274a.13(d) does not apply to the

advance parole part of the applicant's combo card.

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

USCIS updated the web page on the USCIS website with the

appropriate information.\21\ USCIS also updated I-9 Central on the

USCIS website and the Handbook for Employers, M-274, to provide

employers and employees with additional guidance.\22\

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

\21\ The website entitled ``Automatic Employment Authorization

Document (EAD) Extension'' has been archived in light of the IFR but

the web page is still available for viewing at https://www.uscis.gov/archive/automatic-employment-authorization-document-ead-extension (last updated Oct. 29, 2025).

\22\ See DHS, USCIS, Handbook for Employers M-274, 5.0 Automatic

Extensions of Employment Authorization and/or Employment

Authorization Documents (EADs) in Certain Circumstances (last

updated Oct. 30, 2025), https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/form-i-9-

resources/handbook-for-employers-m-274/50-automatic-extensions-of-

employment-authorization-andor-employment-authorization-documents-

eads-in.

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

E. Severability

In issuing this final rule, like the IFR, DHS continues to intend

that the rule's various provisions be considered severable from one

another to the greatest extent possible. For instance, if a court of

competent jurisdiction were to hold that ending the practice of

automatically extending the validity of employment authorization and/or

EADs for aliens who have timely filed an application to renew their

employment authorization and/or EAD in certain employment categories

may only be applied to a particular category of renewal EAD applicants

or in a particular circumstance, DHS would intend for the court to

leave the remainder of the rule in place with respect to all other

covered persons and circumstances. DHS's overarching goal is to

militate against threats to national security and public safety and to

ensure that employment authorization and/or EADs are provided only

after USCIS conducts adequate vetting and determines that the alien

continues to be eligible and merits a favorable exercise of discretion,

if applicable.

III. Changes in the Final Rule

This final rule adopts as final, without change, the amendments to

8 CFR 274a.13(d) and (e) in the IFR, published on October 30, 2025, at

90 FR 48799.

IV. Response to Public Comments on the Interim Final Rule

A. Summary of Comments

When issuing the IFR, DHS invited the public to participate in the

rulemaking by submitting post-promulgation comments on every aspect of

the rule. DHS provided a 33-day comment period following the

publication of the IFR. DHS received 653 public comment submissions in

the Federal eRulemaking Portal site under Docket ID Number USCIS-2025-

0271 \23\ in response to the rulemaking.

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

\23\ The comments can be viewed by visiting the docket for this

rule on the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at https://www.regulations.gov/document/USCIS-2025-0271-0001/comment.

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

Comments were submitted by a range of entities and individuals,

including attorneys and legal service providers, applicants, individual

commenters, professional organizations, unions, advocacy groups,

religious organizations, research and community organizations, and

State and local government agencies or elected officials. Some

commenters expressed support for the rule or offered suggestions for

improvement. Some expressed general opposition to the rule, and some

offered alternatives. For some of the public

[[Page 65311]]

comments, DHS could not ascertain whether the commenter supported or

opposed the IFR. Finally, some commenters addressed topics outside the

scope of this rulemaking.

DHS carefully reviewed all the public comments received in response

to the IFR and addresses relevant comments in this final rule, grouped

by subject area.

B. Comments in Support of the Rule

Comment: Several commenters supported the rule based on national

security concerns, citing the need for proper vetting of nonimmigrant

workers. Specifically, they stated that the rule would allow for

thorough vetting of nonimmigrants before DHS extends their

authorization to work in the United States. Commenters called the rule

a ``critical'' measure to support the safety and security of the

public. One commenter emphasized that working in the United States is a

privilege, not a right, while another said that safety and national

security should be government's highest priority.

Several commenters supported the rule based on concerns about fraud

and abuse in the visa system, stating, for example, that it would help

deter potential fraud and abuse by preventing aliens from remaining in

the workforce for extended periods without final adjudication of their

eligibility.

Multiple commenters supported the rule based on concerns about

protecting job opportunities for American citizens. A commenter stated

that automatic extensions keep nonimmigrant workers employed without

timely reevaluation, allowing them to compete with American workers for

positions while requiring renewed authorization before continuing

employment ensures that only eligible aliens remain in the workforce.

Response: DHS agrees that this rule safeguards the process to fully

evaluate the applicants in order to determine continued eligibility,

identify national security and public safety concerns, and enhance

fraud prevention through robust vetting and screening processes. This

administration prioritizes the safety of the American people. Ensuring

that employment authorization and/or EADs are provided only after USCIS

conducts adequate vetting and determines that the alien continues to be

eligible and merits a favorable exercise of discretion, if applicable,

better protects national security, public safety, and the integrity of

the immigration system. This rule is part of a larger DHS effort to

reduce frivolous, fraudulent, and otherwise non-meritorious EAD filings

and focus adjudicatory and other resources on ensuring national

security and program integrity.

C. Comments in Opposition to the Rule and Mixed Comments

1. DHS Legal Authority

i. DHS Statutory Authority and Congressional Intent

Comment: Multiple commenters requested that the rule be withdrawn

stating that the rule contradicts DHS's statutory mandate, including

the mandate to ensure that ``the overall economic security of the

United States is not diminished by efforts . . . aimed at securing the

homeland'' under 6 U.S.C. 111(b)(1)(F). Many of these commenters stated

that, consistent with this statutory mandate, DHS recently concluded

that a 540-day automatic EAD extension was necessary to protect

employers and workers from lapses in work authorization due to USCIS

delays, and DHS previously found that even the 180-day extension

established under the 2016 Final Rule was not enough time to avoid

harmful gaps in work authorization.

Response: DHS disagrees that this rule is inconsistent with DHS's

statutory mandate, including the mandate under 6 U.S.C. 111(b)(1)(F).

According to 6 U.S.C. 111(b), DHS's primary mission includes preventing

terrorist attacks within the United States, reducing the vulnerability

of the United States to terrorism, minimizing the damage, and assisting

in the recovery, from terrorist attacks that occur within the United

States, and ensuring that the overall economic security of the United

States is not diminished by efforts, activities, and programs aimed at

securing the homeland. See 6 U.S.C. 111(b)(1)(A), (B), (C), and (F).

While the provision does not specifically define ``economic security,''

another provision within 6 U.S.C. Chapter 1 (Homeland Security

Organization), defines ``economic security'' as the ``condition of

having secure and resilient domestic production capacity, combined with

reliable access to the global resources necessary to maintain an

acceptable standard of living and to protect core national values.''

See 6 U.S.C. 474(c)(2).\24\ In addition, DHS is charged with the

implementation of section 274A of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1324a, preventing

unlawful employment of aliens. This rule, which is part of an effort to

secure the homeland, supports DHS's mission as provided by Congress in

6 U.S.C. 111(b) and section 274A of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1324a, ensures

lawful employment, and supports the overall national and economic

security of the United States.

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

\24\ See Sorenson v. Sec'y of Treasury of U.S., 475 U.S. 851,

860 (1986) (``The normal rule of statutory construction assumes that

identical words used in different parts of the same act are intended

to have the same meaning.'').

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

Ending the practice of providing automatic extension of employment

authorization and/or EADs enhances the benefit integrity in

adjudications of employment authorization requests and better protects

public safety and national security by ensuring that aliens are

properly vetted and determined to be eligible (and merit a favorable

exercise of discretion, if applicable), for employment authorization

before such authorization is provided to the alien. The automatic

extension of an EAD grants the benefit of extending an alien's expired

employment authorization and/or EAD merely by filing a timely renewal

EAD application and without first completing adjudicative review and

related vetting, including resolution of any derogatory information

identified during the vetting process. That is, the benefit is granted

without USCIS first performing the following actions: an eligibility

determination, completing vetting and screening checks, resolving

potential hits of derogatory information in connection with the alien,

and a determination that the employment authorization should be renewed

in the exercise of discretion, if applicable. Without the IFR and this

final rule, aliens could still obtain an automatic extension despite

derogatory information that could flag them as national security or

public safety risks. Automatic extensions, therefore, pose a security

risk.

DHS is charged with combating unauthorized employment in accordance

with section 274A of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1324a, which Congress

implemented, among other reasons, because of the detrimental negative

effect that unauthorized employment and illegal immigration has on the

United States and the national economy.\25\ Sections 103 and 274A of

[[Page 65312]]

the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1103(a) and 8 U.S.C. 1324a, among other provisions,

provide DHS and USCIS with considerable flexibility to administer and

enforce the INA, including granting employment authorization and the

issuance of an EAD. There is no generally applicable statutory mandate

that requires DHS to provide an automatic extension. As explained in

the IFR, the automatic extension carries the risk that employers

unwittingly continue to employ a worker whose employment authorization

is in fact no longer valid. See 90 FR at 48810. This includes that

aliens may no longer be entitled to employment authorization because

they no longer have an underlying status which entitles them to work.

Additionally, vetting every alien before granting an immigration

benefit, including employment authorization, has been one of the key

considerations of Congress.\26\

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

\25\ Section 274A of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1324a was codified as

part of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, Public Law

99-603, for the purpose of controlling illegal immigration to the

United States by, among other things, establishing penalties for

employers who knowingly hire undocumented aliens and prohibiting the

employment of aliens who are unauthorized to work in the United

States either because they entered the country illegally or are in

an immigration status which does not permit employment. See H. Rep.

No. 99-682, 46, 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5649, 5649-5650. The legislative

history reflects that Congress considered, among other things,

evidence of prior studies demonstrating the adverse impact of

illegal immigration that warranted legislation to protect U.S. labor

and the economy. See, e.g., H. Rep. 99-682, 46--52, 1986

U.S.C.C.A.N. 5649, 5649-5656 [``The need for control is underscored

by international demographics. Undocumented aliens tend to come from

countries with high population growth and few employment

opportunities. The United States is not in a position to redress

this imbalance by absorbing these workers into our economy and our

population. U.S. unemployment currently stands at 7%, and is much

higher among the minority groups with whom undocumented workers

compete for jobs most directly . . . Extensive investigative and

legislative hearings on the problem of undocumented aliens were held

during the 92d Congress beginning in 1971, by the House Judiciary

Subcommittee with special jurisdiction over immigration matters,

then under the chairmanship of Representative Peter W. Rodino, Jr.

Quoting from a 1975 House Judiciary Committee report, `The basic

conclusion reached by the majority of the members of the

subcommittee as a result of the hearings was that the adverse impact

of illegal aliens was substantial, and warranted legislation both to

protect U.S. labor and the economy, and to assure the orderly entry

of immigrants into this country.' (H. Rept. 94-506, p. 3)''].

\26\ For example, the Congressional recommendation to establish

an organization ``responsible for developing, implementing,

directing, and overseeing the joint USCIS-Immigration and Customs

Enforcement (ICE) anti-fraud initiative and conducting law

enforcement/background checks on every applicant, beneficiary, and

petitioner prior to granting immigration benefits.'' See Conference

Report to accompany H.R. 4567 [Report 108-774], ``Making

Appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the

Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2005,'' p. 74, https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-108hrpt774/pdf/CRPT-108hrpt774.pdf [emphasis added].

In response to this recommendation, the Fraud and National Security

Division (FDNS) was established at USCIS. See USCIS, DHS, ``Fraud

Detection and Nat'l Security Directorate,'' https://www.uscis.gov/about-us/organization/directorates-and-program-offices/fraud-detection-and-national-security-directorate (last updated Apr. 16,

2026); USCIS, ``Fraud Detection and Nat'l Security Directorate

(FDNS),'' May 2022, https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/brochures/FDNS_Brochure_Web_V2_508.pdf.

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

The rule does not eliminate employment authorizations or prevent

eligible aliens from obtaining EADs for employment purposes or proof of

identity; or from seeking and maintaining authorized employment. The

rule does not reduce economic security. To the contrary, the rule

supports the condition of having secure and resilient domestic

production capacity, and protects core national values, as directed by

Congress, with U.S. workers who are legally authorized to work.

Therefore, the IFR is consistent with DHS's statutory mandate,

including the mandate at 6 U.S.C. 111(b)(1)(F), because it

appropriately balances the need for security and vetting while

maintaining overall EAD eligibility practices.

DHS is cognizant that prior rulemakings stated that DHS believed,

at the time, that taking immediate action and providing automatic

extensions of employment authorization supported USCIS' (as a component

of DHS) statutory mission to administer employment authorization

effectively, and as a measure to ensure that the overall economic

security was not diminished by potentially harmful gaps in employment

authorizations. See, e.g., 89 FR 101208, 101209 (Dec. 13, 2024); 89 FR

24628, 24629 and 24651(Apr. 8, 2024). As explained in this response,

and throughout this rule, DHS believes that the factual situation

underlying prior rules, in particular the Dec. 13, 2024 rule, have

significantly changed, including that DHS has taken significant steps

to reduce the flood of filings of EADs that overwhelmed USCIS'

adjudicative resources.\27\ Furthermore, the 2024 final rule made the

automatic extension period permanent based on the presumption that

harmful gaps would occur given the operational realities at the

time.\28\ Even if the 2024 final rule had taken into account the

security posture of the United States, it was unclear how the rule

furthered the economic security given that the rule was based on

potential harm to individual applicants and their employers, rather

than the broader national economy. It is thus unclear how removing the

automatic extension period, which improves the security posture of the

United States and is consistent with immigration laws, would undermine

the overall economic security of the United States.

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

\27\ See 90 FR 48799, 48809 (Oct. 30, 2025).

\28\ See 89 FR 101208, 101245 (noting ``the purpose of this

final rule is to provide a long-term solution to mitigate the

potential for unpredictable circumstances to significantly increase

renewal EAD application processing times that would require future

urgent action).

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

Comment: A commenter asserted that removing the automatic extension

of employment authorization without ensuring timely adjudication would

strip lawfully authorized noncitizens \29\ of their ability to work due

to USCIS processing delays, which, according to the commenter,

contradicts the intent of the INA and the ``right'' to work in the

United States. Another commenter stated that the IFR incorrectly states

that the rule is consistent with section 274A of the INA, 8 U.S.C.

1324a. Another commenter stated that it seems illegal to deny someone a

renewal when they have followed the law and have filed the renewal

application in a timely manner.

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

\29\ USCIS generally refers to ``aliens'' when discussing

foreign nationals present in the United States. The term ``alien''

is a legal term defined in the INA that is used to describe any

person who is not a citizen or national of the United States. See

INA sec. 101(a)(1) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(1). Some commenters

used ``aliens'', but others may have used different terminology

(such as person or individual). In general, when describing comments

in this preamble, DHS has sought to mirror the language used in

those comments, sometimes with quotation marks for clarity.

Otherwise, DHS has used alien, or applicant, beneficiary, or

requestor.

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

Response: DHS disagrees with these commenters' assertions. This

final rule and the IFR are consistent with section 274A of the Act, 8

U.S.C. 1324a, which, among other things, recognizes the Secretary's

authority to grant employment authorization in his or her discretion.

DHS disagrees with the commenter's assertion that aliens have a broadly

applicable ``right'' to work in the United States. Rather, the INA

makes clear that aliens, to lawfully work in the United States, must be

so authorized by law or a grant of employment authorization by the

Secretary. See INA 274A(h)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1324a(h)(3). Contrary to the

commenters' assertions, this rule does not impact whether DHS will

renew an alien's employment authorization; it only removes an

intermediate automatic extension of the EAD period. If DHS determines

that the alien is eligible for continued employment authorization and

merits a favorable exercise of discretion, as applicable, DHS may grant

the renewal of employment authorization. This final rule merely ends

the practice of automatically granting the benefit of continued

employment authorization without USCIS first performing the following

actions: eligibility determination, completing vetting and screening

checks, resolving potential hits of derogatory information in

connection with the alien, and a determination that the employment

authorization should be granted in the exercise of discretion, if

applicable.

Comment: A commenter stated that, when providing the ability for

asylum

[[Page 65313]]

seekers to obtain work authorization, Congress could not have intended

the arbitrary and capricious impact, on both the alien authorized to

work and the employer who has relied on that alien, of being without

authorization for an indeterminate amount of time until USCIS

adjudicates either the asylum application or a new EAD. A commenter

stated, without pointing to specific provisions, that the IFR should be

discontinued because its policy changes do not reflect the law or the

intent of the law or even the will of the people who voted for

candidates who would make immigration changes.

Response: DHS disagrees with the commenters' assertion. Section

208(d)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1158(d)(2), expressly states that ``[a]n

applicant for asylum is not entitled to employment authorization,''

though it also provides the Secretary with authority to grant

employment authorization, in his or her discretion, to applicants for

asylum if 180 days have passed since filing an application for asylum.

The IFR, and this final rule, clearly outline the legal authority for

this change, and are consistent with the Secretary's discretionary

authority regarding the grant of employment authorization for asylum

applicants and the duration of such authorization.

ii. Constitutional Concerns

Comment: Multiple commenters expressed that the IFR raises First

Amendment concerns, because the IFR suggests that USCIS must evaluate

whether renewal applicants ``bear hostile attitudes'' toward U.S.

citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles.

The commenters reasoned that employment authorization may not be

conditioned on ideological conformity and that agency action on

unconstitutional factors may not be sustained as it is constitutionally

questionable and impermissible. Another commenter stated that an

ideological screening regime for work authorization renewals would

further entrench USCIS in DHS's ``troubling pattern'' of suppressing

First Amendment rights in the name of national security and opens the

door for USCIS to profile individuals.

Response: DHS disagrees with the commenters. Citizens and aliens

may object to various statutes, regulations, and policies and express

those objections publicly. This rule neither penalizes individuals for

protected political beliefs or associations nor subjects them to

activities such as ideological screenings or profiling. This rule does

not abridge the freedom of speech, of the press, or of association or

peaceful assembly. Rather, it ends the practice of automatically

granting the benefit of continued employment authorization without

USCIS concurrently performing the following actions: eligibility

determination, completing vetting and screening checks, resolving

potential hits of derogatory information in connection with the alien,

or a determination that the employment authorization should be renewed

in the exercise of discretion, if applicable.

DHS notes that freedom of speech for aliens is not absolute. See,

e.g., INA sec. 212(a)(3)(B)(i)(VII), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(VII)

(stating that any alien who endorses or espouses terrorist activity, or

persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a

terrorist organization, is inadmissible), and INA sec.

212(a)(6)(C)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii) (stating that any alien

who falsely represents, or has falsely represented, himself or herself

to be a citizen of the United States for any purpose or benefit under

Federal or State law is inadmissible). DHS has a compelling interest in

vetting and screening aliens before granting a benefit request,

particularly when such request is granted in USCIS' discretion, as

applicable.

DHS also notes that a challenge to the First Amendment cannot lie

unless an individual establishes that he or she faces a ``credible

threat of prosecution'' specifically for his or her speech, ``under a

statute [or rule] that appears to render the [individual]'s arguably

protected speech illegal.'' See, e.g., Am. Library ***'n v. Barr, 956

F.2d 1178, 1194 (D.C. Cir. 1992). As indicated above, that is not the

case in this scenario as neither section 274A of the Act, 8 U.S.C.

1324a, nor the associated regulations, renders any form of speech

illegal or attempts to directly or indirectly regulate or penalize

speech. Rather, the IFR and this final rule subject all EAD renewal

applicants to the same vetting and screening procedures used for

initial applications or those applicants who were not previously

eligible for an automatic extension of their renewal employment

authorization and/or EAD.

Comment: Several commenters raised concerns related to due process.

Referencing the Fifth Amendment, a commenter stated that the IFR

undermines the right to due process and the right to seek asylum by

eliminating automatic extensions, which will cause large numbers of

asylum seekers and other immigrants to lose employment authorization

through no fault of their own. Another commenter said the rule replaces

due process with guilt by association and abandons any pretense of a

fair and rational immigration system. Other commenters expressed

concerns about due process related to the immediate effective date of

the IFR, stating that implementation of the IFR appears to be designed

to reflect and further the current administration's policies and

efforts toward ``creating and enhancing chaos and dysfunction.''

Response: DHS disagrees with the commenters' assertions that the

IFR, and this final rule by virtue of reaffirming and finalizing the

IFR, undermine due process or the ability of aliens to request asylum,

or that it will cause large numbers of asylum seekers or other aliens

to lose employment authorization.

In general, the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects

due process rights to a government benefit if the alien has an

entitlement to it, but a benefit is not a protected entitlement if

government officials may grant or deny it in their discretion. See Town

of Castle Rock, Colorado v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748, 756 (2005). There

is no generally applicable statutory mandate to grant automatic

extensions of employment authorizations. DHS and USCIS have been

provided with considerable flexibility and discretion under section 103

and 274A of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1103(a) and 8 U.S.C. 1324a, among other

provisions, to administer and enforce the INA, including granting

employment authorization. Therefore, there is generally no cognizable

due process interest in matters related to automatic extensions of

employment authorizations and/or EADs. Additionally, contrary to the

commenter's assertion, the rule does not suggest guilt by association

or that the immigration system is unfair or irrational. A fair and

rational immigration system ensures that aliens are sufficiently

vetted, and any background hits are resolved before a determination is

made that the alien is eligible for an extension of his or her

employment authorization and/or an EAD and merits a favorable exercise

of discretion, as applicable. The examples provided in the IFR do not

suggest guilt by association. Rather, those examples highlight the

importance and urgency of ensuring that aliens are not granted

employment authorization until appropriate adjudicative review has been

completed, and the risks to the national security and public safety if

such benefits are granted automatically.

DHS also disagrees with the assertion that immediate implementation

of the IFR was designed or intended to create chaos or dysfunction. DHS

explained in the IFR why it was implementing the

[[Page 65314]]

rule with immediate effect. DHS concluded that the good cause

exceptions in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3) apply to the IFR and that

delaying the implementation of the IFR until the conclusion of notice

and comment procedures and the delayed effective date would be

impracticable and contrary to public interest. See 90 FR 48814 (Oct.

30, 2025). DHS also explained that the IFR was issued with an immediate

effective date because the rule clearly implicates the foreign affairs

policy of the United States, and that notice and comment procedure as

well as a 30-day delayed effective date would result in undesirable

international consequences. See 90 FR 48816 (Oct. 30, 2025).

iii. International Law and Refugee Protections

Comment: Several commenters stated that the IFR violates refugee

protections, including the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of

Refugees and the Refugee Act of 1980.\30\ One of these commenters said

the Refugee Act of 1980 specifically enshrines the right of refugees to

work, obtain documentation, and access education, and UNHCR Guidance

makes clear that asylum seekers awaiting adjudication of their cases

are to be afforded the right to work. The commenter said asylum seekers

must obtain EADs to work while their cases are pending, and gaps in

EADs restrict the enjoyment of these rights either by directly

impacting the right to safe work, or because many services require

documentation for which an EAD may be the only form of proof available.

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

\30\ In 1968, the U.S. acceded to the 1967 Protocol Relating to

the Status of Refugees (``Protocol''), which adopted articles of the

1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (``Convention'').

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

Another commenter stated that eliminating the automatic extension

was contrary to Article 34 of the 1951 Refugee Convention, because the

resulting loss of employment and the bar of legal employment impede

assimilation and naturalization of refugees. The commenter also said

the IFR was contrary to Article 33's nonrefoulement, and the Refugee

Convention's and Protocol's mandate to facilitate access to fair and

efficient refugee status determination procedures that function as a

safeguard against refoulement. The commenter reasoned that by

undermining asylum seekers' ability to meet their basic needs through

legal employment while their claims are pending, the rule obstructs

access to a fair asylum procedure and risks forcing aliens to abandon

their claims, potentially resulting in their return to the country of

persecution.

A commenter stated that cutting off work authorization from people

fleeing persecution contradicts our legal obligations and longstanding

values.

Response: DHS disagrees that ending the practice of granting

automatic extensions for EAD renewals is inconsistent with the United

States' international obligations related to refugee protections,

including the Refugee Convention and its Protocol and the Refugee Act

of 1980. Although the United States is party to the 1967 Protocol,

which incorporates, among others, Articles 17, 33, and 34 of the 1951

Refugee Convention, the treaty is not self-executing and is not

directly enforceable in U.S. law. It is the domestic implementing law

that governs. The Supreme Court and other case law makes clear that the

Protocol serves only as a useful guide in determining congressional

intent in enacting the Refugee Act of 1980, because the Act sought to

bring U.S. law into conformity with the Protocol. See, e.g., INS v.

Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 428 n.22 (1984); Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773,

783 (9th Cir. 2009). The United States Congress implemented U.S.

obligations with respect to certain provisions of the Refugee

Convention in the Refugee Act of 1980, including in sections 208, 235,

and 241 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1158, 1225 and 1231, and DHS regulations,

including 8 CFR part 208 and 1208. Section 208(d)(2) of the INA, 8

U.S.C. 1158(d)(2), provides the Secretary with authority to grant

employment authorization, in his or her discretion, to applicants for

asylum if 180 days have passed since filing an application for asylum.

The IFR is limited in scope, merely ending the practice of

automatically extending the validity of employment authorization and/or

EADs for aliens who have timely filed an application to renew their EAD

in certain employment categories. There is no mandate under

international or United States law that DHS provide an automatic

extension of employment authorization and/or EAD validity for aliens

filing renewal EAD applications, and certainly not without adequately

being vetted for continued eligibility. Aliens with a pending asylum

application are permitted to still apply for employment authorization

as nothing in this rule restricts the ability to apply for an EAD.\31\

Rather, the IFR, and this final rule, are consistent with the

Secretary's discretionary authority regarding the grant of employment

authorization for asylum applicants and the duration of such

authorization, and with international obligations, including the

favorable treatment of those seeking refuge from persecution in their

countries. DHS finally notes that asylees (but not those with pending

asylum applications), refugees, and certain other aliens are

``qualified aliens'' for purpose of receiving public benefits to cover

basic needs under Title IV of the Personal Responsibility and Work

Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.\32\ Therefore, even if there

are gaps in employment on account of adjudication delays, these aliens

may be able to obtain public benefits.

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

\31\ On December 4, 2025, USCIS changed the validity periods for

certain other EAD categories, including pending asylum seeker

(``C08'') to enhance screening and vetting efforts. See DHS, USCIS,

Policy Alert, Subject: Updating Certain Employment Authorization

Document Validity Periods (December 4, 2025), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/policy-manual-updates/20251204-EmploymentAuthorizationValidity.pdf. Therefore, C08 applicants now

must seek renewal of their EAD more often than under the previous 5-

year EAD validity period. DHS, however, cannot accurately predict

whether this policy change will adversely affect EAD renewal

processing times, as a likely increase in EAD renewals could be

offset by other recent or future policy changes. For example, on

February 23, 2026, DHS published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

proposing to modify filing and eligibility requirements for aliens

requesting employment authorization based on a pending asylum

application and an employment authorization document. See 91 FR 8616

(Feb. 23, 2026). As of the publication of this final rule, the NPRM

has not been finalized. If finalized as proposed, changes to

eligibility for C08 employment authorization could significantly

reduce the number of initial C08 applications and, by extension, the

longer-term number of renewal applications.

\32\ Public Law 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105, 2260 (1996), codified

at 8 U.S.C. 1601-1646; see 8 U.S.C. 1641(b)(1) and (2) (defining

asylees and refugees as ``qualified aliens'' eligible for federal

public benefits); see also 8 U.S.C. 1611(a) (providing that an alien

who is not defined as a ``qualified alien'' is not eligible for

federal public benefits).

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

Comment: A commenter referenced Article 17 of the Refugee

Convention, which provides that refugees lawfully in the territory of

the host state (which would include not only asylees and resettled

refugees, but all aliens pursuing asylum claims who apply for renewal

EADs), shall be the accorded the ``most favorable treatment accorded to

nationals of a foreign country in the same circumstances.'' The

commenter stated that, because the rule does not end all automatic

extensions of the validity period of EADs for those applying for

renewal (for example, TPS-based EAD validity extensions through FRN),

it provides refugees applying to renew their EADs less favorable

treatment than other foreign nationals. The commenter concluded that

the rule is therefore issued in violation of Article 17 of the Refugee

Convention and should be withdrawn.

[[Page 65315]]

Response: DHS disagrees with the commenters. The United States

implemented the ``Wage-earning and Employment'' provision of Article 17

of the 1951 Refugee Convention (as incorporated through the 1967

Protocol) through sections 207 and 208 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1157, 1158,

and implementing regulations at 8 CFR 207, 208 and 274a. Refugees (and

asylees) \33\ have the right to employment authorization upon arrival,

with minimal restrictions and are provided a pathway to lawful

permanent residency because their status in the United States is

permanent. This approach aligns with Article 17's requirements and

complies with the U.S. obligation including that these individuals are

not subject to more restrictive conditions than other foreign nationals

in similar circumstances. Even if Article 17 were imposing a binding

obligation, nothing in Article 17 requires DHS to provide employment

authorization to noncitizens seeking refugee status or asylum before

DHS or an immigration judge has made a final determination that they

meet requirements for asylum or refugee status and grant the alien's

application.

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

\33\ Asylees are aliens who are physically present in the United

States or at a U.S. port of entry and who meets the definition of a

refugee because he or she has a reasonable fear of persecution as

defined in section 101(a)(42) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42). In

contrast, a refugee is an alien located outside the United States

who has been determined to have a fear of persecution. Asylees who

meet the conditions of section 208 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1158 are

afforded the same treatment as refugees in regard to the wage-

earning and employment requirement of Article 17. Contrary to the

commenter's assertion, applicants for asylum are not asylees or

covered by Article 17. Even if they were, the United States

implemented Article 17 through sections 207 and 208 of the INA, 8

U.S.C. 1157, 1158.

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

TPS applicants do not have the same protections and legal

definition as refugees and asylees. Aliens granted TPS and TPS

applicants are only temporarily in the United States on account of the

Secretary's designation under section 244 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1254a,

and 8 CFR part 244. As part of the TPS statute, Congress provided

employment authorization for purposes of the entire designation period.

See INA sec. 244(a)(1)(B) and (2), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(a)(1)(B) and (2). To

comply with the law enacted by Congress, DHS is typically extending

employment authorization via a Federal Register notice. However, TPS

applicants still must apply for the renewal employment authorization

document as part of the redesignation to obtain evidence of employment.

Additionally, TPS may be terminated, and TPS never leads to permanent

residency. See INA sec. 244(b)(3)(B), (h), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(3)(B),

(h). Thus, upon termination of TPS, TPS beneficiaries and applicants

may lose employment authorization in the United States. See 8 CFR

244.12 and 13. Refugees (and asylees) once granted, do not typically

lose their refugee status and thus, their right to employment and path

to lawful permanent residency and eventually citizenship. Therefore,

the implementation scheme and the termination of automatic extension is

not contrary to the United States international obligations.

2. DHS Justification and Need for the Rule

i. Security Rationale for the Rule

a. General Security Rationale Comments

Comment: Multiple commenters said the IFR rests on a single

asserted justification: the desire to complete vetting and security

checks before approving an individual's \34\ work permit renewal, and

DHS offers no other policy rationale for eliminating automatic

extensions. Commenters stated the IFR is a reversal in policy without

new evidence or a reasoned explanation and violates the APA. The

commenters stated that DHS's sole rationale suffers from numerous

problems and reveals a significant mismatch between the concern

asserted and the real-world purpose and impact of automatic extensions.

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

\34\ USCIS generally refers to ``aliens'' when discussing

foreign nationals present in the United States. The term ``alien''

is a legal term defined in the INA that is used to describe any

person who is not a citizen or national of the United States. See

INA sec. 101(a)(1) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(1). Some commenters

used ``aliens'', but others may have used different terminology

(such as person or individual). In general, when describing comments

in this preamble, DHS has sought to mirror the language used in

those comments, sometimes with quotation marks for clarity.

Otherwise, DHS has used alien, or applicant, beneficiary, or

requestor.

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

Additional commenters stated that DHS's security rationale for the

IFR contradicts findings in its own 2024 Final Rule, which did not

identify any adverse impact of automatic extensions on USCIS' ability

to conduct security checks. Commenters stated that DHS offers no

credible rationale for this new finding. Some commenters also stated

that this rule ignores that DHS narrowly tailored the prior automatic

extensions to certain applicants who applied for EAD renewals, which

``reasonably assured'' the agency that the individual remained eligible

for employment authorization and protected the program from abuse.

Response: DHS does not agree that the IFR is a ``reversal of policy

without new evidence or a reasoned explanation,'' that the

justification for the rule is a ``mismatch between the concern asserted

and the real-world purpose and impact of automatic extensions,'' or

that DHS failed to consider important aspects of the program. DHS, in

the IFR, explained that it is ending the practice of providing

automatic extensions of employment authorization documents to enhance

integrity in adjudications of employment authorization requests and

better protect public safety and national security by ensuring that

aliens are properly vetted and determined to continue to be eligible

(and merit a favorable exercise of discretion, if applicable), for

employment authorization before such authorization is provided to the

alien. The Department also explained the permissibility of the change

and specifically acknowledged and considered reliance interests that

applicants could have engendered by the prior policy and explained why

the policy considerations outweighed these interests. The IFR and this

final rule reflect a continuation and refinement of DHS's longstanding

focus on security, fraud prevention, and benefit integrity in the

employment authorization context.

In 2016, DHS eliminated the interim EAD and replaced it with the

180-day automatic extension of employment authorization and explained

that it would support the Department's vital mission of securing the

nation from the many threats it faces. Therefore, DHS determined that

the elimination of both the 90-day EAD processing timeframe and the

issuance of interim EADs was necessary.\35\ This change in 2016

reflected DHS's ``continued attention to security and commitment to

improving adjudication processes, including technological advances in

document production, to reduce fraud and address threats to national

security.'' See 81 FR 82398 (Nov. 18, 2016) (AC21 Final Rule). DHS

implemented the automatic extension of employment authorization to

avoid gaps in employment without compromising national security and

public safety given the context at the time. However, the automatic

extension of employment authorization and/or EADs, whether 180 days or

540 days, extends employment authorization based solely on the filing

of a renewal EAD application, before USCIS has completed full vetting,

resolved any derogatory information, and determined continuing

eligibility for the benefit. Today, concerns regarding national

[[Page 65316]]

security, public safety, and integrity of immigration benefits are at a

high point, and the President has directed DHS, through Executive

Orders 14159 and 14161, to vet and screen aliens to the maximum extent

possible and to ensure that employment authorization is not provided to

unauthorized aliens.\36\ DHS notes there is no statutory requirement

for USCIS to automatically extend EADs.

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

\35\ On November 18, 2016, as part of DHS's efforts to implement

the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000

(AC21), DHS published a final regulation that eliminated interim

EADs and provided for a 180-day automatic extension period. 81 FR

82398 (Nov. 18, 2016).

\36\ See E.O. 14161, Protecting the United States from Foreign

Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats

(Jan. 20, 2025), 90 FR 8451, 8451 (Jan. 30, 2025); see E.O. 14159,

Protecting the American People Against Invasion (Jan. 20, 2025), 90

FR 8443, 8446 (Jan. 29, 2025).

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

DHS has provided a reasonable explanation for changing its policy,

namely by giving greater weight to different policy considerations than

in the past. DHS has concluded that, owing to current conditions and

presidential directives, the security and program-integrity risks

inherent in automatic extensions must be given greater weight than the

benefits and different temporary circumstances that motivated prior

rules. Given the inherent national security and public safety concerns

that flow from granting immigration benefits (including EADs) to aliens

before determining continued eligibility, DHS believes that rescinding

the automatic extension of employment authorization and/or EADs is a

necessary remedy. Ending the practice of providing automatic extensions

of employment authorization and/or EADs enables DHS to better protect

the public's safety and enhance benefit integrity.

b. Lack of Evidence Supporting Security Rationale

Comment: Numerous commenters stated that DHS did not present

evidence or data supporting the claim that automatic extensions pose

security risks or that eliminating extensions would meaningfully

enhance screening. Multiple commenters stated that the absence of any

such evidence demonstrates that the purported problem does not exist.

Several commenters wrote that for nearly 10 years, millions of workers

have worked under automatic extensions, but the IFR provided no

evidence showing that this system allowed security risks to persist or

resulted in later security-based denials.

Response: DHS disagrees with the commenters' assertions. DHS

explained in its AC21 Final Rule nearly 10 years ago that it was

prioritizing national security and fraud concerns by eliminating the

interim EAD and the mandated EAD 90-day processing timeframe.

Specifically, DHS noted that ``any reduction in the level of

eligibility and security vetting before issuing evidence of employment

authorization, whether on an interim basis or otherwise, would both be

contrary to its core mission and undermine the security, quality, and

integrity of the documents issued.'' \37\ Consistent with that

rationale, and as explained in the IFR, DHS now believes that

eliminating the automatic extension of employment authorization and/or

EADs will ensure that all identity verification, public safety and

security related checks are completed, and that a determination has

been made that the applicant continues to be eligible and merits a

favorable exercise of discretion, as applicable, before renewing

employment authorization and/or an EAD. The IFR also clearly explained

the relevance of the Boulder incident and its connection to the

automatic extension,\38\ and why the measure was justified. Maintaining

automatic extensions based upon the filing of an EAD renewal

application would be inconsistent with DHS's stated benefit integrity,

security and fraud-prevention objectives.

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

\37\ See 81 FR 82398 (Nov. 18, 2016) (AC21 Final Rule).

\38\ See 90 FR 48799, 48808 (Oct. 30, 2025) (explaining that the

need to fully vet applicants for renewal EADs became clear when an

alien with an automatically extended EAD perpetrated a terrorist

attack that injured many people in Boulder, Colorado on June 1,

2025).

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

Comment: Many commenters stated that DHS's reliance on a single

anecdotal incident involving an individual in Boulder, Colorado, was

insufficient evidence to justify a policy reversal negatively affecting

hundreds of thousands of law-abiding workers and their employers.

Commenters wrote that DHS did not demonstrate that the incident

involved an automatic extension or how eliminating automatic extensions

would have prevented this incident.

Response: DHS disagrees that the IFR relied on insufficient

evidence to justify the IFR's policy change as alleged by commenters.

The concern addressed by the IFR and this final rule is that, under the

automatic extension framework, an alien's employment authorization and/

or EAD validity could be extended for up to 540 days based only on the

filing of a renewal application and without having fully vetted the

alien for eligibility, including background and security checks. When

employment authorization is automatically extended before those checks

are complete, aliens who may no longer qualify for the benefit, or who

present public safety or national security concerns, are able to remain

employment-authorized. This allows aliens who could be public safety or

national security threats to use associated documentation to

potentially obtain other credentials, such as driver's licenses, and

use such document, in turn, to engage in nefarious activities. For

example, an alien could rent a car by using the driver's license

obtained with an automatically extended EAD as an identity document and

subsequently use the car to perpetrate a terrorist attack or other

criminal activity. As explained in the IFR and throughout this final

rule, DHS has found that these public safety and national security

concerns outweigh the interim impacts that may result from a temporary

lapse in an individual aliens' employment authorization and/or

documentation while USCIS completes refreshed vetting, evaluates any

new derogatory information, and determines that the alien remains

eligible and continues to merit a favorable exercise of discretion, if

applicable.

The IFR references the attack by an alien against peaceful

demonstrators in Boulder, Colorado, as a concrete example of an alien

in possession of an automatic extension that highlighted the urgent

need to mitigate additional public safety emergencies, as well as the

importance of ensuring aliens are not granted employment authorization

until adjudicative review has been completed. The alien responsible for

the Boulder, Colorado, incident was the beneficiary of an automatic

extension of his employment authorization, and is thus one example of

an alien who remained employment authorized without having undergone

full vetting for eligibility or security concerns. Attacks, such as the

one in Boulder, Colorado, are tough to predict, but they may not be

impossible to stop with proper and thorough vetting and intelligence

sharing among government agencies each time an alien is seeking

immigration benefits.\39\ DHS is prioritizing the completion of vetting

[[Page 65317]]

prior to granting an immigration benefit to ensure public safety and

national security and to mitigate the immediate risks posed to

Americans. Ending automatic extensions based on the filing of an EAD

renewal application alone addresses that systemic vulnerability. It

ensures that continued employment authorization and its documentation

is conferred only after USCIS has completed refreshed vetting,

evaluated any new derogatory information, and determined that the alien

remains eligible and continues to merit a favorable exercise of

discretion, if applicable. As discussed in the Executive Summary,

President Trump has directed DHS to ``vet and screen to the maximum

degree possible'' all aliens within the United States and ensure that

``employment authorization is not provided to any unauthorized alien.''

\40\ In line with presidential priorities, DHS is prioritizing program

integrity, public safety, and national security and believes the

benefits of eliminating automatic extensions of EADs outweigh the risks

of potential temporary lapses in employment authorization.

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

\39\ The public, including members from Congress, criticized

immigration and law enforcement authorities, including DHS, for not

detecting the alien's activities and not protecting the public. They

emphasized the urgency to fix security vulnerabilities. See House of

Representatives Homeland Security Committee, ``Chairman Pfluger,

Green Request DHS Documents on Suspect in Boulder Terror Attack''

(June 4, 2025), https://homeland.house.gov/2025/06/04/chairmen-green-pfluger-request-dhs-documents-on-suspect-in-boulder-terror-attack (``This tragedy is indicative of a heightened terrorism

threat on U.S. soil, signaling an urgent need for increased homeland

security measures, particularly with respect to foreign nationals

who are unlawfully present in the United States, as Soliman

reportedly overstayed a nonimmigrant visa. Our nation has now faced

several major acts of antisemitic terror this year alone, including

the recent assassination of two Israeli embassy staffers in our

nation's capital.'').

\40\ See E.O. 14161, Protecting the United States from Foreign

Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats

(Jan. 20, 2025), 90 FR 8451, 8451 (Jan. 30, 2025); see E.O. 14159,

Protecting the American People Against Invasion (Jan. 20, 2025), 90

FR 8443, 8446 (Jan. 29, 2025).

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

c. Prior Vetting of Renewal Applicants and Existing Security Measures

Comment: One commenter stated that DHS ``offered no credible

evidence of security risks associated with'' the automatic extension of

employment authorization and/or EADs, and that the IFR therefore

``lacks any substantive rationale.'' Other commenters claimed the

security rationale for the rule is inadequate given that aliens

applying for EAD renewals have already been vetted. Some commenters

said many EAD holders are also likely to have other pending

applications before USCIS with evidentiary submissions, background, and

identity documents that allow for additional agency vetting.

Response: DHS disagrees that the IFR lacks a rationale. DHS is

prioritizing the completion of proper vetting before issuing

immigration benefits and cannot continue to extend employment

authorization or EADs without determining that the applicant continues

to be eligible and, when applicable, merits a favorable exercise of

discretion, regardless of any prior vetting that may have been

conducted in connection with past or pending benefit requests. DHS is

not required by statute to provide an automatic extension of employment

authorization and/or EADs. Rather, DHS is exercising its authority to

structure employment authorization processes in a manner that ensures

the integrity of the immigration benefit provided, and better advances

national security, public safety, and program integrity.

Comment: Commenters wrote that the IFR misstates how security

vetting works, stating that all relevant background check processes

occur independently of whether a worker has an unexpired EAD. The

commenter said many security flags require follow up investigation,

interagency coordination, and a full review of classified or sensitive

information that can take considerable time to evaluate, and these

assessments occur within the structured adjudicative framework, not

during the mechanical, threshold review of an EAD-renewal request.

Response: DHS disagrees with the premise of these comments. While

some background checks and security review processes may be ongoing,

others are initiated when USCIS receives a request and are completed in

connection with that adjudication. There are no statutory or other

regulatory limitations on USCIS' authority to conduct background and

security checks to determine eligibility for employment authorization.

Additionally, background checks and vetting can be a lengthy process

that may require additional time to resolve or to make an eligibility

determination. For USCIS to renew an immigration benefit, the applicant

must meet the relevant eligibility standards and merit a favorable

exercise of discretion, if applicable. All individuals who apply for

immigration benefits, including applications for employment

authorization, are required to submit and sign the application

authorizing the release of any information from their records that

USCIS may need to determine eligibility for the benefit sought. By

signing and submitting the form to USCIS, the applicant consents to

verification by USCIS, as well as use of information to determine

initial or continued benefit eligibility. Given the, at times, lengthy

vetting process, the previous practice allowed automatic extension of

EADs to aliens that would otherwise be found ineligible after USCIS

initiates or resolves background check information.

The previous practice of automatically extending employment

authorization for a period of up to 540 days prioritized EAD backlog

management over program integrity, public safety and national security.

Requiring completion of adjudicative review before extending employment

authorization and/or EADs better aligns with DHS's vetting

responsibilities and the policy priorities of enhancing program

integrity, public safety, and national security.

Comment: Multiple commenters stated that USCIS remains free to

conduct continuous vetting during the renewal process and deny the

renewal application and terminate employment authorization immediately

should it identify new information indicating a security concern.

Some commenters stated that DHS already has the capability to

perform continuous screening and vetting, such as through ATLAS and the

Continuous Immigration Vetting (CIV) program, which allow for ongoing

information sharing and monitoring of individuals in the immigration

system, stating these systems can identify security concerns at any

time, not just during the renewal application process.

Response: DHS continues to implement various strategies to address

public safety and national security concerns. These efforts include,

but are not limited to, the use of continuous screening and vetting

capabilities, interagency information-sharing, and enhancements to

identity and security verification processes. However, these tools do

not obviate the need to complete appropriate vetting and screening

before extending employment authorization. Conducting background

checks, whether continuously or at certain intervals (for example, when

an alien again applies for an immigration benefit), is only one part of

the overall vetting and screening process.

Furthermore, derogatory information identified during the

background check process must still be reviewed and resolved.\41\ DHS

believes that before any immigration benefit is granted, such as an

extension of employment authorization and/or an EAD, USCIS should

complete the vetting and screening process and determine that the alien

continues to be eligible for the benefit and merits a favorable

exercise of discretion, as applicable.

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

\41\ Thus, even with CIV, USCIS is required to manually resolve

derogatory information, which needs time. See DHS/USCIS/PIA-076

Continuous Immigration Vetting, at 8, https://www.dhs.gov/publication/dhsuscispia-076-continuous-immigration-vetting (last

updated March 31, 2023) (``Although automation assists with the

identification of national security concerns, FDNS officers also

manually review each hit to confirm the validity, relevancy, and

accuracy of the information and to determine if the information is

actionable, consistent with DHS authorities. If actionable, USCIS

FDNS may perform administrative investigations to produce findings

to sufficiently inform adjudications.'').

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

Comment: A commenter stated that the rule discounts the multiple

layers of

[[Page 65318]]

vetting and monitoring tools that are already being conducted by

employers to identify potential security threats, including Form I-9

verification, E-Verify participation, and criminal background checks.

Response: DHS will not delegate to employers its responsibility to

enhance program integrity and better protect public safety and national

security. The varying levels of vetting by different employers are not

a substitute for the vetting that USCIS conducts. USCIS has

information-sharing agreements with various agencies within the U.S.

government and foreign partners. Therefore, vetting from an employer is

typically not comparable to USCIS access and vetting. In addition, Form

I-9 and E-Verify are not used for national security and public safety

vetting. Form I-9 is required for all U.S. employers to document

identity and employment authorization for every worker hired. E-Verify

is a voluntary program that electronically compares the information on

Form I-9 with SSA and DHS records to confirm employment

eligibility.\42\ Criteria for security checks and vetting depend upon

the immigration benefit sought as well as various other factors, and

each benefit request has its own requirements and vulnerabilities. DHS

does not believe that renewing employment authorization should be an

exception to the stated policy objectives of better protecting public

safety and national security and ensuring continued eligibility and

that the applicant warrants a favorable exercise of discretion (as

applicable) prior to issuing immigration benefits. USCIS is exercising

its full authority to investigate immigration benefit requests filed by

aliens who may pose risks to the national security and public safety of

the United States while adhering to the provisions of the INA and

applicable laws, as outlined in DHS Delegation of Authority 0150.1 and

15006.\43\ The elimination of automatic extensions of employment

authorization and/or an EAD based on the filing of a renewal

application is one component of this broader effort to enhance program

integrity and safeguard the United States.

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

\42\ See E-Verify, 1.1 Background and Overview, https://www.e-verify.gov/e-verify-user-manual-10-introduction/11-background-and-overview (last updated May 29, 2024).

\43\ See, e.g., DHS, Delegation to the Bureau of Citizenship and

Immigration Services, Delegation No. 0150.1 (June 5, 2003),

available at https://www.hsdl.org/c/view?docid=234775; DHS, USCIS,

Delegation to Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration

Services, to Order Expedited Removal and to Enforce Immigration

Laws, Delegation No. 15006 (May 2, 2025), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/legal-docs/Delegation_to_USCIS_for_LE_Authorities_15006_1_1.pdf. DHS Delegation

Number 0150.1 is based on the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and

delegates broad authority under the INA, to the Bureau of

Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS), now USCIS, to

administer the laws, process benefits, investigate potential fraud,

make prosecution recommendations, and initiate removal proceedings.

DHS Delegation Number 15006 grants the Director of USCIS the

authority to issue warrants, order immediate removal of aliens, to

detain or release aliens on bond, and the ability to investigate

civil and criminal immigration law violations.

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

d. Rule Would Not Strengthen Security

Comment: One commenter said justifying the rule under ``the guise

of national security is ironic'' because the rule's likely consequence

in derailing the livelihoods of aliens may push them to violate the law

for survival. Another commenter stated that most of the public safety

and national security risk created by malicious aliens stems from their

presence in the United States rather than their ability to work and

encouraged DHS to study how significant the risk associated with income

generated through lawful employment is compared to the risk associated

with presence on U.S. soil. A commenter stated that DHS implicitly

assumes that unemployment is the antidote to potential crime when

common sense and empirical evidence provides the opposite is true.

Response: DHS disagrees with the comment that this rule will result

in derailing the livelihoods of aliens and the insinuation that it may

push individuals to become criminals to survive.

As explained in the IFR, DHS has taken significant steps to reduce

the overall EAD filings that followed the unprecedented flood of

illegal immigration into the United States during previous years.\44\

For example, DHS has narrowed the use of parole and better aligned TPS

and related programs with statutory criteria. As a result, initial EAD

applications have significantly declined since 2025. USCIS has also

seen a decline in the number of filings in the largest EAD categories

that were formerly eligible for automatic extensions based on the

filing of a renewal EAD application, as shown in Table 1.

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

\44\ See 90 FR 48799, 48809 (Oct. 30, 2025).

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

BILLING CODE 9111-97-P

[[Page 65319]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14OC26.000

BILLING CODE 9111-97-C

The two largest categories of Form I-765 applicants are those with

pending asylum applications (C08) and those with pending adjustment of

status applications (C09). Together these categories made up

approximately 80% of all I-765 applicants from January 2025 through the

end of June 2026.\45\

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

\45\ Though their numbers were much smaller, I-765 applications

also declined in the A07, A08, A10, C16, C20, C24, and C31

categories. DHS, USCIS, OPQ, I-765 Application for Employment

Authorization Receipts by Eligibility Category Code, Month, and EAD

Type FY 2025-2026 (through Mar 05, 2026). CLAIMS3, ELIS, queried 03/

2026, PAER0020648; DHS, USCIS, Chief Data and Analytics Office

(CDAO), I-765 Application for Employment Authorization Receipts by

Eligibility Category Code, Month, and EAD Type October 30, 2025-June

30, 2026. CLAIMS3, ELIS, queried 07/2026, PAER0022044.

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

Table 1 shows how C08 and C09 filings have decreased since the

start of the current administration in January 2025. USCIS received a

total of 240,060 C08 filings in January 2025, which decreased to 32,472

in June 2026.\46\ Similarly, USCIS received a total of 64,106 C09

filings in January 2025, which decreased to 36,455 in June 2026. USCIS

notes the decreased EAD filing rates support the point made in the IFR

that the potential lapse, and in particular the duration of any lapse,

is speculative and could be outweighed by the harm posed by automatic

extensions.

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

\46\ DHS, USCIS, OPQ, I-765 Application for Employment

Authorization Receipts by Eligibility Category Code, Month, and EAD

Type FY 2025-2026 (through Mar 05, 2026). CLAIMS3, ELIS, queried 03/

2026, PAER0020648; DHS, USCIS, Chief Data and Analytics Office

(CDAO), I-765 Application for Employment Authorization Receipts by

Eligibility Category Code, Month, and EAD Type October 30, 2025-June

30, 2026. CLAIMS3, ELIS, queried 07/2026, PAER0022044.

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

Finally, DHS regularly publishes detailed statistics on its

activities,\47\ but declines to perform a study of the additional risk

to national security caused by income aliens generated through lawful

employment for multiple reasons. For example, isolating and quantifying

the incremental risk attributable solely to income derived from lawful

employment--as distinct from the risk associated with presence, travel,

associations, unauthorized employment, or other activities--would

present significant methodological and data limitations. The relevant

population would be small, sensitive national security information

would constrain the availability and use of underlying case data, and

it would be difficult to draw statistically meaningful conclusions.

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

\47\ See Office of Homeland Security Statistics, https://ohss.dhs.gov (last visited Apr. 2, 2026).

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

DHS acknowledges the commenter's view that the primary public

safety and national security risk posed by malicious actors arises from

their presence in the United States and not solely from their

continuing ability to work. Even so, DHS considers it important and

appropriate to use its authorities to reduce risks associated with both

presence and employment. Access to lawful employment can provide

malicious actors with financial resources, routine cover for their

activities, and access to certain workplaces and facilities. Limiting

the ability of aliens with potentially malicious intent to retain EADs

and/or employment authorization, and to lawfully work and generate

income, without full vetting is therefore a meaningful component of

DHS's broader efforts to safeguard benefit integrity, national security

and public safety.

For these reasons, DHS continues to view measures that reduce the

likelihood that malicious actors can obtain or rely on employment

authorization and related secure documentation as worthwhile.

Comment: Some commenters stated that, if the goal is to strengthen

vetting integrity, the logical solution is to expedite case processing

so that all

[[Page 65320]]

background checks and reviews are completed more quickly. One commenter

also stated that workers should be able to maintain their employment

authorization and support their families while vetting occurs.

Response: DHS undertakes every effort to complete case processing

as expeditiously as possible while being conscious of the importance of

vetting every benefit requestor thoroughly for eligibility, including

vetting for criminal activity and other security risks. DHS believes

screening, vetting, and determining continued eligibility before

granting a renewal of employment authorization and/or documentation is

essential to enhance program integrity and better protect public safety

and national security. Such processes, however, especially given the

volume of initial and renewal EAD applicants that USCIS encounters,

necessarily take time. Note that expediting a case generally means that

USCIS would move the benefit request to the front of the processing

queue to the detriment of those who may have filed earlier but does not

otherwise change the time needed to properly conduct screening and

vetting and determine continued eligibility. To the extent that these

commenters suggest that USCIS should expedite all EAD renewal

applications and thus put renewal EAD applications in front of other

applications in the processing queue, DHS maintains that this would not

be a viable solution and would not enhance program integrity or better

protect public safety and national security.

Comment: Multiple commenters stated that the security benefit of

the rule is incremental because renewal applicants have already been

robustly vetted and will not be re-vetted until the EAD renewal is

adjudicated, stating that this second vetting by USCIS occurs even if

EAD extensions are automatic.

Response: USCIS must ensure that all aliens who request immigration

benefits from USCIS are eligible for the benefit sought, merit a

favorable exercise of discretion, if applicable, and do not pose a

threat to national security or public safety. It is necessary and

within USCIS' authority to continue investigating immigration benefit

requests and to assess whether an applicant has established ongoing

eligibility and warrants favorable discretion, if applicable, and

whether they pose a risk to the national security and public safety of

the United States, before issuing immigration benefits. This includes

renewal applications for employment authorization and/or EADs, which

may reveal new derogatory information or changed circumstances that

were not present at the time of the initial grant.

Comment: One commenter stated that the IFR would cause DHS

resources to be spent on EAD processing while people remain in the

United States without decisions on their ability to stay, stating that

the rule ``punishes applicants, families, communities, and employers

for USCIS' failure to timely process applications.'' Another commenter

similarly stated that the rule ``does not meaningfully improve homeland

security'' and would divert resources rather than supporting security

or operational efficiency.

Response: DHS is dedicated to ensuring that all aliens who enter

and remain in the United States do not present threats to national

security or public safety. USCIS plays an instrumental role in

preventing terrorists and other bad actors from harboring in the United

States, and screening and vetting should be prioritized over purely

expedient adjudications to that end. DHS will continue to work to

reduce frivolous, fraudulent, and meritless EAD filings to free up

adjudicatory and other resources to better ensure national security and

program integrity. Therefore, DHS does not agree that focusing

resources on careful EAD renewal adjudications ``diverts'' resources

from security; rather, such adjudications are themselves a core

security function of USCIS.

e. Other Comments on Security Rationale

Comment: Some commenters expressed concern with DHS's rationale

that bad actors could benefit from EADs being automatically extended

and the income generated from working to support ``nefarious

activities,'' stating that it is speculative, discriminatory, and

perpetuates anti-immigrant rhetoric. A commenter said this is

particularly dangerous language for Asian American communities who face

a persistent narrative as the ``perpetual foreigner'' and will only

contribute to that ``pernicious stereotype'' and support unfounded

suspicions that Asians are agents of foreign governments.

Response: DHS disagrees with the commenters' assertions. DHS ended

the practice of providing automatic extension of employment

authorization and/or EADs based on the filing of a renewal EAD

application to ensure continued eligibility and prioritizing the proper

vetting and screening of aliens in furtherance of its mission. This

rule does not target Asian American communities or any other specific

group of aliens. Instead, this rule, as written, applies to all aliens

who were eligible for the automatic extension of their employment

authorization and/or EADs under former 8 CFR 274a.13(d). As explained

in the IFR and this final rule, DHS is prioritizing the completion of

vetting prior to granting an immigration benefit to enhance program

integrity and better protect public safety and national security. The

examples provided in the IFR illustrated the broader concern that

extending employment authorization before completing vetting can allow

aliens who may present public safety or national security risks to

retain employment authorization. Ending automatic extensions based on

the filing of an EAD renewal application ensures that continued

employment authorization is conferred only after USCIS has completed

renewed vetting, evaluated any new derogatory information, and

determined that the alien remains eligible and continues to merit a

favorable exercise of discretion, if applicable. DHS believes that the

program integrity, public safety, and national security benefits of

eliminating automatic extensions of EADs outweigh the risks of

potential temporary lapses in employment authorization.

Comment: Commenters stated that, while DHS repeatedly cites

purported national security concerns as justification for the IFR, the

``underemphasized yet explicit'' motivation for the IFR is a reduction

in EAD filings overall. They stated that the rule is intended to

generally deter immigration, specifically for asylum seekers, and that

DHS ignores that asylees and refugees are authorized employment even if

the expiration date on their EAD has passed. One commenter stated that,

while DHS claims it is ending the practice of automatically renewing

EADs for refugees and asylees to take a ``uniform approach'' and avoid

``the potential for confusion'' of employers, it does not quantify the

potential confusion or justify why it cannot at least provide automatic

renewals for refugees and asylees, who are authorized to work incident

to their status.

The commenters concluded that the IFR is meant to undermine and

frustrate those with legal work authorization and will cause

unnecessary lapses in work authorization creating unreasonable

obstacles, citing DHS's referenced goal of providing a ``comprehensive

policy solution'' and stating the rule is actually intended to

unnecessarily confuse employers, frustrate immigrants' ability to work,

and push more into ``dire straits.'' Another commenter questioned

enhanced security as the true intent of

[[Page 65321]]

the rule, suggesting other motives such as intentionally causing aliens

to fall out of status and lose their jobs.

Response: DHS disagrees with the commenters that the goal of this

rule is to reduce EAD filings overall, generally deter immigration or

to ``unnecessarily confuse employers'' and ``frustrate immigrants'

ability to work.'' As previously stated, the purpose of this rule is to

prioritize the proper vetting and screening of aliens, to ensure

continued eligibility, and to confirm that applicants continue to merit

favorable exercises of discretion, if applicable, before granting new

periods of employment authorization and/or new EADs by ending the

practice of automatically extending the validity of employment

authorization and/or EADs.

DHS recognizes that aliens who are granted asylum or refugee status

are authorized employment incident to their asylum or refugee status.

As explained in the IFR, aliens who are authorized employment incident

to their status \48\ and are maintaining their respective immigration

status, such as asylees and refugees, will continue to be employment

authorized while maintaining their immigration status, regardless of

the expiration date on their EAD. Aliens who are authorized employment

incident to status will continue to have the choice to file Form I-765

to obtain EADs for proof of identity. As stated in the IFR, DHS is

taking a uniform approach for all aliens by ending the practice of

providing automatic extensions of employment authorization and/or EADs.

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

\48\ See 8 CFR 274a.12(a).

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

Comment: One commenter said that eliminating automatic extensions

does not serve E.O. 14159, Protecting the American People Against

Invasion, which orders DHS and other agencies to ensure that employment

authorization is not provided to any unauthorized alien in the United

States. The commenter said eliminating automatic extensions has no

impact on this mandate, as the purpose of such automatic extensions is

to afford USCIS the time and resources to make a robust determination

in compliance with its statutory and regulatory obligations in cases

where aliens were already approved for employment authorization.

Response: DHS maintains that this rule accomplishes the mandate of

E.O. 14159. This executive order directs the Secretary of Homeland

Security, in coordination with the Secretary of State and the Attorney

General, in Section 16 to take all appropriate action to align any

departmental activities with the policies set out by the President, to

ensure that ``employment authorization is not provided to any

unauthorized alien in the United States.'' As stated in the IFR and

this rule, ending the practice of providing automatic extensions of

EADs is consistent with this instruction in E.O. 14159 because a

previous grant of employment authorization does not mean that an

applicant remains indefinitely eligible for employment authorization,

and it is necessary to review eligibility to ensure that an alien's

circumstances have not changed such that the alien is no longer

eligible. Granting automatic extensions of employment without proper

vetting and full adjudication to ensure continued eligibility is not

consistent with E.O. 14159 or with current priorities.

ii. Consistency in USCIS Rationale and Reversal of Longstanding Policy

Comment: Multiple commenters wrote that USCIS says it does not

expect delays in processing EAD renewals in the future, but also says

it must end automatic extensions on EADs now because it needs more time

to finish security checks. Commenters said both cannot be true.

Commenters also stated that, if DHS expects continued delays, then

ending automatic extensions will push employees out of work

authorization simply because the government cannot finish adjudicating

these cases fast enough. These commenters said courts invalidate rules

when an agency's reasoning is contradictory and the agency offers no

adequate justification for the inconsistency, with some commenters

citing F.C.C. v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.

Also referencing this purported inconsistency, multiple commenters

stated that DHS's conclusion that EAD applications will decline and

that more adjudicative resources will reduce EAD renewal processing

times ignores that those same resources will be available at the

initial stage to address any red flags. Thus, the commenter said DHS's

purported need for fuller investigations at the renewal stage will be

even less necessary moving forward. The commenter said the claim also

cannot be reconciled with the Department's historic position that it

can complete sufficient investigations promptly, given sufficient

resources.

Multiple commenters said the IFR rejects and contradicts the

policies of both the 2016 and the recent 2024 rules, the purpose of

which was to mitigate the harm to workers and employers caused by

interruptions in work authorization, without adequate explanation,

justification, or alternative remedies. One commenter specified that

the IFR cites no data showing sustained reductions in renewal

processing times, no new performance metrics, and no analysis

demonstrating that the long-recognized adjudication challenges

identified in 2016 and again in 2024 have materially changed.

Response: DHS disagrees with the commenters' assertion that the

reasoning in the IFR, and this final rule, is contradictory or

unjustified. DHS notes the IFR does not state that ``USCIS does not

expect delays in processing EADs.'' Instead, DHS explained it has taken

measures to address floods of filings from TPS beneficiaries and other

applicants, and that DHS expects that overall filing rates for initial

and renewal EADs are likely to substantially decline, freeing up

adjudicative resources to reduce renewal EAD processing times.\49\

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

\49\ See 90 FR 48799, 48809 (Oct. 30, 2025).

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

USCIS routinely evaluates filing volumes relative to adjudicative

resources and reallocates workloads to address priorities as

appropriate and feasible, including between initial and renewal EAD

filings. The IFR explains that, while USCIS continues to work to

improve processing times and reduce backlogs, DHS has determined that

automatic extensions are inconsistent with ensuring continued

eligibility or with current security and vetting priorities. DHS

believes that the reasoning provided in the IFR is appropriate and that

the purpose of the IFR has been adequately justified. Ending automatic

extensions based on the filing of an EAD renewal application ensures

that continued employment authorization is conferred only after USCIS

has completed renewed vetting, evaluated any new derogatory

information, and determined that the alien remains eligible and

continues to merit a favorable exercise of discretion, if applicable.

DHS believes that the program integrity, public safety, and national

security benefits of eliminating automatic extensions of EADs outweigh

the risks of potential temporary lapses in employment authorization.

As discussed in greater detail in response to a previous comment in

Section IV.C.2.i.a. of this preamble, the decision to end automatic

extensions reflects a change in how DHS balances operational efficiency

and continuity of employment against these security and benefit

integrity concerns rather than an inconsistency in DHS's underlying

commitment to timely adjudications.

DHS expects that overall, EAD filing rates will substantially

decline and free up adjudicative resources to reduce

[[Page 65322]]

renewal EAD processing times. Decreasing processing times would result

in a reduced need for aliens filing renewal EAD applications to rely on

an automatic extension of their EAD to avoid potential lapses. Since

the IFR became effective on October 30, 2025, USCIS has seen a steady

decrease in overall EAD filings. See Table 1 in Section IV.C.2.i.d. of

this preamble. USCIS notes that decreased EAD filing rates support the

point made in the IFR: that the potential for an alien to have a lapse,

and in particular the duration of any lapse, is speculative and could

be outweighed by the harm posed by automatic extensions.

iii. Lack of Acknowledgement of the Backlog and Other Operational

Realities

Comment: Multiple commenters stated that the IFR ignores that

backlogs persist today and provides no projections or plans to reduce

the backlogs that necessitate automatic extension. Some of these

commenters said the IFR incorrectly portrays backlogs as a future

``scenario,'' but processing delays are significant. A commenter stated

that external analyses reinforce the conclusion that long delays in EAD

adjudication are a documented, ongoing reality and, despite this

record, DHS offers no empirical data showing in the IFR that processing

times have improved enough to make automatic extensions unnecessary. A

commenter stated that external analyses reinforce the conclusion that

long delays in EAD adjudication are a documented, ongoing reality and,

despite this record, DHS offers no empirical data showing in the IFR

that processing times have improved enough to make automatic extensions

unnecessary. Some commenters referenced DHS backlog data in asserting

the value of the automatic extension mechanism and the rule's lack of

acknowledgement of the backlog. Another commenter stated that, while

striving for timely adjudication is a worthy goal, it does not

eliminate the need for automatic extensions, and USCIS should not

eliminate the regulatory provision of automatic extensions in its

entirety.

Response: DHS is ending the automatic extension of employment

authorization and EADs not because USCIS has completed its backlog of

pending cases, but rather because DHS is prioritizing ensuring

continued eligibility and proper vetting. However, USCIS will continue

to work through its backlog of cases without unnecessarily granting

immigration benefits to those who may be ineligible or threaten the

public safety and national security of the United States.

DHS acknowledged the EAD backlog in the IFR, stating that most of

the backlog resulted from prior policy decisions that resulted in an

overwhelming number of initial and subsequent renewal EAD filings.\50\

DHS discussed potential future backlog scenarios while also

acknowledging the current backlogs in each of those rules.

Specifically, DHS provided data in the 2024 TFR to project the impact

of the asylum filing surges and backlogs to consider possible renewal

EAD application filing behaviors and the impact throughout the

effective period of the 2024 TFR. See 89 FR 24628 (Apr. 8, 2024). DHS

discussed the same data in the 2024 Final Rule. See 89 FR 101208 (Dec.

13, 2024). These rules attempted to mitigate the impact of potential

future renewal EAD processing backlogs that could have been caused by a

variety of circumstances, and DHS used those data projections to

estimate the impact of codifying the automatic extension period

increase from up to 180 days to up to 540 days. DHS has reassessed that

conjectural approach and determined that, notwithstanding ongoing

backlogs, automatic extensions are not an appropriate mechanism given

the associated security and integrity risks.

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

\50\ See 90 FR 48799, 48807 (Oct. 30, 2025) (discussing an

influx of EAD applications that ``continues to bog down USCIS

processing times and adjudicative resources,'' and ``was largely

caused by the prior administration's policies that allowed a

significant number of aliens to enter the country on parole and seek

asylum and/or TPS, and alongside such applications, employment

authorization'').

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

As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, DHS has taken significant

steps to reduce the overall EAD filings that followed the unprecedented

flood of illegal immigration into the United States during previous

years.\51\ Significant declines in initial EAD applications since 2025

highlight the impact of these changes, which include a narrowed use of

parole and a realignment of TPS and related programs with statutory

criteria. Specifically, USCIS has also seen a decline in the number of

filings in the largest EAD categories that were formerly eligible for

automatic extensions based on the filing of a renewal EAD application,

as shown in Table 1. See Section IV.C.2.i.d. of this preamble. The two

largest categories of Form I-765 applicants are those with pending

asylum applications (C08) and those with pending adjustment of status

applications (C09). Together these categories made up approximately 80%

of all I-765 applicants from January 2025 through the end of June

2026.\52\ Table 1 shows how C08 and C09 filings have decreased since

the start of the current administration in January 2025. For example,

USCIS received a total of 240,060 C08 filings in January 2025, which

decreased to 32,472 in June 2026.\53\ Similarly, USCIS received a total

of 64,104 C09 filings in January 2025, which decreased to 36,455 in

June 2026.

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

\51\ See 90 FR 48799, 48809 (Oct. 30, 2025). See also USCIS,

``DHS Strengthens Integrity in Nation's Immigration System, Returns

to Commonsense Legal Immigration Levels,'' https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/news-releases/dhs-strengthens-integrity-in-nations-immigration-system-returns-to-commonsense-legal-immigration (Nov.

13, 2025); Testimony of USCIS Director Joseph B. Edlow, Oversight of

the Department of Homeland Security: ICE, CBP, and USCIS: Hearing

Before the House Comm. on Homeland Security, https://docs.house.gov/meetings/HM/HM00/20260210/118916/HHRG-119-HM00-Wstate-EdlowJ-20260210.pdf, at 6, (Feb. 10, 2026), (``These critical efforts have

strengthened the integrity of our legal immigration system,

reinforced accountability, and ensured that USCIS resources are

directed toward lawful, properly filed cases.'').

\52\ Though their numbers were much smaller, I-765 applications

also declined in the A07, A08, A10, C16, C20, C24, and C31

categories. DHS, USCIS, OPQ, I-765 Application for Employment

Authorization Receipts by Eligibility Category Code, Month, and EAD

Type FY 2025-2026 (through Mar. 05, 2026). CLAIMS3, ELIS, queried

03/2026, PAER0020648; DHS, USCIS, Chief Data and Analytics Office

(CDAO), I-765 Application for Employment Authorization Receipts by

Eligibility Category Code, Month, and EAD Type October 30, 2025-June

30, 2026. CLAIMS3, ELIS, queried 07/2026, PAER0022044.

\53\ DHS, USCIS, OPQ, I-765 Application for Employment

Authorization Receipts by Eligibility Category Code, Month, and EAD

Type FY 2025-2026 (through Mar. 05, 2026). CLAIMS3, ELIS, queried

03/2026, PAER0020648; DHS, USCIS, Chief Data and Analytics Office

(CDAO), I-765 Application for Employment Authorization Receipts by

Eligibility Category Code, Month, and EAD Type October 30, 2025-June

30, 2026. CLAIMS3, ELIS, queried 07/2026, PAER0022044.

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

Comment: Multiple commenters said the IFR ignores the reality of

continued high demand for work authorization and that DHS is wrong to

expect that EAD renewal filings will ``substantially decline'' because

this Administration attempted to terminate the Cuban, Haitian,

Nicaraguan, and Venezuelan (CHNV) parole program and several TPS

designations. Many people who first came through CHNV and similar

parole programs, or who previously had TPS, have now applied for asylum

or other protections that still require EAD renewals. Additionally, the

commenters said the termination of the CHNV parole program and the TPS

designations have all been challenged in court with no final judgments

issued; if terminations are reversed, parolees and TPS beneficiaries

will continue applying for EAD renewals. The commenters

[[Page 65323]]

concluded that DHS must plan for continued high renewal volumes.

One commenter said the rule fails to account for the impact that

halting asylum decisions will have on the backlog of renewal EAD

applications. The commenter referenced the November 28, 2025, statement

of the USCIS Director that ``USCIS has halted all asylum decisions

until we can ensure that every alien is vetted and screened to the

maximum degree possible.'' The commenter said halting asylum decisions

means that asylum applications will remain pending longer, which means

more asylum applicants' EADs will expire during the pendency of their

asylum applications and result in the need to file additional requests

to renew their EADs.

Response: DHS acknowledges that various policy changes outside of

this rulemaking, such as significant changes to humanitarian parole

programs,\54\ the termination of TPS designations,\55\ and changes made

to the asylum program,\56\ have affected, and will continue to affect,

the demand for employment authorization and/or EADs in the future. DHS

also recognizes the continued high demand for employment authorization

and/or EADs, and DHS disagrees with the commenters' assertion that the

IFR ignored such demand. Rather, as the IFR and this final rule

explain, DHS believes the program integrity, public safety, and

national security benefits of eliminating automatic extensions of EADs

outweigh the risks of potential temporary lapses in employment

authorization.

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

\54\ See, e.g., Termination of Parole Processes for Cubans,

Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans, 90 FR 13611 (Mar. 25, 2025).

This termination is the subject of ongoing legal challenges but

remains in place. See Doe v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-10495-IT (D. Mass);

Noem v. Doe, 145 S. Ct. 1525 (2025).

\55\ The TPS designations for numerous countries have been

terminated in the past year, but there has been significant

litigation over these terminations. See, e.g., Mullin v. Doe, No.

25-2083 (argued Apr. 29, 2026). The latest status of TPS

designations is available on the USCIS website. USCIS, Temporary

Protected Status (Mar. 17, 2026), https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/temporary-protected-status.

\56\ See, e.g., Proclamation 10888, Guaranteeing the States

Protection Against Invasion, 90 FR 8333 (Jan. 20, 2025) (suspending

the entry of aliens who unlawfully enter the United States across

the southern border and barring those aliens from asylum and other

provisions of the INA). Litigation against the Proclamation is

ongoing, but asylum remains barred for covered aliens as of the time

of drafting this rule. See Refugee and Immigrant Ctr. for Educ. &

Legal Servs. v. Mullin, No. 25-5243,--F.4th--, 2026 WL 1110616 (D.C.

Cir. Apr. 24, 2026) (affirming the district court's decision with

modifications to the definition of the certified class and enjoining

the Departments from continuing to implement the Invasion

Proclamation, including the Proclamation's restriction on asylum but

staying the decision until after disposition of either a petition

for rehearing or rehearing en banc).

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

While DHS recognizes that the demand for employment authorization

and/or EADs remains high, the various immigration-related initiatives

implemented by this administration described previously in the IFR

preamble have reduced EAD filings overall. See Table 1 in Section

IV.C.2.i.d. of this preamble.

Comment: Commenters stated that the IFR ignores the impact of DHS's

recent and planned future reductions in the USCIS workforce.

Specifically, in April, nearly 20,000 USCIS staff--about 80 percent of

the workforce--received communications urging them to end their

employment with USCIS. The commenter said the rule does not explain how

ongoing or planned USCIS staffing cuts affect the adjudicative

resources available to process renewal EAD applications or how it

accounted for these cuts in its planning to reduce backlogs. Another

commenter similarly said the IFR also ignores the effects of this

administration's ``decimation'' of the federal workforce and the

longest shutdown of government operations in history.

Response: The IFR and this final rule do not undercount or ignore

the impact of processing times and resources needed for adjudicating

EADs. As stated previously, DHS is prioritizing public safety, national

security and benefit integrity.

DHS notes that USCIS is generally fee-funded and able to continue

its adjudicatory work during government shutdowns. However, DHS notes

that government shutdowns could impact our ability to work with federal

law enforcement partners and other agencies that are more directly

impacted.

Regarding the size of USCIS' workforce, DHS agrees that adequate

staffing and efficient allocation of resources are important to

reducing backlogs and minimizing the risk that a renewal EAD

application will remain pending past the current card's expiration.

USCIS continuously takes operational steps within existing budgetary

and hiring authorities to further enhance processing efficiency,

including hiring and reallocating personnel, refining workflows,

investing in automation where appropriate,\57\ and implementing the fee

\58\ and program changes directed by recent legislation and executive

actions.\59\

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

\57\ For example, USCIS has undertaken various efforts to

incorporate AI to deliver immigration services to their customers

more efficiently. See DHS United States Citizenship and Immigration

Services--AI Use Cases, https://www.dhs.gov/ai/use-case-inventory/uscis (last updated Feb. 12, 2026).

\58\ See DHS, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Fee

Schedule and Changes to Certain Other Immigration Benefit Request

Requirements, 89 FR 6194 (Jan. 31, 2024) (``These fee collections

fund the cost of fairly and efficiently adjudicating immigration

benefit requests, including those provided without charge to

refugee, asylum, and certain other applicants or petitioners'').

USCIS is primarily a fee-based agency. See sec. 286(m), 8 U.S.C.

1356(m) that is generally not appropriated by Congress.

\59\ See, e.g., USCIS Immigration Fees and Related Procedures by

H-R.1 Reconciliation Bill, 91 FR 22952 (Apr. 29, 2026).

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

iv. ``Proper Planning'' Rationale

Comment: Multiple commenters stated that DHS's assertion that

renewal applicants' ``proper planning'' could avoid lapses in work

authorization is false and ignores operational realities and backlogs,

asserting that EAD renewal applicants cannot ``properly plan'' for

every unforeseen circumstance that may affect USCIS processing times.

Commenters stated that the 2016 and 2024 Final Rules were issued to

address unforeseen circumstances that neither the agency nor applicants

could reasonably anticipate.

Commenters cited processing backlog figures when stating that

applicants who follow the agency's recommendation not to file more than

180 days in advance face unavoidable employment gaps. Multiple

commenters stated that many EAD applications, including renewals, took

longer than 180 days to adjudicate.\60\

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

\60\ See USCIS, Immigration and Citizenship Data, FY 22

Appropriations Reporting Requirement--Application Processing Data

for September, 2025, https://www.uscis.gov/tools/reports-and-studies/immigration-and-citizenship-data (last visited Feb. 13,

2026).

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

Response: As previously discussed, DHS has determined that the

potential impact that some aliens may experience a temporary lapse, of

unpredictable duration, in the validity of their employment

authorization and/or EAD is outweighed by the need to better protect

the safety and security of the American people by ensuring that

employment authorization and/or an EAD is not granted until USCIS has

thoroughly vetted and screened the applicant, resolved any derogatory

hits, and determined that the alien continues to be eligible for the

immigration benefit and merits a favorable exercise of discretion, as

applicable.

USCIS provides case processing times for select forms and locations

to inform the public how long it generally takes to process benefit

requests.\61\ USCIS updates case processing times on its website

monthly with the latest available data. The processing times

[[Page 65324]]

fluctuate over time and are based on how long it took USCIS to complete

(meaning issue an approval or denial notice) 80% of adjudicated cases

over the six months prior to the posted processing times.\62\ Each case

is unique, and some cases may take longer than others. Processing times

should be used as a reference point, not an absolute measure of how a

case will take to be completed. The fact that a particular form type

and category shows a processing time slightly longer than 6 months at

the 80th percentile does not mean that a particular application will

take longer than 6 months to approve or deny. Processing times, because

they represent a 6-month reporting period, are a lagging indicator as

it pertains to more recent policy changes and related filing rates.

Processing times are also based on the time it took USCIS to approve or

deny applications, which can be skewed by the time needed to request

additional evidence before an application is approved or denied.

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

\61\ See USCIS, Case Processing Times, https://egov.uscis.gov/processing-times (last visited May 8, 2026).

\62\ See USCIS, Case Processing Times, https://egov.uscis.gov/processing-times/more-info (last visited Apr. 22, 2026).

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

Although USCIS generally recommends that applicants not file

requests to renew EADs more than 180 days before the expiration of

their EADs, there is no prohibition on filing the form before a certain

date ahead of expiration. Proper planning by applicants includes filing

early, rather than close to the expiration of the EAD, and ensuring

that all evidence needed for USCIS to determine eligibility has been

submitted with the application at the time of filing. While proper

planning might not avoid a temporary lapse in employment authorization

and/or documentation in all cases, it should help to reduce the

potential of a lapse and shorten the duration if a lapse were to occur.

3. Rationale for Eliminating the Automatic Extension of EADs

Comment: A couple of commenters opposed the rule without providing

their rationale. They supported automatic extension of employment

authorization, and the provision of employment authorization documents,

without vetting or reviewing aliens' applications. One called the

regulatory change ``wrong'' and ``inhumane.''

Response: As discussed in greater detail in response to more

specific comments elsewhere in this preamble, to the extent that some

renewal applicants might face a temporary lapse in employment

authorization and/or documentation, DHS believes this approach is

nevertheless justified as it will enhance program integrity and better

protect public safety and national security. Ending automatic

extensions based on the filing of an EAD renewal application ensures

that continued employment authorization is conferred only after USCIS

has completed renewed vetting, evaluated any new derogatory

information, and determined that the alien remains eligible and

continues to merit a favorable exercise of discretion, if applicable.

DHS believes that the program integrity, public safety, and national

security benefits of eliminating automatic extensions of EADs outweigh

the risks of potential temporary lapses in employment authorization and

or EAD validity.

In addition to these independent reasons for promulgating this

rule, DHS is acting in accord with presidential directives. As

discussed in the Executive Summary, E.O. 14159 instructs the Secretary

of Homeland Security, alongside the Secretary of State and Attorney

General, to ensure that employment authorization is not provided to

unauthorized aliens.\63\ Furthermore, removing automatic extensions of

employment authorization and/or EADs aligns with Executive Order 14161,

which requires DHS to vet and screen all aliens within the United

States ``to the maximum degree possible,'' \64\ and Presidential

Proclamation 10949, which orders DHS to ensure that aliens already

within the United States do not support foreign terrorists or bear

hostile attitudes toward its citizens, culture, government,

institutions, or founding principles.\65\

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

\63\ See Executive Order, Protecting the American People Against

Invasion, 90 FR 8443, 8446 (Jan. 29, 2025).

\64\ See 90 FR 8451, 8451 (Jan. 31, 2025).

\65\ Proclamation 10949 (June 4, 2025), 90 FR 24497-98 (June 10,

2025).

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

4. Impact on USCIS Processing

i. Administrative Burden and Efficiency

Comment: Multiple commenters asserted that the IFR would increase

the administrative burden on the government and further slow the

adjudication process and USCIS' ability to timely processes EAD

renewals. A commenter stated that eliminating the automatic extension

does not speed up adjudications, but simply ``creates a guaranteed

administrative failure'' and will lead to increases in emergency

service requests, inquiries, and appeals. Similarly, another commenter

wrote that the IFR would create unnecessary administrative

inefficiencies as USCIS would likely face an increase in prematurely

filed renewal applications, multiple submissions from applicants

fearing gaps in employment, and additional employer verification

requests during pending periods. One commenter reasoned it would be

less burdensome for USCIS to not implement the IFR than to implement

it.

Other commenters stated that the Agency has been unable to timely

adjudicate EAD renewals for several years and the IFR does not resolve

the current operational reality to avoid gaps in employment

authorization, because even when applicants file at the earliest

possible date, their current EADs often expire long before adjudication

concludes as USCIS processing times are sometimes 8 to 11 months. A

commenter remarked that backlogs and resulting lapses in employment

authorization are not the fault of EAD renewal applicants.

One commenter stated that the IFR does not account for the impact

of other DHS rules, including the recent Duration of Status proposed

rule,\66\ which would increase the adjudication workload on USCIS staff

and jeopardize the Agency's ability to ensure extensions can be

consistently processed within existing timeframes.

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

\66\ DHS, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Establishing a

Fixed Time Period of Admission and an Extension of Stay Procedure

for Nonimmigrant Academic Students, Exchange Visitors, and

Representatives of Foreign Information Media, 90 FR 42070 (proposed

Aug. 28, 2025).

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

Response: DHS acknowledges that backlogs and operational challenges

were justifications for the 2022 and 2024 Temporary Final Rules and the

2024 Final Rule. However, as DHS explained in the IFR, the automatic

extension of the validity of an EAD grants the benefit of extending an

alien's expired employment authorization and/or EAD merely by filing a

timely renewal EAD application and without first completing

adjudicative review and related vetting, including resolution of

derogatory information identified during the vetting process. That is,

the benefit is granted without USCIS first performing the following

actions: an eligibility determination; completing vetting and screening

checks; resolving potential hits of derogatory information in

connection with the alien; and a determination that the employment

authorization should be granted in the exercise of discretion, if

applicable. The automatic extension, therefore, poses a security

vulnerability that could allow bad actors to continue to work and

generate income to potentially finance nefarious activities that pose

an imminent threat to the American public. Granting benefits without

proper vetting and full adjudication is contrary to the

[[Page 65325]]

mission of DHS and poses a threat to the safety and security of the

American people.\67\ DHS believes that this concern outweighs concerns

about potential backlogs and operational challenges that may result in

temporary lapses of employment authorization and/or EAD validity.

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

\67\ See, e.g., Conference Report to accompany H.R. 4567 [Report

108-774], ``Making Appropriations for the Department of Homeland

Security for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2005,'' p. 74

(Oct. 9, 2004), https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-108hrpt774/pdf/CRPT-108hrpt774.pdf (recommending, among other things, the creation

of an organization to conduct ``law enforcement/background checks on

every applicant, beneficiary, and petitioner prior to granting

immigration benefits.'').

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

As DHS stated in the IFR, it is the policy of the Administration

``to faithfully execute the immigration laws against all inadmissible

and removable aliens, particularly those aliens who threaten the safety

or security of the American people.'' \68\ Pursuant to this policy, the

Secretary of Homeland Security, in collaboration with the Secretary of

State and the Attorney General, has been directed to ``rescind the

policy decisions of the previous administration that led to the

increased or continued presence of illegal aliens in the United States,

and align any and all departmental activities with the policies set out

by this order and the immigration laws'' including by ``ensuring that

the parole authority under section 212(d)(5) of the INA (8 U.S.C.

1182(d)(5)) is exercised on only a case-by-case basis in accordance

with the plain language of the statute'' and by ``ensuring that

designations of TPS are consistent with the provisions of section 244

of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1254a), and that such designations are

appropriately limited in scope and made for only so long as may be

necessary to fulfill the textual requirements of that statute.'' \69\

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

\68\ See 90 FR 8443, 8446.

\69\ See 90 FR 8443, 8446.

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

DHS has already taken a number of actions in support of the

directives described in the preceding paragraph.\70\ Thus, in addition

to the serious concerns relating to automatic EAD extensions discussed

previously, DHS is taking steps independent of this rule, including

narrowing the use of parole and to align TPS designations with

statutory criteria, that are likely to result in lower EAD filing

volumes and improve renewal EAD application processing times.

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

\70\ See, e.g., Termination of Parole Processes for Cubans,

Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans, 90 FR 13611 (Mar. 25, 2025);

Termination of the October 3, 2023 Designation of Venezuela for

Temporary Protected Status, 90 FR 9040 (Feb. 5, 2025); Special

Immigrant Juvenile Classification and Deferred Action, USCIS Policy

Alert (June 6, 2025) https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/policymanual-updates/20250606-SIJDeferredAction.pdf (last

visited June 13, 2025).

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

With respect to the comment about the impact of other DHS rules

that could impact the adjudication workload on USCIS and thus, the

processing timeframe of EAD renewals: DHS published a final rule

eliminating duration of status (D/S) on July 17, 2026.\71\ DHS agrees

with commenters that there will be an increase in the filing volume of

Forms I-539, Application for Extension of Stay/Change of Status,

received by USCIS following September 15, 2026, the effective date of

the final rule as those nonimmigrants who are required to file such

forms begin to do so. The transition period described in 8 CFR

214.1(m), however, provides for a 4-year transition period for F and J

nonimmigrants currently in the United States for D/S to gradually shift

to a fixed admission period.\72\ As explained in the final rule, these

F and J nonimmigrants will continue to remain admitted for D/S until

they depart, or until the program end date specified on designated

forms or 4 years after the effective date of the rule, whichever comes

first.\73\ This would allow time for DHS to shift resources as needed

to ensure that the larger, increased volumes are integrated into

existing workflows. USCIS will continue to monitor its resource

allocations and adjust as appropriate.

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

\71\ See 91 FR 44976.

\72\ See 91 FR 44976 (discussing 8 CFR 214.1(m)(1)).

\73\ See 91 FR 44976, 45017.

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

On December 4, 2025, USCIS changed the validity periods for certain

other EAD categories, including C08s, to enhance its screening and

vetting efforts.\74\ Therefore, C08 applicants now must seek renewal of

their EAD more often than under the previous 5-year EAD validity

period. DHS, however, cannot accurately predict whether this policy

change will adversely affect EAD renewal processing times, as a likely

increase in EAD renewals could be offset by other recent or future

policy changes. For example, on February 23, 2026, DHS published an

NPRM proposing to modify filing and eligibility requirements for aliens

with a pending asylum application requesting employment authorization

and an employment authorization document (EAD). See 91 FR 8616 (Feb.

23, 2026). As of the publication of this final rule, the NPRM has not

been finalized. If finalized as proposed, changes to eligibility for

C08 employment authorization could significantly reduce the number of

initial C08 applications and, by extension, the longer-term number of

renewal applications.

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

\74\ See DHS, USCIS, Policy Alert, Subject: Updating Certain

Employment Authorization Document Validity Periods (December 4,

2025), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/policy-manual-updates/20251204-EmploymentAuthorizationValidity.pdf.

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

ii. Processing Timelines

Comment: One commenter asserted that early filing routinely leads

to rejections or denials, and that filing fees are not returned to the

applicant if they are rejected for early filing. Another commenter

reasoned that since USCIS' policy only allows service inquiries after

365 days, this would limit employer and employee's options for

addressing delays.

Response: Although USCIS generally recommends that applicants not

file to renew their EAD more than 180 days before the expiration of

their current EAD, USCIS will not reject or deny an otherwise eligible

Form I-765 renewal solely because it was filed sooner. The USCIS

Contact Center is an available resource and provides specific customer

service options, including how to obtain assistance if a case is

rejected or denied.\75\ Further, USCIS does not have a set rule that

applicants must wait 365 days to submit a service inquiry. Rather,

USCIS posts processing times on its Case Processing Times web page,

which includes a tool to help determine whether an applicant can

request an update on their case. Depending on the applicant's receipt

date and other factors, USCIS provides an estimated date for when a

case inquiry may be submitted or a link to submit a case inquiry.\76\

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

\75\ See USCIS, Contact Us (last visited Feb. 3, 2026), https://www.uscis.gov/about-us/contact-us.

\76\ See Frequently Asked Questions About Processing Times,

USCIS, https://egov.uscis.gov/processing-times/processing-times-faqs

(last visited Mar. 23, 2026).

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

DHS recognizes that an alien who is authorized employment incident

to their status may still wish to obtain an EAD. Aliens who are

authorized employment incident to status will continue to have the

choice to file Form I-765 to obtain an EAD as proof of identity and

employment authorization. DHS also recognizes that, in the absence of

automatic extensions, some aliens may experience temporary lapses in

employment authorization and/or EAD validity if their renewal

applications are not adjudicated before their current EADs expire.

However, DHS maintains that the security risks associated with

automatically extending employment authorization and/or EADs without

updated vetting and adjudication outweigh the benefits of using

automatic

[[Page 65326]]

extensions to ensure that aliens have uninterrupted employment

authorization and/or EADs. While DHS cannot guarantee that every

renewal will be adjudicated before the existing EAD expires, DHS

believes that proper planning by applicants, combined with reduced

filing volumes and ongoing operational improvements, may lessen the

likelihood and duration of lapses.

iii. Procedural Fairness

Comment: Many commenters expressed concerns about the procedural

fairness of applicants losing work authorization due to USCIS

processing times. Specifically, some commenters said that the IFR would

punish people who are following the law, complying with immigration

procedures, or, more generally, ``have done everything right,'' losing

status through ``no fault of their own.'' Likewise, several commenters

remarked that the current automatic extension policy helps prevent

nonimmigrants from being punished for delays beyond their control. A

few commenters said that removing automatic extensions without

addressing processing delays would be unjust.

A few other commenters remarked that the IFR would contradict

administrative equity or fairness. Other commenters said that the rule

would contradict DHS's own acknowledgement that interruptions in work

authorization cause ``substantial and unnecessary harm.'' A couple of

commenters said that the rule would penalize law abiding applicants due

to an extreme individual case.

Response: DHS recognizes that many renewal applicants diligently

comply with filing requirements and that delays in adjudication may not

be within their control. DHS also acknowledges that prior rulemakings,

including the 2016 and 2024 rules, sought to mitigate the impact of

processing delays on workers and employers by providing automatic

extensions of employment authorization and/or EADs.

However, as explained in the IFR, DHS has reassessed the balance

between continuity of employment authorization and the need to ensure

that immigration benefits are granted only after appropriate vetting

and eligibility determinations. There is no statutory entitlement to an

automatic extension of employment authorization. Employment

authorization in the relevant categories is generally discretionary and

time-limited, and renewal requires a new adjudication. The IFR and this

final rule do not deny renewal to eligible applicants; they simply

require that continued employment authorization be based on an approved

renewal application rather than on the mere filing of that application.

DHS has determined that granting automatic extensions without

updated vetting and adjudication is inconsistent with its mission and

with E.O.s directing DHS to ensure that employment authorization is not

provided to unauthorized aliens and that all aliens in the United

States are vetted and screened to the maximum degree possible. While

DHS is mindful of the hardships that may arise from temporary lapses in

employment authorization, the need to protect national security and

public safety, and to enhance the integrity of immigration benefits,

justifies discontinuing automatic extensions.

iv. General or Mixed Feedback on USCIS Processing

Comment: Several commenters asked questions about USCIS operational

metrics, processing times, use of RFEs, and remedial actions for

applicants who lose their jobs due to adjudication delays. A commenter

agreed that a 540-day extension was too long because there should be

thorough vetting before granting EADs and/or employment authorization.

Response: DHS acknowledges commenters' questions about the rule's

impact. As discussed in the IFR and earlier in this preamble, the

department has taken measures to address policies that resulted in the

historic spike in EAD applications received during the previous

administration. DHS anticipates a substantial decrease in both initial

and renewal filings for EADs,\77\ which would allow for a reduction in

processing times for renewal EADs.

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

\77\ See 90 FR 48814, footnote 157.

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

USCIS has the discretion to deny benefit requests for lack of

required initial evidence or for ineligibility, or to request that

additional evidence is submitted within a specified period of time.\78\

The benefit requestor bears the burden of proof for establishing

eligibility.\79\ A request for evidence (RFE), though it may add time

to the adjudication of an application, is an opportunity for the

applicant to provide additional evidence to USCIS in support of their

application.

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

\78\ See 8 CFR 103.2(b)(8)(ii).

\79\ See INA sec. 291, 8 U.S.C 1361.

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

DHS will not be implementing remedial actions in case an alien's

employment authorization lapses. DHS believes that careful planning by

applicants includes filing early, rather than close to the expiration

of the EAD, and ensuring that all evidence needed for USCIS to

determine eligibility has been submitted with the application at the

time of filing, may help to reduce the risk of a potential lapse in

employment authorization. While proper planning might not avoid a

temporary lapse in employment authorization and/or documentation in all

cases, it should help to reduce the potential of a lapse and shorten

the duration if a lapse were to occur. DHS also notes that an applicant

may request that USCIS expedite the adjudication of an application that

is under USCIS jurisdiction.\80\ USCIS considers all expedite requests

on a case-by-case basis and generally requires documentation to support

such requests.\81\ The decision to expedite is within the sole

discretion of USCIS.\82\ Expediting a case generally means that USCIS

would adjudicate a benefit ahead of others, including those who may

have filed earlier, so USCIS carefully weighs the urgency and merit of

each expedite request.\83\

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

\80\ See USCIS, Expedite Requests (last updated Sep. 8, 2026),

https://www.uscis.gov/forms/filing-guidance/expedite-requests.

\81\ See id.

\82\ See id.

\83\ See id.

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

Finally, DHS agrees with commenters' belief that the previous 540-

day automatic extension was too long, as demonstrated by this rule's

finalization of the IFR's removal of the automatic extension process.

5. Combined Impacts on Individuals, Employers, the Economy, and

Specific EAD Categories

i. Impacts on Aliens, Families, and Communities

a. General Hardship, Fairness, Educational Disruptions, and Family

Impacts

Comment: Many commenters expressed concerns that the IFR would

cause lapses in valid work authorization, causing job loss or

interruptions of work, while undermining aliens' financial stability.

Commenters expressed that lapses in work authorization lead to job

loss, income loss, housing/food insecurity, loss of health coverage,

strain on community resources, educational disruption, and harm to

families and children, and that this is unfair to individuals who have

complied with all requirements. Many commenters expressed general

concerns about the consequences of lost wages due to gaps in employment

authorization. For example, commenters shared that lost wages could

lead to housing and food

[[Page 65327]]

insecurity for nonimmigrants. Several commenters wrote that a lapse in

employment could make nonimmigrants face the threat of eviction and

other commenters shared concerns about increased risk of homelessness.

Commenters remarked that many nonimmigrants may not have families or

friends to lean on for temporary shelter, making this group

particularly vulnerable to income shortages. One commenter remarked

that in the current job market, it would be extremely difficult for

them to find another job if they were to lose employment due to a lapse

in work authorization.

Several commenters expressed concern about the negative impact that

the IFR would have on families. Some commenters said that employment

lapses would result in financial insecurity for households. Some

commenters specifically expressed concern that the IFR would cause

significant financial hardship for families, including those who depend

on dual incomes to meet basic needs such as mortgage payments, rent,

childcare, healthcare, food, transportation, and other living expenses.

A commenter said that the IFR could force family separation. A

commenter remarked that a lapse in employment authorization would

affect nonimmigrants' ability to travel and visit or take care of sick

family members. Another commenter wrote that work authorization gaps

would disproportionately affect households where women care for

children, elders, and disabled family members.

Several commenters expressed concern regarding the IFR's specific

impact on children. For example, commenters shared that employment gaps

would hinder their ability to provide care for their special needs

children. A commenter remarked that families that continually face

unmet needs endure stress that can impact the long-term health and

development of children. Similarly, another commenter wrote that if

household income is interrupted, children could lose their access to

stable food, shelter, healthcare, and education ``overnight.'' The

commenter reasoned that, as a result, children whose parents lack

stable work authorization are more likely to suffer from poor overall

health, and have a greater likelihood of hospitalization, school

absenteeism, and disciplinary issues. Commenters remarked that food

insecurity from disrupted wages would contribute to conditions such as

hypertension and diabetes and said that children from poor families are

four times as likely to be in ``less than very good health'' than

children from wealthier families. Another commenter similarly remarked

that they anticipate U.S. citizen children with an immigrant parent to

be particularly impacted by the IFR.

A few commenters said that the IFR poses humanitarian difficulties

and challenges aliens' rights to pursue dignified work, as well as the

American Dream. Other commenters said that the IFR is inhumane and

erodes trust in the immigration system, while others stated it sends

the message that working aliens are dispensable.

One commenter stated that many EAD applicants are victims of

disasters abroad and do not need to face further hardship. Similarly,

multiple commenters stated that aliens come to the United States

fleeing conflict or persecution and described automatic work

authorization as ``a lifeline.'' Another commenter described the IFR's

removal of automatic extensions of EAD validity periods as an unlawful

form of coercion, stating that it will make life in the United States

unbearable for aliens. A few commenters expressed concerns about the

IFR causing potential discrimination in the hiring process. For

example, a couple of commenters expressed concern that employers would

not hire employees who are dependent on work authorization, due to

potential disruptions from processing delays. One commenter remarked

that the automatic extension policy helps level the hiring playing

field against potential discrimination.

A couple of commenters remarked that many nonimmigrant families

live on modest wages and may not have enough saved up to supplement a

gap in income. One commenter added that, since asylum seekers are not

eligible for federal benefits, this group would be left particularly

vulnerable.

Some commenters also expressed concerns that nonimmigrants would

lose benefits such as unemployment insurance and employer sponsored

health coverage during employment authorization gaps. One commenter

said that many nonimmigrants rely on EADs to demonstrate their

eligibility to purchase healthcare on the Healthcare Marketplace.

Multiple commenters added that, without health care coverage, aliens

may be more likely to avoid treating health conditions and seeking

preventive services. Commenters remarked that this would consequently

increase use of emergency rooms and urgent care and expose nonimmigrant

populations to medical debt. Additional commenters remarked that the

2025 tax and budget law, Public Law 119-21, also known as the ``One Big

Beautiful Bill Act,'' will further limit health coverage for aliens,

and expressed concern for resulting health outcomes, citing several

articles which demonstrated correlation between one's ability to afford

health insurance and their health outcomes. One commenter also remarked

that some medical insurance plans require minor children to have an

unexpired EAD for coverage.

Many commenters expressed concerns about the impact that the IFR

would have on public resources. Commenters reasoned that loss of income

would have to be supplemented by increased reliance on public

assistance programs, charity, and other community or humanitarian

services. For example, commenters said that the IFR would increase

demand for services like food pantries, emergency shelters, clothing or

donation centers, and community health centers. A few commenters

remarked that these resources are already strained, particularly after

having absorbed the spillover from shrinking federal assistance

programs. One commenter remarked that cities in Maine are already

exceeding their general assistance funds and cannot afford additional

strain on resources. The commenter added that alien workers fill vital

roles at social service agencies, working as translators, interpreters,

case managers, and cultural brokers. The commenter reasoned that loss

of these workers would exacerbate the strain on these agencies,

predicting that if the alien workers face a lapse in EAD validity, they

may then turn to the social service agency for help. The commenter

added that local support services such as food banks have already seen

an uptick in demand over the past year.

Several commenters expressed concern that nonprofit legal providers

would see an overwhelming increase in demand for services. Similarly,

some commenters said that crisis-driven requests require timely

responses and cannot be integrated into existing caseloads without

sacrificing key legal services, and that shouldering more of these

cases would cause stress to their organization and divert attention

away from humanitarian case preparation.

Response: DHS recognizes that lapses in employment authorization

can create real hardship for affected aliens, their families, their

employers and the communities in which they live. Commenters described

risks such as job loss, reduced income, housing and food insecurity,

loss of health coverage, strain on community resources, educational

disruption, and negative impacts on children and family stability,

particularly for households

[[Page 65328]]

relying on dual incomes or modest wages. DHS is also mindful of other

disruptions that a temporary lapse in employment authorization of an

alien may bring, including for those who may rely on an automatic

extension to obtain REAL ID-compliant driver's licenses and other forms

of identification.

DHS considered these concerns before issuing the IFR \84\ and again

in finalizing this rule. However, DHS has concluded that the need to

ensure proper vetting and screening, and continued eligibility, before

granting renewed employment authorization and issuing secure evidence

of that authorization outweighs the risk that some applicants might

experience a temporary lapse in employment authorization and/or EAD

validity. DHS also determined that extending this benefit without

updated adjudication and screening is inconsistent with its mission and

with E.O.s \85\ directing DHS to ensure that employment authorization

is not provided to unauthorized aliens and that aliens in the United

States are vetted and screened to the maximum degree possible.

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

\84\ See 90 FR 48799, 48809 (Oct. 30, 2025).

\85\ See E.O. 14159, Protecting the American People Against

Invasion (Jan. 20, 2025), 90 FR 8443, 8446 (Jan. 29, 2025) and E.O.

14161, Protecting the United States From Foreign Terrorists and

Other National Security and Public Safety Threats (Jan. 20, 2025),

90 FR 8451, 8451 (Jan. 30, 2025).

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

Nevertheless, DHS emphasizes that this rule does not eliminate

eligibility for employment authorization or prevent eligible aliens

from obtaining initial or renewal EADs. Rather, it ends the practice of

automatically extending employment authorization and/or EAD validity

for up to 540 days based solely on the filing of a renewal application,

without completion of adjudicative review and related vetting,

including resolution of any derogatory information. Continued

employment authorization will now depend on USCIS' approval of a

renewal application, after USCIS has determined that the alien

continues to be eligible and continues to merit a favorable exercise of

discretion, if applicable.

This rule also does not change underlying eligibility standards for

immigration benefits, public benefits, or educational programs, and it

does not restrict aliens from seeking assistance for which they are

otherwise eligible under Federal or State law. Certain categories of

aliens, such as refugees and asylees, remain ``qualified aliens'' for

specified public benefits under existing statutes, and those

authorities are unchanged by this rule. Likewise, this rule does not

alter the ability of States, localities, or private organizations to

provide charitable or humanitarian assistance.

DHS also notes that, independent of this rule, it has taken steps

to reduce the extraordinary EAD filing volumes driven by prior

policies, including narrowing the use of parole and aligning TPS

designations with statutory criteria. DHS expects that overall EAD

filing rates (initial and renewal) will substantially decline because

of those actions, freeing adjudicative resources to reduce renewal EAD

application processing times. For example, initial and renewal EAD

applications for the largest EAD categories that were formerly eligible

for automatic extensions have significantly reduced since the start of

2025. See Table 1 in Section IV.C.2.i.d. of this preamble.

Accordingly, the decreased EAD filing rates support the point made

in the IFR that any claims about an increase in the number and duration

of employment authorization and/or EAD lapses are speculative and

outweighed by the harm posed by automatic extensions.

USCIS also publishes current case processing time information on

its website.\86\ Proper planning by applicants, such as monitoring EAD

expiration dates, consulting posted processing times, and filing

renewal applications as soon as permitted by regulation and form

instructions, can further mitigate the risk and duration of any lapses

in employment authorization.

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

\86\ See USCIS, Case Processing Times, https://egov.uscis.gov/processing-times/more-info (last visited Apr. 22, 2026).

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

Overall, DHS recognizes the seriousness of the hardships described

by commenters but concludes that, on balance, the national security,

public safety, and benefit integrity interests served by ending

automatic EAD extensions outweigh the potential adverse impacts

associated with temporary lapses in employment authorization and/or EAD

validity.

b. Mental Health and Vulnerability, Including Risk of Exploitation

Comment: Commenters asserted that employment gaps due to the lack

of automatic extensions and processing delays will exacerbate stress,

trauma, and anxiety, and may push some aliens into unauthorized or

exploitative employment or unsafe living conditions.

Multiple commenters remarked that the IFR would instill fear,

stress, depression, and anxiety, among other mental health concerns.

One commenter asserted that some of the immigrant population is already

experiencing significant levels of trauma and stress from immigration

enforcement activity, and that the IFR would only exacerbate such

feelings.

Many commenters shared concerns about nonimmigrants' increased

level of vulnerability to exploitation by employers and landlords, as

well as human trafficking, sexual harm, and abuse owing to the IFR's

elimination of automatic extensions. For example, multiple commenters

said that loss of employment authorization makes nonimmigrants

vulnerable to exploitative working conditions. Some commenters remarked

that if aliens lose their ability to work legally, they may seek under

the table work or unlawful employment. Commenters warned that this

leaves such individuals vulnerable to exploitation, explaining that

these jobs often have lower wages, minimal labor protections, and

abusive conditions which they may be afraid to report due to unlawful

status. They also indicated that 84.9 percent of unauthorized

immigrants reported not being paid time and a half for overtime labor,

and 37.1 percent reported being victims of minimum wage violations. The

commenter added that many employers of unauthorized workers do not

carry workers compensation insurance, meaning that employees may be

responsible for covering their own medical costs in the case of work-

related injury. The commenter added that since USCIS recently ended a

program that protected whistleblowers, unauthorized employees are now

less likely to report various types of abuse. A different commenter

added that forcing applicants into unlawful employment may also impact

their eligibility for future immigration benefits, putting them in a

long-term position of vulnerability.

Response: DHS recognizes that uncertainty about employment

authorization and potential lapses in income can contribute to stress,

anxiety, and other mental health challenges, particularly for

individuals who may already have experienced trauma or instability. DHS

also recognizes that economic insecurity and lack of lawful employment

opportunities can increase vulnerability to exploitation by

unscrupulous employers, landlords, or others, and may heighten risks of

trafficking, abuse, or other harm.

The IFR and this final rule do not deny eligible aliens access to

employment authorization or to the underlying immigration benefits for

which they qualify. Rather the IFR, affirmed by this final rule,

removes only the automatic extension mechanism that previously allowed

aliens to remain employment authorized for up to 540

[[Page 65329]]

days based solely on a pending renewal application, without completion

of updated vetting and adjudication. As described throughout this

preamble, DHS has determined that such automatic extensions present an

unacceptable security and program integrity risk because they confer

significant benefits before USCIS has completed vetting and screening,

resolved any derogatory information, determined continued eligibility

and that the applicant merits a favorable exercise of discretion, if

applicable.

DHS cannot structure its regulatory framework on the assumption

that aliens and/or employers will respond to temporary lapses in

employment authorization by engaging in unauthorized employment or

other unlawful conduct. The INA prohibits the knowing employment of

unauthorized aliens and establishes consequences for both employers and

aliens who violate those provisions. While DHS recognizes that some

aliens may face difficult choices if a lapse occurs, DHS does not

condone unauthorized employment or believe that it is an appropriate

response to a temporary lapse in employment authorization.

DHS shares commenters' concerns about exploitation and abuse. DHS,

including through components such as ICE and USCIS' fraud detection and

victim protection programs, will continue to enforce laws related to

human trafficking, forced labor, and other forms of exploitation, and

to coordinate with the Department of Labor and other agencies on

enforcement. Existing protections for victims of trafficking, crime,

and abuse (including T and U nonimmigrant classifications and VAWA) are

unaffected by this rule. Nothing in this rule diminishes DHS's

commitment to identify and assist victims or to support the

investigation and prosecution of traffickers and other offenders.

DHS recognizes that some aliens may experience heightened stress or

vulnerability if their employment authorization temporarily lapses.

However, DHS has concluded that the need to ensure that employment

authorization is extended only after appropriate vetting and

adjudication, consistent with current national security and public

safety priorities, justifies ending automatic extensions. DHS also

expects that reductions in overall EAD filing volumes may help limit

the frequency and length of lapses and that timely filing and planning

by applicants can further reduce uncertainty. For reduced filing

volumes, see Table 1 in Section IV.C.2.i.d. of this preamble.

c. Identification, Driver's Licenses, and Access to Services

Comment: Several commenters expressed concerns that lapses in

employment authorization and the associated use of employment

authorization documents would hinder nonimmigrants' abilities to obtain

or renew their driver's licenses, open and access bank accounts, obtain

or renew health insurance, enroll in educational programs and training,

and interact with law enforcement. Commenters remarked that lack of a

driver's license could interfere with critical daily activities for

nonimmigrants, such as taking children to school, commuting to work, or

attending doctors' appointments or immigration hearings. A few

commenters shared that in many cases, nonimmigrants require driver's

licenses to perform their job duties and that, without a valid driver's

license, nonimmigrants may be pushed to drive without a license,

compromising road safety.

Response: DHS acknowledges that EADs are commonly used by aliens as

identity and, in some contexts, status documents for State-issued

driver's licenses and identification cards, financial services, and

other purposes. Under the prior automatic extension framework, an EAD

that was facially expired could be treated as unexpired for certain

purposes if accompanied by a Form I-797C receipt notice, including

obtaining a driver's license. As explained in the IFR, DHS determined

that continuing that practice and the use of automatically extended

EADs is no longer appropriate.

This rule does not change State authority to determine which

documents are acceptable for issuance of driver's licenses or other

State identification, nor does it amend the Department's REAL ID

regulations for issuance of driver's licenses or identification cards

acceptable for federal official purposes defined in the REAL ID Act. It

does, however, make clear that, for renewal applications filed on or

after October 30, 2025, a pending Form I-765 and associated receipt

notice will no longer operate to automatically extend EAD validity

under DHS regulations. An EAD that is facially expired will not be

treated as unexpired for employment or immigration purposes unless it

qualifies for an automatic extension under 8 CFR 274a.13(d) based on a

renewal application filed before October 30, 2025, or is otherwise

extended by law or an applicable Federal Register notice (for example,

certain TPS-related documents).

The rule does not prevent eligible aliens from seeking or renewing

EADs, nor does it prohibit States or other entities from accepting

alternative forms of identification or documentation where permitted by

law.

DHS also expects that, as overall EAD filing volumes decline and

renewal processing times improve, the risk and duration of lapses will

be reduced. USCIS has already seen a decline in filing rates for the

main EAD categories that were eligible for automatic extensions. See

Table 1 in Section IV.C.2.i.d. of this preamble.

DHS concludes that the security and benefit integrity gains from

ensuring that EADs used as evidence of identity and work authorization

reflect a recent adjudication and completed vetting outweigh the

potential risks associated with discontinuing automatic extensions.

ii. Employment, Employers, and Economic Impacts

a. Employer Burdens, Business Continuity, and Sector Specific Concerns

Comment: Multiple commenters argued that loss of automatic

extensions will increase Form I-9 compliance complexity, cause turnover

and productivity losses, exacerbate existing shortages in health care,

education, agriculture, manufacturing, etc., and impose particular

burdens on small employers.

Commenters expressed opposition to removing automatic extensions,

stating that such a change would cause significant disruption to

employers, including operational inefficiencies (loss of productivity

and delays), administrative burdens, staffing gaps, human capital costs

and retention, civil penalties, and compliance burdens as employees

await renewal decisions without work authorization. A few commenters

stated that employers could violate Form I-9 compliance rules due to

unclear authorization statuses.

Multiple commenters asserted that the IFR would exacerbate existing

labor shortages and projected a continued decrease in labor force

participation rates through at least 2030, cautioning that the IFR

could worsen such shortages by preventing asylum seekers from working

during EAD processing and removing vetted workers. One commenter stated

that labor shortages would negatively impact the U.S. economy, hinder

growth and contribute to inflationary pressures. Another commenter

stated that a decline of 2 million immigrant workers between 2019 and

2021 contributed to labor

[[Page 65330]]

shortages across sectors, including a labor shortage in the

construction industry valued at $10.8 billion, reasoning that the IFR

would replicate such labor shortages across every industry. A commenter

stated that until public and private sector efforts could fully meet

industry demand, the United States would need additional workers to

fill jobs left vacant by the domestic workforce, expressing concern

that ending the EAD extension could further disrupt workforce stability

and business continuity for manufacturers. Many commenters stated that

the removal of automatic extensions would negatively impact critical

industries and sectors of the U.S. economy that rely on foreign

workers, including agriculture, technology, energy, manufacturing,

logistics, transportation, hospitality, education, and construction.

Several commenters expressed concern about the impact on healthcare and

healthcare workers, noting that even a brief lapse in employment

authorization disrupts patient care, clinic operations, and community

health access. One commenter remarked about how the IFR will adversely

affect teaching hospitals and academic health systems that employ EAD

workers.

Other commenters expressed concerns that the IFR would undermine

labor unions, collective bargaining, and workforce stability by

disrupting bargaining units that include immigrant workers with EADs,

stating that increased risk of sudden job loss among workers would

strain unions' ability to enforce workplace standards, forcing them to

devote more resources to protecting vulnerable workers and addressing

instability caused by the IFR.

Multiple commenters expressed the importance of automatic

extensions for business continuity amid persistent government

processing delays and stated that the IFR would impose unnecessary

burdens and costs, especially on smaller companies without in-house

legal departments. Some commenters stated that the rule would force

employers to conduct extensive contingency planning and workforce

audits to prepare for potential lapses in work authorization.

Specifically, a commenter stated that groups such as asylees, who are

authorized to work incident to status, may still be asked to show an

EAD to their employer, and further reasoned that the IFR could still

cause employer confusion and job loss among these groups. Other

commenters stated that eliminating automatic EAD extensions would cause

businesses to lose workers and cited to a USCIS analysis establishing

that EAD extensions previously saved U.S. employers an estimated $3.5

billion by avoiding labor turnover.

Numerous commenters expressed concern that employers would be

forced to terminate employees due to administrative delays in

processing EAD renewals. Commenters stated that previous sudden

reversals of work permit rules have created confusion for employers and

caused them to make rash decisions based on misinformation about

changing Federal regulations, leading to erroneous layoffs where

workers with valid EADs were dismissed because employers did not

understand how to comply with current rules. A commenter said that such

impacts would exacerbate the ongoing teacher shortage crisis.

Response: DHS recognizes that some sectors, including healthcare,

education, manufacturing, agriculture, hospitality, and technology, and

unionized workplaces may be particularly sensitive to interruptions in

workforce continuity.

This rule does not change employers' underlying obligations under

section 274A of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1324a, and 8 CFR part 274a to hire

only individuals who are authorized to work in the United States, to

verify employment eligibility, and to reverify employment authorization

when existing documentation expires.

By ending automatic extensions for renewal applications filed on or

after October 30, 2025, this rule ensures that employment authorization

will be evidenced by a secure, unexpired document issued following

adjudication. This reduces the risk that employers will rely on

outdated or invalid documentation, and it aligns with DHS's

responsibility to ensure that employment authorization and/or an EAD is

provided only after USCIS has completed appropriate vetting and

determined continued eligibility.

To ensure that workplaces and businesses have a clear understanding

of the requirements of the IFR, DHS has updated the Handbook for

Employers (M-274) and related guidance to assist employers in

understanding these changes and properly completing Form I-9. Employers

are responsible for ensuring I-9 compliance for all of their employees,

including updates to the I-9 verification process.\87\

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

\87\ See DHS, USCIS, Handbook for Employers M-274, 5.0 Automatic

Extensions of Employment Authorization and/or Employment

Authorization Documents (EADs) in Certain Circumstances (last

updated Oct. 30, 2025), https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/form-i-9-

resources/handbook-for-employers-m-274/50-automatic-extensions-of-

employment-authorization-andor-employment-authorization-documents-

eads-in.

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

DHS acknowledges that, where renewal adjudications are not

completed before current EADs expire, some employers may face temporary

staffing gaps and associated costs. These can include lost

productivity, overtime for remaining staff, recruitment and training

for temporary or replacement workers, and internal administrative costs

associated with planning, auditing, and compliance. DHS discussed these

categories of impacts in the IFR and in the economic analysis

accompanying this rule and recognizes there may be negative impacts for

some employers.\88\ DHS outlined the difficulties in estimating the

number of EADs that would lapse in the Section V.B.1. of this preamble.

However, in this final rule DHS has made estimates of economic impacts

and emphasizes that there is likely to be variation in the impacts, due

to factors such as dynamic process times, filing volumes, and filing

behavior. For this reason, DHS provides a wide range for the estimates.

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

\88\ See 90 FR 48799, 48817 (Oct. 30, 2025). See also Section V

of this preamble.

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

DHS has determined that these operational burdens are outweighed by

the national security, public safety, and benefit integrity concerns

associated with automatic EAD extensions. Automatic EAD extensions

allow employment authorization and/or EAD validity to continue for up

to 540 days based solely on a pending renewal application, before USCIS

has completed updated background checks and adjudication. Considering

current security priorities and E.O.s directing enhanced vetting of

aliens already present in the United States, DHS has concluded that

continued reliance on automatic extensions is not an acceptable means

of managing adjudication backlogs.

Independent of this rule, DHS has taken steps expected to reduce

initial and renewal EAD filing volumes by narrowing the use of parole

and aligning TPS and related policies with statutory text. As discussed

previously in response to comments, DHS anticipates that overall EAD

filings will decline and that adjudicative capacity can increasingly be

focused on timely renewal adjudications.

DHS notes that an applicant may request that USCIS expedite the

adjudication of an application that is under USCIS jurisdiction.\89\

USCIS considers all expedite requests on a case-by-case basis and

generally requires documentation to support such

[[Page 65331]]

requests.\90\ The decision to expedite is within the sole discretion of

USCIS.\91\ Expediting a case generally means that USCIS would

adjudicate a benefit ahead of others, including those who may have

filed earlier, so USCIS carefully weighs the urgency and merit of each

expedite request.\92\

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

\89\ See USCIS, Expedite Requests, https://www.uscis.gov/forms/filing-guidance/expedite-requests (last updated Sep. 8, 2026).

\90\ See id.

\91\ See id.

\92\ See id.

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

DHS recognizes the concerns raised by employers, unions, and

industry groups and will continue to monitor implementation and

processing times. Nonetheless, DHS concludes that ensuring that renewed

employment authorization is granted only after complete vetting and

adjudication is necessary to better protect national security and

public safety and to enhance the integrity of the employment

verification system. Adhering to a system that prioritizes national

security, public safety, and benefit integrity outweighs the potential

risks and additional burdens that applicants and their employers may

face by a potential temporary lapse in employment authorization.

b. Immigrant Contributions to the Economy and Macroeconomic and Local

Economic Impacts of the Rule

Comment: Numerous commenters stated that the IFR ignores the vital

economic contributions of immigrants, and operational realities that

the work authorization is a critical tool to successfully integrate

aliens into the United States and contribute to the economy. Commenters

also stated that the IFR is disrupting businesses that employ these

aliens and thereby losing the economic contribution of immigrants. For

example, commenters discussed the positive impacts that asylees and

refugees make to the U.S. economy and stated that this population

contributed more revenue than they cost in expenditures to the U.S.

government. Another commenter said that in 2023, New York State's

immigrant population represented about 23 percent of the total

population and paid $74.8 billion in taxes, thus demonstrating that

immigrants are productive members of the workforce. The commenter also

stated that a lapse in employment authorization could mean that they

would lose their homes, face hunger, contribute less taxes to state and

the federal government or would otherwise become vulnerable (such as

incurring negative health effects). Another commenter said that

immigrant workers are a key driver of New York City's economy, making

up 36 percent of the population; accounting for 37 percent of total

wage, salary, and business income; and in 2021, contributed tens to

hundreds of billions of dollars in taxes and spending to the city and

state. An additional commenter identified in-migration of workers,

including asylum seekers and other immigrants, as one of the few

positive trends offsetting the rapid exit of older workers and

emphasized that many economic development strategies depend on

immigrants' continuous access to work authorization. Other commenters

highlighted potential impacts on the economy, pointing out that asylum

seekers and refugees work in sectors that face shortages and pay

billions in taxes, and that immigrants will add $7 trillion to the

economy over the next decade.

Commenters raised concerns about the macroeconomic impacts of

eliminating automatic extensions of EADs, such as undermining U.S.

economic competitiveness, innovation capacity, and national interests

by forcing workers into temporary unemployment. Other commenters

predicted that the IFR would lead to negative economic impacts,

including reduced tax revenue, costs to taxpayers, supply chain

disruptions, reduced consumer spending, the risk of a recession, and

job losses. Some commenters expressed general concern that the IFR will

reduce economic productivity and destabilize the workforce and the

economy, considering that one in five U.S. workers is an immigrant who

relies on EADs.

Commenters said that the IFR would significantly increase States'

healthcare costs by driving up the uninsured rate among immigrants, who

already face limited access to Medicaid and Affordable Care Act

coverage. The commenters remarked that with lapses in work

authorization eliminating employer-sponsored insurance, States could

bear nearly $280 billion in uncompensated care costs. The commenters

also stated that the IFR would adversely impact the States' ability to

enforce their laws, reasoning that legal workers with lapses in work

authorization would increasingly enter the underground economy and

become less likely to report labor and civil rights violations and

discussed how this would interfere with the States' ability to enforce

their labor and civil rights laws, because effective enforcement relies

on employees' ability and willingness to report violations.

A commenter said the IFR would have significant negative

consequences on the federal budget and federal agencies such as the

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and Department of Labor (DOL) because

the IFR would reduce the amount of taxable income reported to the IRS

when applicants face prolonged lapses in employment authorization,

diminishing federal revenue and complicating federal fiscal

projections. The commenter further asserted that cutting off work

authorization for aliens awaiting renewal would push thousands of

workers into unauthorized employment or out of the workforce entirely

and consequently increase DOL's investigatory burdens.

Furthermore, commenters highlighted a range of potential negative

impacts on the local and state economy, such as disrupting the

workforce and hindering an alien's ability to maintain consistent

employment, which, in turn, could directly affect essential community

services, including infrastructure projects, healthcare, and public

safety. A commenter highlighted that immigrants play a major role in

entrepreneurship. Another commenter remarked that Maine stands to lose

an economic boom they are currently experiencing if immigrant workers

lose work authorization.

While expressing concerns about the impacts the IFR's regulatory

changes would have on the economy, multiple commenters requested a

return to previous practices allowing automatic extension of EAD

validity periods.

Response: DHS agrees that immigrants, including aliens who were

eligible for the automatic extension of their employment authorization

and/or EAD for up to 540 days, make important contributions to the

national and local economies through their labor, entrepreneurship, tax

payments, and consumer spending; and that continuity of lawful

employment can benefit workers, employers, and communities. DHS also

acknowledges the many cited studies, data points, and experiences to

support their claims about these contributions.

As the commenters noted, prior DHS rulemakings, including the 2022

and 2024 temporary final rules and the 2024 final rule, emphasized the

economic and operational benefits of automatic extensions as a tool to

mitigate the effects of EAD processing delays. Those rules estimated

that automatic extensions could reduce wage losses for affected

workers, avoid turnover costs for employers, and maintain tax

contributions that might otherwise be impacted by lapses in employment

authorization. In adopting those measures, DHS gave significant weight

to the economic and labor market

[[Page 65332]]

advantages of continuity of employment.

The IFR and this final rule in contrast reflect a reassessment of

that policy and how to balance those economic considerations against

DHS's core responsibilities for national security, public safety, and

benefit integrity. DHS has determined that continued use of automatic

extensions, which allow employment authorization and the related use of

secure documentation to continue for up to 540 days based solely on the

filing of a renewal application, before USCIS has completed updated

vetting, resolved any derogatory information, and determined that the

alien remains eligible and continues to merit a favorable exercise of

discretion, if applicable, is not consistent with DHS's current policy

priorities reflected in, among others, E.O. 14159 \93\ and 14161.\94\

Those E.O.s direct DHS to vet and screen aliens already present in the

United States to the maximum degree possible, to ensure that employment

authorization is not provided to unauthorized aliens, and to identify

all resources that may be used to ensure that all aliens who are

already in the United States, are vetted and screened to the maximum

degree possible.

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

\93\ See Executive Order 14159 ``Protecting the American People

Against Invasion,'' 90 FR 8443 (Jan. 29, 2025)

\94\ See Executive Order 14161, ``Protecting the United States

from Terrorist and Other National Security and Public Safety

Threats,'' 90 FR 8451 (Jan. 31, 2025). See also Presidential

Proclamation 10949, ``Restricting the Entry of Foreign Nationals To

Protect the United States From Foreign Terrorists and Other National

Security and Public Safety Threats,'' 90 FR 24497 (June 10, 2025).

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

Accordingly, ending the practice of providing automatic extension

of employment authorization documents enhances the benefit integrity in

adjudications of employment authorization requests and better protects

public safety and national security by ensuring that aliens are

properly vetted and determined to continue to be eligible (and merit a

favorable exercise of discretion, if applicable) for employment

authorization before such authorization is provided to the alien. DHS

emphasizes that it is charged with combating unauthorized employment in

accordance with section 274A of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1324a, which Congress

implemented, among other reasons, because of the detrimental negative

effect that unauthorized employment and illegal immigration has on the

United States and the economy.\95\ In light of these directives, DHS is

now placing greater weight on security and benefit integrity

considerations.

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

\95\ Section 274A of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1324a was codified as

part of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, Public Law

99-603, for the purpose of controlling illegal immigration to the

United States by, among other things, establishing penalties for

employers who knowingly hire undocumented aliens, and prohibit the

employment of aliens who are unauthorized to work in the United

States either because they entered the country illegally or are in

an immigration status which does not permit employment. See H.R.

REP. 99-682, 46, 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5649, 5649-5650. The legislative

history reflects that Congress considered, among other things,

evidence of prior studies demonstrating the adverse impact of

illegal immigration that warranted legislation to protect U.S. labor

and the economy. See, e.g., H.R. REP. 99-682, 46-52, 1986

U.S.C.C.A.N. 5649, 5649-5656.

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

DHS recognizes that ending automatic extensions may result in

temporary lapses in employment authorization and/or EAD validity for

some renewal applicants if the adjudication of their renewal EAD

application is not completed before their current EAD expires. Those

lapses can lead to lost wages for affected workers, lost output and

turnover costs for employers, and associated reductions in payroll and

income tax contributions for the duration of the lapse. DHS also

acknowledges that such impacts may be more pronounced in certain

localities, sectors, or communities where EAD holders represent a

substantial share of the workforce, and that employers and governments

may face transitional challenges as they adjust to this change.

While DHS faces uncertainty in projecting the size of any future

affected population and the magnitude of resulting macroeconomic

impacts, under several assumptions DHS has estimated the impacted

population and cost-impacts for a specific window of time. As explained

in the IFR and earlier in this preamble, EAD processing times have

fluctuated over recent years due to changes in application volumes,

programmatic policies, resource levels, and court orders. DHS has also

undertaken significant policy changes, such as narrowing the use of

parole and better aligning TPS and related programs with statutory

criteria, that are expected to materially reduce initial and renewal

EAD filings over time. Given this evolving environment, DHS estimates

of the number of renewal applicants who might experience lapses in the

absence of automatic extensions population, and the resultant impact

estimates, likely face significant variation. For this reason, we

clearly articulate the assumptions and inputs relied upon to make the

estimates and provide ranges for them.

With respect to commenters' concerns about reduced tax revenues and

increased uncompensated care, DHS acknowledges that lower earned income

during periods when some workers are not employed could reduce certain

tax payments and contributions toward employer-sponsored health

coverage for those individuals. At the same time, total tax receipts

and healthcare costs depend on numerous factors across the broader

economy, and DHS cannot attribute or forecast such aggregate effects

with sufficient precision to support a quantitative estimate specific

to this rule.

DHS also does not agree that ending automatic extensions will

necessitate or require a shift of large numbers of workers into

unauthorized employment.\96\ While DHS acknowledges that unauthorized

work can create an underground labor market where exploitation is more

likely and enforcement more difficult, this rule does not require or

condone unauthorized employment. The INA prohibits the knowing

employment of unauthorized aliens and establishes consequences for both

employers and aliens who engage in such conduct. See INA sec. 274A, 8

U.S.C. 1324a; 8 CFR part 274a. DHS will continue to enforce those

provisions, as well as coordinate with the Department of Labor and

other agencies on labor-rights enforcement and protection of workers,

regardless of immigration status. Nothing in this rule alters existing

worker-protection authorities or the ability of Federal, State, or

local entities to investigate and remedy labor law violations.

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

\96\ The final rule making the up to 540-day automatic extension

period permanent was based on speculative assumptions given the

operational realities at USCIS at the time. See 89 FR 101208, 101245

(noting ``the purpose of this final rule is to provide a long-term

solution to mitigate the potential for unpredictable circumstances

to significantly increase renewal EAD application processing times

that would require future urgent action'').

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

DHS further notes that this rule does not change underlying

eligibility criteria for employment authorization or prevent renewal

applicants from obtaining employment authorization and/or an EAD.

Eligible aliens remain able to apply for and receive renewed EADs, and,

once those renewals are approved, continue contributing economically

through lawful employment. DHS expects that other policy changes that

DHS has made will reduce EAD filing volumes, and when combined with

ongoing process improvements and careful resource allocation within

USCIS, will lessen the frequency and duration of any future lapses in

employment authorization and/or EADs.\97\ DHS has seen falling

[[Page 65333]]

numbers of I-765 applications since October 2025. See Table 1 in

Section IV.C.2.i.d. of this preamble.

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

\97\ See Table 1 in Section IV.C.2.i.d. of this preamble for

numbers of I-765 applicants from the largest eligibility categories,

the C08 and C09, from January 2025 to June 2026.

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

Renewal applicants can further reduce their risk of a temporary

lapse in employment authorization by filing as early as permitted under

applicable regulations and form instructions, ensuring that their

application includes all evidence needed to establish continued

eligibility so that processing is not delayed by a Request for

Evidence, and by keeping informed of current processing-time

information posted by USCIS.\98\ Proper planning by applicants,

together with anticipated reductions in overall EAD demand, may help

mitigate the extent of any temporary disruptions.

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

\98\ USCIS publishes case processing times on USCIS.gov that are

regularly updated. See USCIS, Case Processing Times, https://egov.uscis.gov/processing-times (last visited May 8, 2026).

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

As discussed above, DHS believes the public safety, national

security and benefit-integrity benefits of eliminating automatic

extensions outweigh the potential macroeconomic and local economic

costs identified by commenters. Ending the practice of providing

automatic extension of employment authorization documents enhances the

benefit integrity in adjudications of employment authorization requests

and better protects public safety and national security by ensuring

that aliens are properly vetted and determined to continue to be

eligible (and merit a favorable exercise of discretion, if applicable)

for employment authorization before such authorization is provided to

the alien.

iii. Relief for Specific Immigration Categories

a. Impact on Refugees, Asylees, Asylum Seekers, Unaccompanied Alien

Children (UACs), and Other Humanitarian Categories

Comment: Multiple commenters stated that refugees, asylees, TPS

beneficiaries, VAWA self-petitioners, and unaccompanied children will

be disproportionately harmed by gaps in work authorization because of

their vulnerability, limited access to public benefits, which makes

work authorization crucial to their wellbeing, and reliance on work to

support themselves, safety, and integration. A commenter indicated that

the IFR would not only destabilize the workforce, but would inflict

unconscionable distress and cause lasting harm to refugees, asylees

(including those with pending claims) and other humanitarian entrants

and their families, solely on account of the government's processing

delay and the impact of lapses in employment on this population.

Some commenters expressed concern that asylum seekers of specific

nationalities including Haitians, Ukrainians, Asian Americans and

Pacific Islanders, and Afghans were disproportionally affected by the

IFR. Additionally, some of these commenters indicated that these aliens

did not enter through an unknown or informal process but known, vetted

and humanitarian programs, and are law-abiding and productive

individuals that benefited the government and the economy. For that

reason--while at the same time acknowledging the Department's interest

in benefit integrity, security vetting, and aligning policies with

recent executive directives emphasizing enforcement and careful

screening, a commenter advocated for a narrow, risk-sensitive approach

that preserves the core logic of the interim final rule while avoiding

an ``all or nothing'' outcome for the vetted humanitarian population.

Another commenter remarked that the removal of the automatic

extension of EADs would have severe consequences for those obtaining

status through the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), in particular

Asian American and Pacific Islander women, who are particularly

vulnerable to these harms, as work interruptions can force them into

unsafe situations or dependence on abusive partners. Others indicated

that access to employment authorization offers safety, stability, and a

better quality of life for survivors of gender-based violence. One

commenter explained that abusers commonly misuse the immigration

system, for example, by threatening to withhold, withdraw, or sabotage

immigration filings, as a means of control and intimidation, and

predicted the rule would exacerbate this problem. This submission

called attention to backlogs in adjudicating EAD renewal applications

and predicted hardships for survivors and families due to lapses in

employment.

A commenter expressed concern that unaccompanied children and youth

would be negatively impacted. The commenter said that young protection

seekers, even those not yet eligible to work, often rely on EADs as a

form of government identification to access essential social services

and care such as psychological, education, and housing services. The

commenter also said that EADs ``facilitate critical access to jobs and

training opportunities for older youth.''

Response: DHS understands that refugees, asylees, asylum

applicants, TPS beneficiaries, VAWA self-petitioners, unaccompanied

children, and other humanitarian populations may be particularly

vulnerable to hardship if they experience lapses in employment

authorization and/or EAD validity. As recognized in the IFR for

purposes of all applicants, including those in humanitarian programs,

DHS is cognizant that a lapse in employment authorization and/or EAD

validity may impact individual aliens, and their families. Many

applicants in the United States may have fled persecution, violence, or

disaster, may have limited access to public benefits, and often rely

heavily on employment authorization to support themselves and their

families and to integrate into their communities.

This rule does not eliminate access to employment authorization for

any of these categories. Refugees and asylees (not including asylum

applicants) remain employment authorized incident to their status under

8 CFR 274a.12(a); they may continue to work so long as they maintain

that status, regardless of the expiration date on any EAD issued as

evidence of that authorization. Similarly, aliens with a pending asylum

application may apply for employment authorization in accordance with

the regulations provided at 8 CFR part 208 and 8 CFR part 274a. TPS

beneficiaries likewise receive employment authorization consistent with

section 244 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1254a, and its implementing

regulations at 8 CFR 244, and TPS-related extensions of documentation

may continue to be provided by law or Federal Register notice. This

rule does not change those underlying eligibility frameworks.

The IFR and this final rule simply end the practice of

automatically extending the validity of EADs and, for categories not

authorized incident to status, attendant employment authorization based

solely on the filing of a renewal application on or after October 30,

2025, except where extensions are provided by law or Federal Register

notice (such as certain TPS-related documents). DHS has determined that

automatic extensions of employment authorization and/or EADs, even for

vulnerable populations, present the same underlying concern: they allow

continued employment authorization and use of secure documentation for

up to 540 days based solely on a pending renewal application, before

USCIS has determined continued eligibility and that the applicant

merits a favorable exercise of discretion (if applicable) in

[[Page 65334]]

light of any new information, including potential criminal or other

derogatory information.

Consistent with Executive Orders \99\ and the Department's mission,

DHS does not believe that it is reasonable to maintain a separate

automatic extension regime for particular categories of applicants,

while at the same time addressing this core security and benefit

integrity issue. Even a risk-based approach for humanitarian programs,

as a commenter suggested, would fail to address the core concern that

some aliens could continue employment authorization, and potentially

use associated documents to obtain other benefits, without updated

vetting and adjudication. The Department has instead chosen a uniform

approach that applies the same principle across affected categories.

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

\99\ See Executive Order 14159 ``Protecting the American People

Against Invasion,'' 90 FR 8443 (Jan. 29, 2025); Executive Order

14161, ``Protecting the United States from Terrorist and Other

National Security and Public Safety Threats,'' 90 FR 8451 (Jan. 31,

2025); Presidential Proclamation 10949, ``Restricting the Entry of

Foreign Nationals To Protect the United States From Foreign

Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats,''

90 FR 24497 (June 10, 2025).

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

DHS acknowledges that some asylum applicants and other humanitarian

applicants may experience temporary lapses in employment authorization

if renewal adjudications are not completed before their current EADs

expire. Asylum applicants, in particular, may have limited access to

public benefits under existing statutes, and gaps in income may be

difficult to absorb. DHS considered these factors but concluded that

they did not outweigh the need to ensure that each renewal of

employment authorization and/or an EAD is granted only after USCIS has

completed appropriate vetting and determined that the applicant

continues to be eligible and continues to merit a favorable exercise of

discretion, if applicable.

DHS notes that, separate from this rule, asylum and refugee status

confers or may lead to eligibility for certain public benefits under

existing law, and certain other vulnerable groups may be eligible for

specialized support programs.\100\ Those frameworks are not altered by

this rule.

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

\100\ See, e.g., U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,

Domestic Violence Fact Sheet (discussing access to HHS funded

services for immigrant survivors of domestic violence), https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/special-topics/national-origin/domestic-violence/index.html (last revised Aug. 22, 2012).

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

In addition, DHS has taken steps to reduce incentives for frivolous

or non-meritorious filings that might delay adjudications for bona fide

humanitarian applicants, thereby seeking to improve processing for

those with meritorious claims. For example, in the past four years,

USCIS has seen alarming new filing trends, including a 360% overall

increase in VAWA self-petition filings.\101\ When unqualified aliens

misuse the VAWA program, it causes significant processing delays,

harming survivors with legitimate claims.\102\ On December 22, 2025,

USCIS took steps to address these issues by updating guidance in the

USCIS Policy Manual to streamline and clarify the expectations of

submitted evidence and reduce the need for Requests for Evidence and

Notices of Intent to Deny, among other clarifying changes.\103\

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

\101\ See USCIS, USCIS Restores Integrity to the VAWA Domestic

Abuse Program After Finding Rampant Fraud, https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/alerts/uscis-restores-integrity-to-the-vawa-domestic-abuse-program-after-finding-rampant-fraud (last updated Dec. 22, 2025).

\102\ Id.

\103\ See USCIS, USCIS Policy Alert: Violence Against Women Act,

PA-2025-33 (last updated Dec. 22, 2025).

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

With respect to unaccompanied children and youth, this rule does

not change any statutory protections or procedural safeguards

applicable to that population.\104\ To the extent that employment-

eligible unaccompanied children and youth seek EADs to participate in

job training opportunities for valid employment purposes, they remain

eligible to apply and, if approved, to work consistent with existing

regulations. The IFR and this final rule do not impact or prevent the

use of valid EADs as identity documents; they simply end the practice

of automatically extending the validity of employment authorization

documents for aliens who have timely filed an application to renew

their EAD in certain employment authorization categories filed on or

after October 30, 2025.

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

\104\ See, e.g., William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims

Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, Public Law 110-457 (Dec. 23,

2008).

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

DHS recognizes the heightened vulnerability of humanitarian

populations and will continue to administer those programs consistent

with statutory protections and humanitarian objectives. However, DHS

concludes that the core principle underlying this rule, namely that

renewed employment authorization should not be automatically extended

without fully completing the adjudicative review and the related

vetting, including resolution of any derogatory information identified

during the vetting process--must be applied consistently across

affected categories to fulfill DHS's national security, public safety,

and benefit integrity responsibilities. As explained in detail in the

IFR, granting benefits without fully completing the adjudicative

review, which includes proper vetting, is contrary to the statutory

mission of DHS and poses a threat to the safety and security of the

American people.\105\

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

\105\ See, e.g., Conference Report to accompany H.R. 4567

[Report 108-774], ``Making Appropriations for the Department of

Homeland Security for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2005,''

p. 74 (Oct. 9, 2004), https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-108hrpt774/pdf/CRPT-108hrpt774.pdf (recommending, among other things, the

creation of an organization to conduct ``law enforcement/background

checks on every applicant, beneficiary, and petitioner prior to

granting immigration benefits.'').

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

b. Impact on Employment-Based Nonimmigrants, Their Dependents, and

Employment-Based Green Card Applicants

Comment: Multiple commenters expressed concern about the removal of

automatic extensions of EADs for H-4 dependent spouses. Some commenters

said that eliminating automatic EAD renewal disproportionately harms

women, who make up most H-4 EAD holders. Multiple commenters raised

concerns that H-4 nonimmigrants are dependent on their spouses' H-1B

status, creating vulnerabilities.

A number of commenters remarked that current processing times for

H-4 EAD applications frequently exceed the recommended filing time of

180 days prior to the current EAD's expiration and argued the removal

of automatic extensions would result in many aliens losing employment

authorization and facing unavoidable work gaps. Commenters said that

delays in H-1B processing, from either the Department of Labor or DHS,

could adversely affect an H-4 nonimmigrant's status and application for

an EAD, complicating timely filing.

Other commenters suggested that removing the automatic extension

would significantly reduce the employability of H-4 nonimmigrants and

will cause adverse effects including family income and savings

disruption, termination of health insurance for spouses and children,

possible eviction or inability to meet mortgage obligations,

psychological stress and medical hardship, administrative burden on

employers managing I-9 reverifications, and work interruptions.

Other commenters said that H-4 EAD holders contribute significantly

to the economy through their specialized work and through taxes; have

been thoroughly vetted by USCIS; and are actively contributing to their

[[Page 65335]]

communities. The commenters indicated that the lack of a reasonable

extension period for a fully vetted and documented population of legal

residents is counterproductive to the goals of a stable immigration

system. Therefore, one commenter urged DHS to reconsider this IFR, or

revert to the previous duration of the automatic extension or extend it

to at least 240 days, to align with the current USCIS processing

timelines or exempt certain categories like C26 and other legal

resident categories who are already vetted multiple times.

Other commenters highlighted the effects of the IFR on business as

they are relying on a stable and authorized workforce to meet client

commitments, drive innovation, and support U.S. economic growth. This

commenter concluded that the IFR would primarily affect H-4 and L-2

dependents whose EAD renewals already face significant processing

delays, which in turn disrupts projects, increases administrative

burdens and cause significant financial and emotional distress to the

employees and their families. Many also believed that they could lose

their authorization to work, impacting them and the U.S. citizens they

employ. Many urged USCIS to retain the automatic extensions to reduce

backlogs and improve adjudication, reduce disruptions to businesses,

including small-businesses, and increase America's global

competitiveness.

Response: This rule does not change the underlying eligibility of

H-4, L-2, or other employment-based dependents to apply for employment

authorization and/or EAD. This final rule also does not alter the

eligibility of employment-based adjustment applicants to seek EADs

while their Form I-485 applications are pending. For nonimmigrants

whose employment authorization is incident to status and not

necessarily evidenced by an EAD (for example, certain L-2 spouses with

appropriate notation on their Form I-94), that authorization continues

for so long as the underlying nonimmigrant status remains valid,

irrespective of any separate EAD. For those whose employment

authorization is granted under 8 CFR 274a.12(c), renewal of that

authorization remains discretionary and time limited.

As is the case for all nonimmigrant classifications who were

eligible to receive an automatic extension of the validity of

employment authorization documents prior to the IFR, this rule

eliminates only the practice of providing an automatic extension of the

EAD validity and, where applicable, attendant employment authorization

based solely on a timely filed renewal EAD application on or after

October 30, 2025. DHS acknowledges that, given current and historical

processing times for some dependent and employment-based EAD

categories, as well as the steps needed to fully adjudicate and vet an

application, there may be a risk that USCIS may not complete

adjudication of every renewal application before the prior card

expires. In such cases, affected dependents and adjustment applicants

may experience temporary lapses in employment authorization and

associated impacts on income, benefits, and career continuity.

Employers may also face disruptions if they are unable to retain those

employees pending renewal.

DHS has carefully weighed these impacts against its responsibility

to ensure that renewed employment authorization is granted only after

USCIS has completed appropriate vetting and determined that the

applicant continues to be eligible and merit a favorable exercise of

discretion, if applicable. Automatic extensions for H-4, L-2, and

employment-based adjustment applicants present the same underlying

security and program integrity concerns as automatic extensions for

other categories: they allow continued employment authorization and use

of facially expired secure documentation for up to 540 days based

solely on a pending application, before USCIS has determined continued

eligibility in light of any new information, including potential

ineligibility for employment authorization or potential criminal or

other derogatory information.

For these reasons, DHS declines to preserve automatic extensions of

any length for any subset of renewal EAD applicants, including

employment-based- dependents or adjustment applicants.\106\ Providing

carve outs would perpetuate the core concern that some aliens could

continue employment authorization, and potentially use associated

documents to obtain other benefits, without updated vetting and

adjudication. The Department has instead chosen a uniform approach that

applies the same principle across affected categories.

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

\106\ See 90 FR 48799, 48810 (discussing DHS consideration of

alternatives, such as shorter automatic extensions of EADs and

outlining the security and eligibility concerns underlying rejection

of alternatives).

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

DHS notes that many employment-based EADs are linked to other

benefit requests (for example, principal nonimmigrant extensions or

adjustment applications) and that USCIS is engaged in efforts to

streamline and coordinate processing where operationally feasible.

USCIS will continue to explore process improvements to further reduce

the potential for future backlogs, including the potential for expanded

use of premium processing or other tools where authorized by statute,

while ensuring that security and integrity are not compromised.

DHS recognizes the important economic and personal contributions of

employment-based nonimmigrants, their families, and adjustment

applicants, and the disruption that lapses in employment authorization

may cause for these aliens, their employers, or to the businesses that

these aliens may have opened and operated based on their EAD.

Nevertheless, DHS concludes that the need to ensure that renewed

employment authorization is extended only after full adjudicative

review for continued eligibility (including whether the applicant

merits a favorable exercise of discretion, if applicable) and vetting,

consistent with current national security and public safety priorities,

justifies ending automatic extensions for these categories as well and

outweighs the potential impacts of temporary lapses in employment

authorization.

6. Clarification Request

Comment: A commenter requested that USCIS confirm that the filing

date governs eligibility for automatic extensions. Specifically, the

commenter sought to confirm that all timely filers before October 30,

2025, would receive automatic extensions, regardless of when their

current EAD expired.

Response: The IFR,\107\ and this final rule, do not impact the

validity of EADs that were automatically extended prior to October 30,

2025, or which are otherwise automatically extended by law or Federal

regulation in effect prior to October 30, 2025, an eligible renewal

application must have met the following conditions:

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

\107\ See 90 FR 48799, 48799 (Oct. 30, 2025).

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

The alien must have timely filed an application to renew

the employment authorization and/or EAD before the EAD expires. See 8

CFR 274a.13(d)(1)(i); \108\

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

\108\ TPS beneficiaries must have filed during the re-

registration period in the Applicable Federal Register notice; see

81 FR 82398, 82455 (Nov. 18, 2016).

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

The alien's application to renew the employment

authorization and/or EAD must have been properly filed before

[[Page 65336]]

October 30, 2025,\109\ irrespective of when the EAD expired;

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

\109\ To have been properly filed before October 30, 2025, the

alien must have submitted their application so that USCIS actually

received the properly signed application, with required fees, on or

before October 29, 2025. See 8 CFR 103.2(a)(7)(i). Accordingly, an

alien whose application was submitted but not yet received before

October 30, 2025, is ineligible for the automatic extension.

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

The renewal EAD application is based on the same

employment authorization category shown on the front of the expiring

EAD or, for an alien approved for TPS, whose EAD was issued pursuant to

either 8 CFR 274a.12(a)(12) or (c)(19); and

The alien's eligibility to apply for employment

authorization continued notwithstanding the expiration of the EAD and

was based on an employment authorization category that does not require

the adjudication of an underlying application or petition before the

adjudication of the renewal application, as may have been announced on

the USCIS website.\110\

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

\110\ The website entitled ``Automatic Employment Authorization

Document (EAD) Extension'' has since been archived in light of the

IFR but the web page is still available for viewing at https://www.uscis.gov/archive/automatic-employment-authorization-document-ead-extension (last updated Oct. 29, 2025).

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

For aliens who meet these requirements, an EAD that appears on its

face to be expired (``facially expired'') is considered unexpired for

up to 540 days from the expiration date on the front of the EAD when

combined with a Notice of Action (Form I-797C) that USCIS mails to an

applicant, indicating a timely filing (i.e., the receipt notice for the

Form I-765 issued by USCIS has a receipt date that is prior to the

expiration date on the EAD and before October 30, 2025) of the renewal

application based on the same employment eligibility category as stated

on the facially expired EAD (or in case of an EAD and I-797C notice

that contains either A12 or C19 category code--the category code need

not match for these categories. In those cases, the alien's facially

expired EAD is considered unexpired for up to 540 days from the date of

the EAD, even if the EAD expires on or after October 30, 2025.

7. Recommendations for the Automatic Extension and EAD Validity Period

Several commenters encouraged DHS to explore alternative solutions

that better balance national security, economic stability, and human

dignity.

i. Maintain the Automatic Extension, Including Various Lengths of the

Extension Period

Comment: Many commenters urged DHS to withdraw the IFR and instead

maintain the automatic extension policy. Some commenters stated that

keeping the automatic extension policy is necessary to protect workers

and their families from losing continuity of employment caused by

processing delays and protecting the economic and strategic interests

of the United States. Multiple commenters reasoned that the automatic

extension should be retained until reliable EAD renewal processing

benchmarks (for example, less than 90 days) are consistently met.

Numerous commenters said DHS should at a minimum restore the up-to-

180-day automatic extension period. Other commenters recommended

various extension periods, including up to 120 days, up to 180 days, or

up to 240 days, rather than removing extension periods entirely to

better align with the current USCIS processing timelines and ensure

minimal workforce disruption.

Response: DHS declines to adopt the commenters' suggestions.

Keeping a reduced automatic extension period would conflict with DHS's

overriding concern that granting employment authorization benefits to

aliens without those aliens being properly vetted and determined to

continue to be eligible (and merit a favorable exercise of discretion,

if applicable) based on a complete adjudicative review is contrary to

the DHS mission to enhance benefit integrity and protect public safety

and national security.\111\ As explained in the IFR,\112\ if DHS

pursued these options, aliens with derogatory information flagged

during the background check process would nevertheless still obtain an

automatic extension of some lengths (such as 180 or 240 days). These

extensions pose a security vulnerability and undermine benefit

integrity. As with the up to 540-day automatic extension, any automatic

extension duration would not eliminate the risk that an alien who

wished to fund nefarious activities could continue to work lawfully and

generate money. These same aliens could use their automatically

extended employment authorization and/or EADs to obtain valid identity

documents, which would make it easier to commit conduct detrimental to

the United States.

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

\111\ See, e.g., Conference Report to accompany H.R. 4567

[Report 108-774], ``Making Appropriations for the Department of

Homeland Security for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2005,''

p. 74 (Oct. 9, 2004), https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-108hrpt774/pdf/CRPT-108hrpt774.pdf (recommending, among other things, the

creation of an organization to conduct ``law enforcement/background

checks on every applicant, beneficiary, and petitioner prior to

granting immigration benefits.'').

\112\ See 90 FR 48810.

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

ii. Consecutive EAD Validity Periods

Comment: Numerous commenters recommended implementing consecutive

EAD validity periods so that applicants could file early without losing

work authorization, time, and money. Commenters reasoned that under the

current system, when aliens file well in advance of expiration, USCIS

routinely issues overlapping validity periods rather than starting the

new approval period at the end of the existing authorization period

resulting in early filers losing usable work authorization time. Some

commenters concluded that consecutive EAD validity periods would allow

aliens to apply far in advance, provide USCIS with a longer

adjudication window, and preserve the full period of authorized

employment.

Similarly, another commenter reasoned that EADs should be issued

for longer validity periods to reduce the frequency of renewals,

stating that a 1-year EAD is, in practice, effective for only 6 months

as renewal adjudication typically requires approximately 6 months. The

commenter wrote that the IFR ignores the operational realities, that,

although USCIS may accept EAD renewals filed more than 180 days before

expiration, the agency issues overlapping--not consecutive--validity

periods, effectively cutting into the card's usable time and forcing

applicants into an ever earlier renewal cycle.

Response: DHS considered the alternatives suggested by the

commenters but will not adopt them. DHS's top priority is the robust

vetting of all aliens in our country to better protect the safety of

American workers and the public at large. The IFR, and this final rule,

will enhance public safety by ensuring proper vetting before issuing

renewal EADs, which are important benefits, and improve program

integrity. DHS is enhancing its vetting and screening efforts,

increasing its ability to detect aliens with potentially harmful

intent, deter fraud, and place removable aliens into proceedings. USCIS

uses all provisions under the law, to the extent permissible under the

law, to deny benefits to those who are a risk to public safety and

national security. This includes more frequent vetting of aliens,

including more frequent determinations that an alien granted an EAD

continues to remain eligible for employment

[[Page 65337]]

authorization and, as applicable, continues to merit a favorable

exercise of discretion. DHS believes that it would be inconsistent with

these policy goals for USCIS to issue, concurrently or in close

proximity, multiple EADs to the same alien with consecutive validity

periods or to issue EADs with longer validity periods, as the

commenters suggest. Consecutive EADs based on the filing of multiple

renewal applications, concurrently or in close proximity, would be

tantamount to one EAD with a longer validity period. The result of

these alternatives would be less frequent vetting and eligibility

determinations, which would be directly contrary to DHS's stated policy

goal of the IFR and this final rule.

iii. Allowing Application Filing Earlier Than 180 days

Comment: Some commenters recommended extending the filing window

for EAD renewals beyond the current 180 days prior to expiration to

mitigate processing risks. A few commenters said USCIS should allow EAD

renewals to be filed 12 months prior to expiration.

Response: Although USCIS generally recommends that applicants not

file requests to renew EADs more than 180 days before the expiration of

their EADs, there is no prohibition on filing the form before a certain

date ahead of expiration. However, USCIS does not postdate the renewal

EAD in relation to an applicant's current EAD's validity period.

Therefore, applicants who file and have their EAD applications

adjudicated further ahead of the expiration of their current EADs may

have less of a risk of incurring gaps in their employment authorization

but may also have a shorter combined employment authorization validity

period.

USCIS is committed to continuing to explore processing

efficiencies, including possible expansion of premium processing for

some or all affected populations.

iv. Enhanced Vetting

Comment: Some commenters said DHS should implement enhanced

vetting, such as ongoing security checks for applicants, without

eliminating automatic extension of EADs. Other commenters recommended

DHS maintain the automatic extension of EADs for up to 540 days while

renewal applications are adjudicated, but conduct vetting on a

``particularized basis,'' noting that USCIS can use its discretionary

authority to cancel an extension in individual cases when and if

derogatory information or other concerns arise.

Response: In service of the DHS mission, and to ensure that DHS

grants benefits only after having thoroughly vetted in the context of

the renewal application and full adjudicative review for continued

eligibility (including, as applicable, whether the applicant merits a

favorable exercise of discretion), DHS declines to adopt these

recommendations. DHS has determined that automatic extensions are not

compatible with its current security and benefit integrity priorities,

even in an environment where enhanced vetting tools are used. DHS will

grant renewed employment authorization only after USCIS has reviewed a

completed application, conducted the appropriate checks, resolved any

derogatory information, and determined that the applicant continues to

be eligible and continues to merit a favorable exercise of discretion,

if applicable. Even if DHS were to cancel the extension in individual

cases, as the commenter suggests, the alien would still have had the

benefit of a renewed EAD, even if for a short time, without proper

vetting and a full eligibility adjudication, which is contrary to the

DHS mission to enhance benefit integrity and better protect public

safety and national security. Any automatic extension of employment

authorization and/or EAD validity based solely on the filing of a

renewal application, even if subsequently cancelled or terminated,

would not eliminate the risk that an alien who wished to fund nefarious

activities could continue to work lawfully and generate money, even

though the alien may not be eligible for the renewal EAD in the first

place. Thus, DHS believes granting a benefit without completely and

fully finishing the adjudicatory process (including vetting) would make

it easier for aliens engaged in nefarious activity to commit conduct

detrimental to the United States and will not adopt the commenter's

suggestion.

8. Processing Capacity and Timelines

i. Timely Processing of Renewals

Comment: A few commenters stated support for the IFR but urged

USCIS to ensure timely processing of renewals, so workers and employers

do not experience unintended lapses in employment authorization. A

commenter added that if the process cannot be completed within 180 days

of application, then the IFR is ``very unfair.'' Many commenters said

USCIS should be required to adjudicate and process all EAD applications

more quickly. Multiple commenters recommended a specific timeframe (for

example, under 90 days or under 6 months/180 days) be set for renewals

to ensure timely processing. A commenter stated that efficient, timely

processing is the only measure that genuinely improves both security

and economic stability.

Response: DHS remains committed to timely processing applications

without lowering security and vetting standards or benefit integrity.

DHS understands the importance of timely processing and strives to

adjudicate applications as efficiently as possible. However, a variety

of factors can affect processing times, such as security vetting

requirements and the total number of applications pending review. USCIS

continually monitors its resource allocations and makes adjustments, as

appropriate and feasible to ensure customer service. However, DHS

cannot commit to a maximum processing time in all cases given the need

for thorough review of each application to ensure that USCIS only

grants employment authorization after full vetting and screening of the

applicant, including resolution of any derogatory information, and

determining that the alien continues to be eligible for employment

authorization and/or an EAD and to merit a favorable exercise of

discretion, if applicable.

DHS notes that we expect overall EAD filing rates (initials and

renewals) are likely to substantially decline given actions DHS has

taken to align policy with statutory text. DHS anticipates that this

decline will free up adjudicative resources to reduce renewal EAD

processing times and the need for renewal EAD applicants in the longer

term to rely on an automatic extension of their EAD to avoid lapses in

employment authorization and/or EAD validity due to processing

delays.\113\

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

\113\ See section IV(C)(2)(i)(c), supra.

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

Therefore, aliens seeking renewal of their employment authorization

and/or EADs may not be likely to experience lapses in employment

authorization and/or EAD validity.

ii. Increase Resources and Staffing

Comment: Numerous commenters urged USCIS to focus on reducing

backlogs, improving processing capacity, and modernizing processing

systems. Some commenters discussed how the IFR offers no alternative

solutions or proposed improvements to processing times. A commenter

urged DHS to work with Congress to approve appropriations to strengthen

USCIS' capacity to consistently facilitate adjudications in a timely

manner. Some

[[Page 65338]]

commenters said it was crucial for USCIS to enhance staffing and

resource allocation to ensure that approvals are completed before

expiration of EADs. A commenter stated that USCIS should consider

redoubling resources and staffing to reduce backlogs and minimize

harmful impacts.

Response: DHS agrees that reducing backlogs, improving processing

capacity, and modernizing case-processing systems, as well as ensuring

sufficient staffing, are important objectives, and USCIS is pursuing

such efforts as permissible within its existing statutory fee authority

and broader initiatives.

For example, USCIS continuously takes steps within existing

budgetary and hiring authorities to further enhance processing

efficiency, hire new staff,\114\ reallocate personnel, refine

workflows, invest in automation,\115\ and implement the fee \116\ and

program changes directed by recent legislation and executive

actions.\117\

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

\114\ See, e.g., USICS, ``USCIS Received 35,000 Applications for

Homeland Defenders, Most for Any Job in Agency History,'' https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/news-releases/uscis-received-35000-applications-for-homeland-defenders-most-for-any-job-in-agency-history (Nov. 6, 2025).

\115\ For example, USCIS has undertaken various efforts to

incorporate AI to deliver immigration services to their customers

more efficiently. See DHS United States Citizenship and Immigration

Services--AI Use Cases, https://www.dhs.gov/ai/use-case-inventory/uscis (Last updated Feb. 12, 2026).

\116\ See DHS, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Fee

Schedule and Changes to Certain Other Immigration Benefit Request

Requirements, 89 FR 6194 (Jan. 31, 2024) (``These fee collections

fund the cost of fairly and efficiently adjudicating immigration

benefit requests, including those provided without charge to

refugee, asylum, and certain other applicants or petitioners'').

USCIS is primarily a fee-based agency. See sec. 286(m), 8 U.S.C.

1356(m) that is generally not appropriated by Congress.

\117\ See, e.g., USCIS Immigration Fees and Related Procedures

by H-R.1 Reconciliation Bill, 91 FR 22952 (Apr. 29, 2026).

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

As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, DHS has taken significant

steps to reduce the overall EAD filings that followed the unprecedented

flood of illegal immigration into the United States during previous

years.\118\ As such, DHS also expects that overall EAD filing rates

(both initials and renewals) will decline over time due to other

actions taken by USCIS, such as narrowing the use of parole and better

aligning TPS and related programs with statutory criteria. In fact,

USCIS has already seen a reduction in EAD filings since January 2025 as

evidenced by Table 1 in Section IV.C.2.i.d. of this preamble above.

USCIS notes the decreased EAD filing rates support the point made in

the IFR, that the potential lapse, and in particular the duration of

any lapse, is speculative and could be outweighed by the harm posed by

automatic extensions. DHS expects that this reduction in volume will

free adjudicative resources, and USCIS will continue to monitor its

workloads and adjust staffing and resource allocations as appropriate.

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

\118\ See 90 FR 48799, 48809 (Oct. 30, 2025). See also USCIS,

``DHS Strengthens Integrity in Nation's Immigration System, Returns

to Commonsense Legal Immigration Levels,'' https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/news-releases/dhs-strengthens-integrity-in-nations-immigration-system-returns-to-commonsense-legal-immigration (Nov.

13, 2025); Testimony of USCIS Director Joseph B. Edlow, Oversight of

the Department of Homeland Security: ICE, CBP, and USCIS: Hearing

Before the House Comm. on Homeland Security, https://docs.house.gov/meetings/HM/HM00/20260210/118916/HHRG-119-HM00-Wstate-EdlowJ-20260210.pdf, at 6, (Feb. 10, 2026), (``These critical efforts have

strengthened the integrity of our legal immigration system,

reinforced accountability, and ensured that USCIS resources are

directed toward lawful, properly filed cases.'').

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

This final rule, however, is not a backlog-management measure. It

addresses the fundamental concern that automatic extensions allow

employment authorization and/or EAD validity to continue for up to 540

days based solely on the filing of a renewal application, before USCIS

has fully completed vetting, resolved any derogatory information, and

determined that the alien remains eligible and continues to merit a

favorable exercise of discretion, if applicable. Even if additional

resources were to further improve processing times, they would not

eliminate the core security and program-integrity risk inherent in

granting automatic extensions without a full adjudication of the

application.

Comment: Multiple commenters suggested implementing premium

processing options for EAD renewals. A commenter stated that since many

applications take more than 6 months, premium processing should be an

option before ending the automatic extension. Some commenters noted

that this alternative allows employers and/or employees to determine

for themselves if the additional cost of premium processing is

reasonable and necessary for their business or individual needs. Other

commenters said DHS should focus on allowing concurrent premium

processing for H-1B, H-4, and H-4 EAD applications to provide

predictability for dependent applicants and their employers.

Response: USCIS will continue to explore expanding premium

processing for Form I-765 for affected populations.\119\ USCIS will

alert the public through the website if it expands premium processing

services to include additional classes of applicants for employment

authorization and, if so, which categories will have premium

processing.\120\

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

\119\ The statutory authority for premium processing is found at

section 286(u) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1356(u).

\120\ See DHS, USCIS, How Do I Request Premium Processing? (last

updated Mar. 23, 2026), https://www.uscis.gov/forms/all-forms/how-do-i-request-premium-processing.

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

USCIS reminds the public that, in the absence of premium

processing, an applicant may request that USCIS expedite the

adjudication of an application, including for employment authorization,

that is under USCIS jurisdiction.\121\ USCIS considers all expedite

requests on a case-by-case basis and generally requires documentation

to support such requests.\122\ The decision to expedite is within the

sole discretion of USCIS.\123\ Expediting a case generally means that

USCIS would adjudicate a benefit ahead of others, including those who

may have filed earlier, so USCIS carefully weighs the urgency and merit

of each expedite request.\124\

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

\121\ See DHS, USCIS, Expedite Requests (last updated Sep. 8,

2026), https://www.uscis.gov/forms/filing-guidance/expedite-requests.

\122\ See id.

\123\ See id.

\124\ See id.

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

Note that EADs for H-4 nonimmigrants who timely filed renewal EAD

applications before October 30, 2025, were automatically extended if

they had an unexpired Form I-94, Arrival Departure Record, showing

valid H-4 nonimmigrant status. See 8 CFR 274a.13(d)(1)(iii); 90 FR at

48804. Even under the rules prior to the IFR, however, an H-4

nonimmigrant spouse eligible for employment authorization under 8 CFR

274a.12(c)(26) was not eligible for an automatic extension of

employment authorization if their renewal application was dependent

upon the adjudication of an application to extend their H-4

nonimmigrant status. See 8 CFR 274a.13(d)(1)(iii) (Jan. 1, 2025). USCIS

is engaged in efforts to streamline and coordinate processing where

operationally feasible. USCIS will continue to explore process

improvements to further reduce the potential for future backlogs,

including the potential for expanded use of premium processing or other

tools where authorized by statute, while ensuring that security and

integrity are not compromised.

iii. Prioritize Initial EAD Reviews

Comment: A commenter reasoned that DHS resources should prioritize

initial EAD screenings, where new entrants are evaluated, rather than

duplicating

[[Page 65339]]

review efforts for previously cleared renewal applicants.

Response: Although renewal EAD applicants will already have been

vetted during the adjudication of their initial EAD applications, DHS

disagrees that review at subsequent stages, including upon the filing

of a renewal EAD application, is duplicative. Aliens may engage in

criminal activity after entry, for example, and new derogatory

information, including that which is newly obtained despite having

occurred previously, may appear at any stage. DHS will continue to

prioritize vetting with the filing of every benefit request, and DHS

will proceed with finalizing this rule to end the practice of

automatically extending employment authorization and/or EADs to ensure

that applicants do not receive benefits without full and complete

vetting in conjunction with the application and a determination that

they continue to be eligible.

9. Coordination, Guidance, and Outreach

i. Additional Guidance and Communication

Comment: A commenter said USCIS should provide clear communication

and documentation outlining the impacts of the IFR and information on

how professionals in similar situations can navigate the change

effectively. Similarly, other commenters recommended:

Clear employer guidance (such as updated I-9 instructions

and outreach);

SAVE-based verification so that employers are less

dependent on self-reported information;

An electronic notification system for renewal filing

receipt and adjudication status that employers can rely upon for

reverification purposes; and

Health-sector-specific guidance recognizing the unique

staffing obligations of hospitals, laboratories, and emergency care

providers.

Response: On October 30, 2025, USCIS published an update to section

5 of the Handbook for Employers M-274, which contains guidance for

employers regarding Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification. The

update highlighted October 30, 2025, as the relevant date to determine

whether an alien qualifies for the automatic extension announced in the

2024 Final Rule.\125\ USCIS further updated the Handbook at Section 5.1

to spell out the categories and sources of evidence for those aliens

who qualified for the automatic extension.\126\ USCIS updates the M-274

periodically, and in addition offers guidance for employers on the

agency website, hosts several monthly webinars for employers and

employees on the I-9, and maintains a Form I-9 Contact Center with a

phone number and email address.\127\

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

\125\ See USCIS, Handbook for Employers M-274, 5.0 Automatic

Extensions of Employment Authorization and/or Employment

Authorization Documents (EADs) in Certain Circumstances (last

updated Oct. 30, 2025), https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/form-i-9-

resources/handbook-for-employers-m-274/50-automatic-extensions-of-

employment-authorization-andor-employment-authorization-documents-

eads-in.

\126\ See DHS, USCIS, Handbook for Employers M-274, 5.1

Automatic Extensions Based on a Timely Filed Application to Renew

Employment Authorization and/or Employment Authorization Document

Before Oct. 30, 2025 (last updated Oct. 30, 2025), https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/form-i-9-resources/handbook-for-employers-

m-274/50-automatic-extensions-of-employment-authorization-andor-

employment-authorization-documents-eads-in/51-automatic-extensions-

based-on-a-timely-filed-application-to-renew-employment-

authorization.

\127\ See USCIS, I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification,

https://www.uscis.gov/i-9 (last updated April 2, 2025) (explaining

the relation of the M-274 to the I-9); see also USCIS, I-9 Central,

https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central (last visited May 6, 2026) (a

central website with a number of updated links on I-9 topics);

USCIS, Employment Eligibility Webinars, https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-

central/form-i-9-resources/employment-eligibility-webinars (last

visited May 6, 2026); USCIS, Form I-9 Contact Us, https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/form-i-9-contact-us (last updated April

15, 2025).

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

SAVE is an online service administered by USCIS that provides point

in time immigration status and U.S. citizenship information to federal,

state, territorial, tribal, and local agencies.\128\ SAVE is limited to

its statutory purposes \129\ and, accordingly, does not provide

employment eligibility verification to private employers. E-Verify,

which is also administered by USCIS, does provide a service that allows

employers to electronically confirm employment eligibility of newly

hired workers.

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

\128\ USCIS, SAVE (last visited Apr. 23, 2026), https://www.uscis.gov/save.

\129\ See, e.g., Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986,

Public Law 99-603, 100 Stat. 3359, 3396 (Nov. 6, 1986) (mandating

creation of an electronic system for verifying the immigration

status of alien applicants for, and recipients of, certain types of

federally funded benefits and requiring that the system be made

available to federal, state, and local agencies administering these

benefits); Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity

Reconciliation Act of 1996, Public Law 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105 (Aug.

22, 1996) (restricting immigrant eligibility for public benefits,

expanding the need for benefit-granting agencies to verify

immigration status); Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant

Responsibility Act of 1996, Public Law 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009

(Sept. 30, 1996) (requiring the former Immigration and

Naturalization Service, and now DHS as its successor, to respond to

inquiries from federal, state, and local agencies seeking to verify

or determine the citizenship or immigration status of any individual

within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose authorized by

law); REAL ID Act of 2005, Public Law 109-13, 119 Stat. 231 (May 11,

2005) (requiring state motor vehicle administrations to verify the

immigration status of alien applicants for a REAL ID driver's

license or identification card); Patient Protection and Affordable

Care Act of 2010, Public Law 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (Mar. 23, 2010)

(provided for a variety of healthcare reforms, including health

insurance benefits and subsidies for qualified aliens lawfully

present in the United States, to be verified by health and human

services agencies using SAVE); The Federal Aviation Administration

Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016 (FAA Act), Public Law

114-190, 130 Stat. 615 (Jul. 15, 2016) (directing DHS to authorize

SAVE access for airport operators to determine the eligibility of

individuals seeking unescorted access to any security identification

display area of an airport).

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

DHS will not adopt the suggestion to provide an electronic

notification system that employers can access to see information about

the status of pending applications. Employment authorization

applications may contain sensitive information. Under the Privacy Act

of 1974,\130\ Freedom of Information Act (FOIA),\131\ and other

applicable laws, regulations and policies,\132\ USCIS and other

immigration agencies are legally obligated to safeguard a petitioner's

and applicant's information and limit information sharing. Third party

access to information relating to pending application information may

result in accidental disclosure of information that is protected by

law.

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

\130\ Public Law, 88 Stat. 1896, 93-579 (Dec. 31, 1974),

codified at 5 U.S.C. 552a (specifically 5 U.S.C. 52a(b) (providing

that no agency shall disclose any records which is contained in a

system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to

another agency, except pursuant to a written request by or with the

prior written consent of the individuals to whom the record

pertains).

\131\ Public Law 89-554, 80 Stat. 378 (September 6, 1966)

codified at 5 U.S.C. 552 (see specifically 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)(C),

exempting from FOIA release materials that could reasonably be

expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy)

and DHS's implementing regulations at 6 CFR part 5 (Disclosure of

Records and Information).

\132\ See, e.g., 8 CFR part 103, specifically 8 CFR 103.2(a)(3)

and 8 CFR 103.2(b)(19)(i) and (ii) (when read together, articulating

that notification is provided only to applicants, petitioners, and

representatives).

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

However, for aliens alleging that they qualify for an automatic

extension of their employment authorization under previous rules, an

employer may use the Form I-797C, Notice of Action, that an alien

supplies for employment verification purposes, to check the status of

the underlying benefit request by going to the USCIS Case Status Online

web page \133\ and entering the receipt number on the Form I-797C.

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

\133\ See DHS, USCIS, Case Status Online, https://egov.uscis.gov

(last visited May 26, 2026).

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

As for health-sector-specific guidance, DHS appreciates the unique

staffing obligations of hospitals, laboratories, and emergency care

providers. However, the comment does not suggest the type of guidance

that would be

[[Page 65340]]

uniquely useful to this population, and DHS believes the IFR, this

final rule, and USCIS web page updates that followed the IFR and will

accompany this final rule are sufficient guidance for all affected

aliens and their employers.

ii. Accountability

Comment: A commenter suggested requiring accountability on renewal

processing times so workers and employers can plan realistically.

Another commenter recommended quarterly performance reports by

category.

Response: DHS understands the importance of timely processing and

strives to adjudicate applications as efficiently as possible. However,

as discussed above in Section IV.C.8.i. of this preamble, processing

times can be affected by a variety of factors, including security

vetting requirements, and the need for thorough review to enhance

program integrity and better protect public safety and national

security. USCIS will continue to monitor its resource allocations and

adjust, as appropriate. DHS will not commit to periodic reports at this

time beyond the processing times available on the USCIS website.\134\

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

\134\ See DHS, USCIS, Case Processing Times, https://egov.uscis.gov/processing-times (last visited May 8, 2026).

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

10. Other Alternatives and Recommendations

Comment: A commenter discussed Continuous Immigration Vetting (CIV)

as a more effective timely identification of national security and

public safety risks than point-in-time screening and vetting that

occurs only upon application submissions. Multiple commenters asked why

DHS cannot utilize ``concurrent vetting,'' an apparent reference to

CIV, as an alternative to the procedures implemented by the IFR.

Commenters noted that DHS currently employs CIV in some contexts.

Specifically, commenters noted that, ``DHS already has a system that

protects security while letting people keep working, and it has not

explained why it cannot keep using it.''

Response: DHS appreciates the commenters' focus on the role of CIV

and other automated screening tools in enhancing national security and

public safety. CIV is an event-based vetting tool that automates and

streamlines the process of notifying USCIS of potential derogatory

information in Government databases that may relate to individuals in

USCIS systems, as new information is discovered.\135\ DHS agrees that

continuous screening and vetting capabilities (including systems such

as CIV and ATLAS, along with interagency information sharing) are

important components of DHS's security efforts.

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

\135\ DHS, Privacy Impact Assessment for the Continuous

Immigration Vetting, (Feb. 14, 2019), https://www.dhs.gov/publication/dhsuscispia-076-continuous-immigration-vetting.

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

However, these tools are not a substitute for the full adjudicative

process that occurs when USCIS considers a new application for an

immigration benefit, including a renewal of employment authorization.

Continuous vetting may identify new information or trigger further

review, but it does not, by itself, resolve questions of eligibility

(including whether the alien warrants a favorable exercise of

discretion, if applicable), assess all relevant evidence, or provide

the structured context in which USCIS officers make determinations

about continued eligibility and the exercise of discretion, if

applicable. Eligibility determinations are complex and require an

officer to examine all the facts and evidence of a case prior to a

finding. Vetting, like CIV, is one part of the overall process.

A core concern addressed by the IFR and this final rule is that

automatic extensions of EADs allow employment authorization to continue

for up to 540 days based solely on the filing of a renewal application,

without USCIS first completing adjudicative review and the related

vetting, including the resolution of any derogatory information. That

is, the benefit is granted without USCIS first performing the following

actions: an eligibility determination, completing vetting and screening

checks, resolving potential hits of derogatory information in

connection with the alien, and a determination that the employment

authorization should be granted in the exercise of discretion, if

applicable. Even with continuous vetting in place, an alien could

remain work authorized under an automatic extension and use that

authorization to obtain or maintain other documents, such as driver's

licenses, including REAL ID compliant driver's licenses in some

jurisdictions, during a period when USCIS has not yet reevaluated

eligibility in light of any new information or changed circumstances.

Accordingly, DHS has determined that automatic extensions are not

compatible with its current security and benefit integrity priorities,

even in an environment where CIV and other continuous vetting tools are

used. Those tools complement but do not replace the requirement that

renewed employment authorization be granted only after USCIS has

completed the actions discussed above. Therefore, DHS declines to rely

on CIV as a basis for retaining automatic extensions of EADs.

Comment: Multiple commenters requested that USCIS withdraw or delay

the implementation of the IFR until DHS could guarantee timely EAD

processing for all categories.

Several commenters requested a grace period or transitional period

to mitigate the abrupt impacts of the IFR. Some commenters reasoned

that the IFR provided no grace period for applicants who relied on the

prior policy at the time of filing, imposing undue hardship on

individuals and families who would face employment gaps threatening

their livelihoods and financial security.

Some commenters requested specific transitional measures,

including:

Granting the automatic extension to all applicants whose

renewal applications were postmarked before the effective date of the

rule, even if received later;

Delaying the effective date of the IFR by at least 90

days;

Providing a transition period of at least 12 months for

employers and employees to adjust workforce planning and compliance

systems;

A phased transition to prevent work authorization gaps

during EAD adjudication; and

Coordinating with the Department of Health and Human

Services, the Health Resources and Services Administration, the

Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid

Services to assess workforce impacts prior to full implementation.

A few commenters urged DHS to delay implementation and open a full

notice and comment period.

Response: DHS understands that the IFR and this final rule, and any

resulting gaps in continued employment authorization, may have adverse

impacts on employers and applicants to the extent that individuals

experience disruptions in employment. However, as stated earlier in the

preamble DHS expects that overall EAD filing rates will substantially

decline and free up adjudicative resources to reduce renewal EAD

processing times. Decreasing processing times would result in a reduced

need for aliens filing renewal EAD applications to rely on an automatic

extension of their EAD to avoid potential lapses. DHS notes that USCIS

has, as expected, seen a steady decrease in overall EAD filings since

[[Page 65341]]

January 2025. See Table 1 in Section IV.C.2.i.d. of this preamble.

In addition, as discussed in Section IV.C.2.iv. of the preamble,

proper planning by an alien may allow the alien to timely file a

renewal EAD application thus mitigating the risk of experiencing

prolonged lapses in their employment authorization and/or EAD validity.

Ultimately, granting benefits without proper vetting and full

adjudication is contrary to the DHS mission to enhance benefit

integrity and better protect public safety and national security.\136\

DHS believes that these policy goals outweigh concerns about potential

backlogs and operational challenges that may result in a temporary

lapse of employment authorization and/or EAD validity. Therefore, DHS

declines to adopt the commenters' suggested transitional measures or

otherwise delay implementation of this rule.

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

\136\ See, e.g., Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 4567

[Report 108-774], ``Making Appropriations for the Department of

Homeland Security for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2005,''

p. 74 (Oct. 9, 2004), https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-108hrpt774/pdf/CRPT-108hrpt774.pdf (recommending, among other things, the

creation of an organization to conduct ``law enforcement/background

checks on every applicant, beneficiary, and petitioner prior to

granting immigration benefits.'') (last visited May 26, 2026).

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

Comment: A commenter reasoned that an alternative to ending the

policy of automatic extensions would be a more concerted effort to

explain the 540-day automatic extension to employers who may be

confused. The commenter suggested ``(1) conducting outreach and public

engagements with employers, unions, and associations of human resources

staff to explain the extensions; (2) posting about the extensions on

its websites or social media platforms; and (3) creating fact sheets,

FAQs, and other materials that explain the extensions in accessible

language.''

Response: DHS conducted most, if not all, of the outreach the

commenter suggested following publication of the 2024 TFR and 2024

final rule.\137\ However, additional outreach would not resolve

concerns with the automatic extension framework. For example, employers

are required to use an applicant's unsecure Form I-797, Notice of

Action, with separate web pages and tools to determine whether, and for

how long, an alien employee remains in an automatically extended period

of employment authorization. Further, additional outreach would not

address the fact that employers do not receive direct notice if their

alien employees' pending EAD renewal applications have been denied,

which creates a risk that employers could unwittingly engage in

unauthorized employment and provide income to aliens with potentially

nefarious motives.

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

\137\ 89 FR 24628 (Apr. 8, 2024) (temporarily increased the

automatic extension period to up to 540 days); 89 FR 101208 (Dec.

13, 2024) (permanently increased the automatic extension period to

up to 540 days).

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

After considering these concerns, DHS determined that continued

reliance on the 540-day automatic extension, even with expanded

outreach and educational materials, would not sufficiently address

these compliance and program integrity risks. DHS will continue to

provide clear, accessible information about employment authorization

validity through its public-facing resources.

DHS notes that the justification for the IFR and this final rule is

to enhance benefit integrity and better protect public safety and

national security. While employer confusion is relevant to the

integrity of the EAD program, conducting more outreach to employers to

eliminate potential confusion would not address the primary concerns

addressed by the IFR and this final rule. Therefore, DHS declines to

adopt this suggestion.

Comment: Additional alternatives and recommendations included

suggestions of specific remedies for applicants:

Implementing 90-day Service Level Agreements (SLAs) with

fee refunds for delays.

Allowing automatic extensions for applicants who file

their EAD applications at least nine months before their current EADs

expire and committing to adjudicating those applications within nine

months.

Enabling interim I-9 verification during card production.

Allowing automatic extensions for certain EAD categories

for which vetting may take longer than others.

Response: DHS has considered the alternatives noted above as well

as a return to previous practices. USCIS generally does not refund fees

to applicants for immigration benefits. See 8 CFR 103.2(a). While DHS

continues to focus on ways to improve processes, DHS will not commit to

allowing automatic extensions or interim verification for certain EAD

application categories because the time it takes to vet an applicant is

entirely dependent on the applicant and his or her case history and

vetting is just one part of the overall adjudicative review to

determine continued eligibility and that the applicant continues to

merit a favorable exercise of discretion, if applicable. DHS is also

not enabling interim I-9 verification during EAD production because

approval notices are not secure documents establishing proof of current

work authorization. USCIS notices can only be used in the very limited

circumstances where DHS has expressly authorized a specific combination

for I-9 purposes in the M-274 Handbook for Employers.\138\

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

\138\ See DHS, USCIS, Handbook for Employers M-274 (last updated

July 7, 2026), https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/form-i-9-resources/

handbook-for-employers-m-274. For example, a USCIS approval notice

that extends an H-1B worker's nonimmigrant status, together with the

attached Form I-94, may serve as evidence of that worker's continued

employment authorization.

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

DHS is not enacting the suggested alternatives because it is

prioritizing national security and public safety and is determined to

cease any provision of employment authorization documents to ineligible

aliens.\139\

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

\139\ See E.O. 14161, Protecting the United States from Foreign

Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats

(Jan. 20, 2025), 90 FR 8451, 8451 (Jan. 30, 2025); see E.O. 14159,

Protecting the American People Against Invasion (Jan. 20, 2025), 90

FR 8443, 8446 (Jan. 29, 2025).

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

11. Administrative Procedure Act

i. ``Good Cause'' for Bypassing the Notice and Comment Period

Comment: Numerous commenters stated that DHS failed to demonstrate

valid ``good cause'' to bypass the standard notice and comment process.

Commenters said that immediate implementation without notice and

comment rulemaking represents a ``significant procedural failure.'' Two

commenters requested that USCIS reconsider the decision to immediately

implement the IFR and that fair advance notice should be given in the

future.

Other commenters stated that the described ``security vulnerability

that could allow bad actors to continue to work and generate income to

potentially finance nefarious activities that pose an imminent threat

to the American public'' had no causal connection to the automatic

extension, was speculative, unsupported by any reliable evidence, and

at any rate that a single example of potential adverse consequence is

insufficient to establish the meticulous and demanding good cause

standard. Commenters indicated that the analysis was devoid of specific

factual allegations of harm or threat to public safety.

Commenters also indicated that the IFR failed to explain how the

incident in Boulder was related to the automatic work authorization

extension provision or why this one incident, even if related, would

justify the impact the termination of this rule would have on hundreds

of thousands of workers and their U.S. employers.

[[Page 65342]]

Many commenters stated that DHS's claim that providing a notice and

comment period would cause noncitizens to ``rush'' to file EAD renewal

applications was unfounded. One commenter said that this ``rush'' is

unlikely given that USCIS instructs applicants not to file more than

180 days before their current EAD expires, and because the high renewal

fees make rapid, unplanned filings less feasible.

Multiple commenters said that to properly invoke the ``good cause''

exemption, the claimed harm must be ``demonstrable and immediate--like

war, health crisis, or economic collapse.'' The commenters noted that

DHS recognizes that ``good cause'' has been limited to quantifiable

threats, such as in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks or hurricanes,

and that one anecdote is insufficient evidence of ``demonstrable and

immediate'' harm at the scale of economic collapse. They also asserted

that DHS failed to establish that the attack would not have occurred in

the absence of automatic renewals, or that it would have been detected

or prevented with additional vetting. Finally, these commenters also

indicated that there was no good cause because DHS failed to overcome

indisputable evidence that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes

than native-born citizens.

Response: DHS disagrees with the commenters that DHS failed to meet

the good cause standard under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or that DHS did not

provide sufficient factual evidence of a public security risks to

justify bypassing notice and comment procedures. DHS maintains that,

under the totality of the circumstances, bypassing notice and comment

procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) was justified to act swiftly and

expeditiously, as notice and comment procedures would have been

impracticable or contrary to public interest.

DHS also disagrees that the IFR was devoid of specific factual

allegations of harm or threat to public safety, that the harm was

speculative, and that the solution of the IFR was not rationally

connected to the need for immediate action. The IFR clearly explained

the relevance of the Boulder incident and its connection to the

automatic extension,\140\ and why the measure was justified,

notwithstanding the impact of the automatic extension's termination on

aliens and employers. DHS notes that it has now considered all comments

received on the IFR and responded to them in this preamble, thereby

providing the notice and comment process sought by commenters.\141\

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

\140\ See 90 FR 48799, 48808 (Oct. 30, 2025) (explaining that

the need to fully vet applicants for renewal EADs became clear when

an alien with an automatically extended EAD perpetrated a heinous

attack that injured many people in Boulder, Colorado on June 1,

2025).

\141\ Cf. Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home

v. Pennsylvania, 591 U.S. 657, 683-84 (2020) (holding that an

agency's IFR complied with the APA's procedural requirements under 5

U.S.C. 553(b)(2)-(3)).

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

DHS believes that commenters may have misunderstood the risks

associated with granting automatic extensions of an alien's expired

employment authorization and/or EAD that is merely based on the timely

filing of a renewal EAD application but not on fully vetting an

applicant's eligibility or background. As explained in the IFR, aliens

could obtain an automatic extension even if they no longer qualified

for employment authorization and/or an EAD. Examples include if the

alien no longer possessed the underlying status, had derogatory

information that would render them ineligible for employment

authorization, or would not merit a favorable exercise of discretion,

if applicable. These aliens could properly file a timely renewal

application to obtain the benefit of continued employment authorization

and/or an EAD for up to 540 days. This would allow aliens who could be

public safety or national security threats to use associated

documentation to potentially obtain other credentials, such as driver's

licenses, and use it to engage in nefarious activities.

Unfortunately, aliens committing harmful acts and those engaging in

nefarious activities do not operate on a schedule that aligns neatly

with them seeking benefits applications. They may or may not engage in

harmful activity post-approval of an application granting immigration

status. Attacks, such as the one in Boulder, Colorado, are tough to

predict, but they may not be impossible to stop with proper and

thorough vetting and intelligence sharing among government agencies

each time an alien is seeking immigration benefits.\142\ Congress has

long emphasized the importance of vetting each and every applicant

before an immigration benefit is granted.\143\ Fully vetting each

applicant during every USCIS encounter helps identify patterns, flags

activities, alerts officials to potential threats, and protects U.S.

residents from harm. The attack in Boulder, Colorado--committed by an

alien in possession of an EAD that was automatically extended--provided

clear evidence of the ongoing public emergency, exposed the security

vulnerability of the automatic extension, and demonstrated that every

time USCIS is granting a benefit without fully vetting an applicant, an

opportunity is lost to detect bad actors and protect the public. The

public's response to the Boulder event underscored the urgency to act

to safeguard public safety,\144\ and DHS acted accordingly.

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

\142\ It is DHS's mandate, among others, to prevent terrorist

attacks and administer immigration laws, including administering the

laws pertaining to employment authorization. For purposes of grating

employment authorizations to aliens, the authority is delegated to

USCIS. DHS acknowledges the commenters reference to statistics

indicating that aliens may commit less crimes than native born

citizens. This rule deals exclusively with aliens. Therefore, the

information as well as the comparison is irrelevant to the matter at

hand.

\143\ See Conference Report to accompany H.R. 4567 [Report 108-

774], ``Making Appropriations for the Department of Homeland

Security for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2005,'' p. 74,

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-108hrpt774/pdf/CRPT-108hrpt774.pdf (last visited May 26, 2026).

\144\ The public, including members from Congress, criticized

immigration and law enforcement authorities, including DHS, for not

detecting the alien's activities and not protecting the public. They

emphasized the urgency to fix security vulnerabilities. See

``Chairman Pfluger, Green Request DHS Documents on Suspect in

Boulder Terror Attack'' (June 4, 2025), https://homeland.house.gov/2025/06/04/chairmen-green-pfluger-request-dhs-documents-on-suspect-in-boulder-terror-attack (``This tragedy is indicative of a

heightened terrorism threat on U.S. soil, signaling an urgent need

for increased homeland security measures, particularly with respect

to foreign nationals who are unlawfully present in the United

States, as Soliman reportedly overstayed a nonimmigrant visa. Our

nation has now faced several major acts of antisemitic terror this

year alone, including the recent assassination of two Israeli

embassy staffers in our nation's capital.''); see CPR.org,

``Colorado notified feds after failed gun purchase by accused

Boulder firebomber, months before the attack'' (June 6, 2025),

https://www.cpr.org/2025/06/10/cbi-notified-homeland-security-after-attempted-gun-purchase-by-boulder-attacker (questioning how DHS's

failure to probe Soliman's attempted purchase or how, more broadly,

they approach immigration enforcement investigations through the

National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which tracks and

notifies authorities when people without legal status attempt to buy

guns).

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

If DHS had announced the change, and followed the standard

rulemaking procedures, the automatic extension process would have

continued during the time spent developing this final rule. During that

period, aliens with unresolved derogatory information could have

obtained an automatically extended EAD. Even if USCIS had ultimately

denied the actual application, the documents related to the

automatically extended EAD would remain in possession of the affected

alien, even if they were engaging in nefarious activity. Indeed, the

automatically extended EAD may have given the attacker the very thing

that enabled him to follow through with the attack in the first place.

This demonstrates that the threat of attacks, as shown by the events in

Boulder,

[[Page 65343]]

Colorado, is real, immediate, and ongoing.

If DHS had announced the rulemaking, DHS believes that aliens would

have rushed to file renewal EAD applications to obtain automatic

extensions before the rule's effective date. DHS does not believe that

USCIS' instructions to renewal applicants to file 180 days before the

expiration of their authorization would have helped in this regard as

it would have been unclear how quickly a final rule would be issued by

DHS.

Similarly, DHS does not agree that renewal fees necessarily make

rapid, unplanned filings less feasible. Historically, increased filing

fees have not depressed the number of individuals seeking immigration

benefits, and fee waivers are still available for some applicants.\145\

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

\145\ See, e.g., 89 FR 6194, 6355 (Jan. 31, 2024) (``DHS saw no

or limited decreases in the number of benefit requests submitted

after its fee adjustments in 2010, 2016, and 2020 and has no data

that would indicate that the fees for family-based benefit requests,

lawful permanent residence, and naturalization in this final rule

would prevent applicants from filing.'').

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

For these reasons, allowing automatic extension to continue for the

duration of the notice and comment period would have been irresponsible

given the high threat level.\146\ It would also have been contrary to

the public interest, impeding DHS's ability to fully execute its

functions--to vet every EAD applicant with each application to prevent

terrorist attacks and grant immigration benefits only to eligible

aliens.

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

\146\ See E.O. 14159, 90 FR 8443 (Jan. 29, 2025); see also,

e.g., Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Annual Threat

Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community (March 2025), at 5,

https://www.intelligence.gov/annual-threat-assessment (last visited

Sep. 9, 2026), (``Transnational criminals, terrorists, and other

nonstate actors are threatening and impacting the lives of U.S.

citizens, the security and prosperity of the Homeland, and U.S.

strength at home and abroad. Some transnational criminal

organizations (TCOs) are producing and trafficking large amounts of

illicit drugs that are imperiling American lives and livelihoods.

They are conducting other illegal activities that challenge U.S.

security, such as human trafficking, cyber operations, money

laundering, and inciting violence. U.S. citizens--at home and

abroad--are also facing more diverse, complex, and decentralized

terrorist threats. Actors, ranging from designated Foreign Terrorist

Organizations--including the Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham

(ISIS), al-Qa`ida, other Islamist terrorist groups, and some drug

cartels--to terrorists acting alone or in small cells, are likely to

pursue, enable, or inspire attacks. Finally, large-scale illegal

immigration has strained local and national infrastructure and

resources and enabled known or suspected terrorists to cross into

the United States.''). For additional information and updated

information on the national security risks and threat assessments,

see Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Annual Threat

Assessment of the U.S., https://www.intelligence.gov/annual-threat-assessment (last visited Sep. 9, 2026).

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

Finally, DHS is not aware of any case law--and the commenters did

not cite to any--requiring that good cause can only be demonstrated if

there has been more than one incident that causes an emergency or that

the demonstrable and immediate harm must be of the scale of an

``economic collapse'' or a 9/11-type of event. Similarly, the

government is not required to prove that the Boulder, Colorado attack

would not have occurred in the absence of automatic extension renewals.

The applicable APA standard is whether ``notice and public procedure

thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public

interest.'' \147\ This standard is met when, inter alia, there is an

emergency; when delay caused by the APA's notice and comment procedures

would result in serious harm to life, property or an immediate threat

to the public safety; or when announcing the rule would have hurt the

public interest.\148\ DHS has met the standard.

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

\147\ 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

\148\ See 90 FR 48812-14.

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

Immediately ending the practice and acting expeditiously given the

security posture was a reasonable measure. As is noted throughout this

rulemaking, this rule does not remove the alien's ability to seek and

obtain employment authorization in accordance with current laws and

regulations. To address the prior flood of EAD applications, as

discussed earlier, this administration has taken significant actions

that are expected to result in fewer EAD applications and shorter

renewal EAD processing times.\149\

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

\149\ See 90 FR 48799, 48809 (Oct. 30, 2025). See also USCIS,

``DHS Strengthens Integrity in Nation's Immigration System, Returns

to Commonsense Legal Immigration Levels,'' https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/news-releases/dhs-strengthens-integrity-in-nations-immigration-system-returns-to-commonsense-legal-immigration (last

updated Nov. 13, 2025); Testimony of USCIS Director Joseph B. Edlow,

Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security: ICE, CBP, and

USCIS: Hearing Before the House Comm. on Homeland Security, https://docs.house.gov/meetings/HM/HM00/20260210/118916/HHRG-119-HM00-Wstate-EdlowJ-20260210.pdf, at 6, (Feb. 10, 2026), (``These critical

efforts have strengthened the integrity of our legal immigration

system, reinforced accountability, and ensured that USCIS resources

are directed toward lawful, properly filed cases.'') (last visited

May 26, 2026).

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

Additionally, the issuance of employment authorization and/or an

EAD depends largely on the applicant timely filing a renewal EAD

application with sufficient evidence to establish eligibility. Thus,

early and timely filing of a renewal application may allow the alien to

mitigate or reduce the risk for the alien, the alien's family, and the

alien's employer. DHS does not anticipate, nor have commenters provided

evidence, that the IFR will adversely impact hundreds of thousands of

workers and their U.S. employers. This assessment considers efforts to

reduce the number of filings through policy and operational measures,

as well as expected improvements in processing resulting from the

overall reduction in filings. While DHS cannot rule out the potential

for temporary lapses in employment authorization, DHS believes that the

program integrity, public safety, and national security benefits of

eliminating automatic extensions of EADs outweigh the risks of

potential temporary lapses in employment authorization.

Immediately ending the practice of providing automatic extensions

resulted in continued improvement in program integrity by ensuring that

employment authorization is provided in a manner consistent with the

laws of the United States, allowed the agency to properly perform its

adjudicative function, and immediately closed the gap in the security

vulnerability that the automatic extension created.

ii. ``Foreign Affairs'' Exception

Comment: Many commenters stated that DHS improperly relied on the

exception for to a pre-promulgation notice-and-comment for rules

involving the ``foreign affairs function of the United States.''

Commenters stated that this exception has a ``high bar'' and courts

have warned against ``[t]he dangers of an expansive reading of the

foreign affairs exception'' in the immigration context, where

inevitable ``incidental foreign affairs effects'' would effectively

``eliminate[ ] public participation in this entire area of

administrative law.'' Other commenters said that DHS does not explain

how, or cite anything to substantiate its allegation that, the comment

period would disrupt foreign affairs, other than reiterate the national

security crisis as demonstrated by the recent events in Boulder,

Colorado. The commenters stated that these speculative and vague claims

cannot support a ``foreign affairs'' exception.

Response: DHS disagrees that it did not explain how, or cite

anything to substantiate, its explanation that the rulemaking involves

a ``foreign affairs function of the United States.'' \150\ DHS further

explained that the comment period would disrupt a foreign affairs

function because the practice of granting automatic extensions involves

the status of people and the transfer of goods across the border, and

ending the practice of granting automatic extensions directly

implicates foreign

[[Page 65344]]

affairs because of the significance a decline in remittances can have

on many countries. Eliminating the practice of providing automatic

extensions based on the filing of a renewal EAD application is also

part of the implementation of the President's foreign policy

directives, thus further implicating a foreign affairs function.\151\

Engaging in notice and comment procedure also would have resulted in

undesirable international consequences, as outlined in the IFR.\152\

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

\150\ 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1).

\151\ See 90 FR 48814 and footnote 139. DHS is addressing the

comments related to the application of Secretary Rubio's foreign

affair determination in response to the next comment.

\152\ See 90 FR 48814-15.

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

Specifically, DHS explained in detail why ending the practice of

providing employment authorization based on the filing of an EAD

renewal application will also impact foreign remittances sent abroad,

to the extent that such remittances include money earned through

employment based on automatically extended employment authorization

cards and EADs. Reductions in remittances, including those stemming

from changes in U.S. immigration policies have been viewed unfavorably

by other countries.\153\ DHS also established how remittances may pose

international money laundering and terrorist financing risks. Thus,

ending the practice of providing unvetted employment authorization and/

or documents, and fully vetting these aliens, particularly those coming

from regions or nations with identified security risks, as well as

economic impacts on other countries on account of the U.S. immigration

policies, involves more cautious and sensitive considerations of those

matters as they could easily impact foreign nations.\154\

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

\153\ Id.

\154\ 90 FR 48815.

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

Further, as also indicated in the IFR, having to engage in notice

and comment rulemaking on such matters may lead to the disclosure of

sensitive intelligence related to the reasons why the administration is

taking this step in the first place.

Overall, these consequences were neither speculative nor vague.

Comment: Multiple commenters stated that DHS's justifications for

invoking the foreign affairs function exception were both unsupported

and overbroad, relying on a recent notice from the Secretary of State

claiming that virtually all border-related activities constitute

``foreign affairs.'' One commenter added that this notice has no legal

effect, as agencies cannot define the scope of the APA or its

exceptions. Another commenter stated that the IFR regulates domestic

employment authorization, not foreign affairs. The commenter said that

courts apply the foreign affairs function exception only when an agency

action clearly implicates foreign relations or when notice and comment

would provoke ``undesirable international consequences,'' neither of

which are justified in the IFR.

Response: Nothing in the law prevents the Secretary from adopting

the foreign affairs determination made by Secretary Rubio for

rulemaking purposes.

As outlined in the IFR, the Secretary has broad general authority

under section 103(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1103(a) to administer and

enforce ``this chapter and all other laws relating to the immigration

and naturalization of aliens, except insofar as this chapter or such

laws relate to the powers, functions, and duties conferred upon the

President, the Attorney General, the Secretary of State, the officers

of the Department of State, or diplomatic or consular officers . . .

.'' See INA sec. 103(a)(1); 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(1).

The Department of State is the agency that is leading interagency

coordination in developing and implementing foreign policy and foreign

affairs matters. Correspondingly, DOS and DHS are called upon to

coordinate often, including in numerous Presidential actions reflecting

the President's top foreign policy priorities, such as E.O. 14161 upon

which this action is based. The Secretary of Homeland Security and the

Secretary of State both derive their authority from the law and the

powers granted to the executive. Thus, it is appropriate for the

Secretary of Homeland Security, in fulfilling the Secretary's

responsibilities under the APA and this rulemaking, to refer to

Secretary Rubio's determination. This approach ensures also that the

government presents a unified position on issues related to entry,

status, immigration and the removal of aliens, in alignment with the

President's foreign policy determination and objectives.\155\

Correspondingly, DHS continues to find that EADs and employment

authorizations, including automatic extensions under former 8 CFR

274a.13(d), are directly connected to the alien's status or authorized

period of stay, because eligibility for employment authorization and/or

documentation is dependent on the alien's status or circumstances.

Because the grant of employment authorization and/or EADs is integral

to the control of aliens, and affects the transfer and movements of

goods, including money across the U.S. border, these actions fall

within the Secretary's foreign affairs determination and within the

President's foreign policy directives, thereby clearly involving and

implicating the foreign affairs functions.

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

\155\ See, e.g., Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 409

(2012) (recognizing that decision on removability requires a

determination whether it is appropriate to allow a foreign national

to continue living in the United States. Decisions of this nature

touch on foreign relations and must be made with one voice).

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

iii. Reasoned Decision-Making Requirement

Comment: Many commenters, including organizations and a form letter

campaign, said that, not even a year ago, DHS determined that a 540-day

automatic extension of employment authorization was necessary to meet a

Congressional mandate. However, the IFR eliminates automatic extensions

entirely without any new evidence or a coherent rationale to justify

such a reversal. The commenters reasoned that the IFR fails to satisfy

the ``reasoned decision-making'' requirement of the APA and cited FCC

v. Fox Television Stations, 556 U.S. 502 (2009).

Response: DHS disagrees with the commenters' assertion that the IFR

did not provide a reasoned justification for the rulemaking. The IFR

discussed the prior rulemakings pertaining to EAD automatic extensions

and then explained that this administration's priority is the robust

vetting of all aliens in our country to better protect the safety of

American workers and the public at large. 90 FR 48799, 48808 (Oct. 30,

2025). The IFR also explained that this rulemaking will enhance public

safety by ensuring proper vetting before issuing renewal EADs, which

are important benefits, and improve program integrity. See 90 FR 48799,

48804 (Oct. 30, 2025). DHS is enhancing its vetting and screening

efforts, increasing its ability to detect aliens with potentially

harmful intent, deter fraud, and place removable aliens into

proceedings. DHS uses all applicable provisions under the law to help

protect the United States from those who pose a risk to public safety

and national security.

The IFR, and this final rule, ends the practice of automatically

extending the validity of employment authorization documents, so that

DHS can take appropriate action before an immigration benefit is again

provided to an alien. The IFR discussed specific examples of the harm

that could result from continuing to automatically extend an alien's

expired employment authorization and/or EAD merely by filing a timely

renewal EAD

[[Page 65345]]

application.\156\ The IFR also explained that such automatic extensions

grant the benefit without USCIS first performing the following actions:

an eligibility determination, completing vetting and screening checks,

resolving potential hits of derogatory information, and a determination

that the employment authorization should be granted in the exercise of

discretion, if applicable.\157\ Without the IFR, and this final rule,

aliens could still obtain an automatic extension despite derogatory

information that could flag them as a national security or public

safety risk. As described above, vetting and screening might not be

completed and derogatory information reviewed and resolved before the

alien's EAD expires. The automatic extension, therefore, poses a

security vulnerability that could allow bad actors to continue to work

and generate income to potentially finance nefarious activities that

pose an imminent threat to the American public. Granting benefits

without proper vetting and full adjudication is contrary to the DHS

mission to enhance benefit integrity and better protect public safety

and national security.\158\

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

\156\ See 90 FR at 48807-48808.

\157\ See 90 FR at 48808.

\158\ See, e.g., Conference Report to accompany H.R. 4567

[Report 108-774], ``Making Appropriations for the Department of

Homeland Security for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2005,''

p. 74 (Oct. 9, 2004), https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-108hrpt774/pdf/CRPT-108hrpt774.pdf (recommending, among other things, the

creation of an organization to conduct ``law enforcement/background

checks on every applicant, beneficiary, and petitioner prior to

granting immigration benefits.'') (last visited May 26, 2026).

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

iv. Arbitrary and Capricious/Procedural Deficiencies That Violate the

APA

Comment: A few commenters said that the rule was arbitrary and

capricious under the APA since the rule neither adequately analyzed the

impacts on employers and the economy nor proposed mitigation

strategies. One commenter said that the IFR is arbitrary and capricious

because it provides no economic analysis of the IFR's impact,

disregards evidence of persistent backlogs and ongoing demand for work

permits, relies on speculative or unsupported assertions, and ignores

serious reliance interests. The commenter said that the IFR is

arbitrary and capricious under the APA because the agency failed to

``examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation

for its action including a rational connection between the facts found

and the choice made.''

Response: DHS disagrees with the commenters' assertions. The IFR

acknowledged and analyzed the potential impacts of the IFR but

explained that due to factors contributing to a high degree of

uncertainty, DHS cannot estimate the number of renewal EAD applicants

who will be affected by this rule. See 90 FR 48816. The analysis

included a discussion of the potential impacts on U.S. employers of

aliens with EADs. See 90 FR 48817. As explained in the IFR and in

Section V.B.1. of this preamble, given the large amount of uncertainty

pertaining to EAD filing rates and processing efficiencies, including

those stemming from recent and future policy changes that may affect

EAD eligibility, DHS was unable to produce a tenable population

estimate for the future population that could be affected by the IFR

and this final rule. See 90 FR 48817.

DHS recognizes, despite limitations on the ability to quantify

future impacts of this rulemaking, that some aliens may experience a

temporary lapse in their employment authorization and/or EAD validity

in the absence of an automatic extension, and that this could impact

the alien and their U.S. employer. As explained earlier in this

preamble, DHS has determined that the program integrity, public safety,

and national security benefits of eliminating automatic extensions of

EADs outweigh the risks of potential temporary lapses in employment

authorization.

Comment: A commenter said that DHS provides no estimate of how many

unionized workers are likely to lose employment authorization because

of adjudication delays, an omission that is particularly glaring given

the size of the affected workforce. The commenter added that DHS also

does not analyze how sudden, government-caused employment interruptions

could weaken labor unions or destabilize labor management planning

across sectors that depend heavily on immigrant workers. The commenter

stated that the IFR's silence on these issues underscores its arbitrary

and capricious nature, which is in violation of the APA.

Response: DHS disagrees with the commenters' assertions. The IFR

acknowledged and analyzed the potential impacts of the IFR but

explained that due to factors contributing to a high degree of

uncertainty, DHS cannot estimate the number of renewal EAD applicants

who will be affected by this rule. See 90 FR48816. As explained in the

IFR, given the large amount of uncertainty pertaining to EAD filing

rates and processing efficiencies, including those stemming from recent

and future policy changes that may affect EAD eligibility, DHS is

unable to produce a tenable population estimate for the future

population that may be affected by the IFR and this final rule. See 90

FR 48799, 48816 (Oct. 30, 2025). The degree of uncertainty is not

exclusive to non-unionized workers who might be potentially affected by

the IFR and this final rule if faced with a temporary lapse in their

employment authorization and/or EAD validity. Given the high degree of

uncertainty, DHS cannot estimate the number of unionized renewal EAD

applicants who will be affected by this rule and the impacts, if any,

that might flow to labor unions.

Comment: Multiple commenters requested that DHS withdraw the IFR in

its entirety because it violates the APA and/or is arbitrary and

capricious. One commenter said that DHS did not establish why the

current vetting is insufficient and that upending work authorization

for millions without sufficient factual data in support violates the

APA. Another commenter said that the rule violates the APA because

USCIS is removing the guardrails it acknowledged needing, without any

facts or proof that would indicate improved adjudication times.

Response: DHS disagrees with the commenters' assertions that the

IFR violates the APA, or that DHS did not provide sufficient

justification for the rule. DHS will not withdraw the IFR. DHS is

adopting the IFR as final following careful consideration of the

comments received.

The IFR and this final rule end the practice of automatically

extending the validity of employment authorization documents so that

DHS can take appropriate action before an immigration benefit is

provided to an alien. The IFR discussed specific examples of the harm

that could result from continuing to automatically extend an alien's

expired employment authorization and/or EAD merely by filing a timely

renewal EAD application and without first completing adjudicative

review and related vetting, including resolution of derogatory

information identified during the vetting process.\159\ The IFR also

explained that such automatic extensions grant the benefit without

benefit is granted without USCIS first performing the following

actions: an eligibility determination, completing vetting and screening

checks, resolving potential hits of derogatory information in

connection with the alien; and, a determination that the employment

authorization should be granted in the

[[Page 65346]]

exercise of discretion, if applicable.\160\ Without the IFR, and this

final rule, aliens could still obtain an automatic extension despite

derogatory information that could flag them as a national security or

public safety risk. As described previously, vetting and screening

might not be completed and derogatory information reviewed and resolved

before the alien's EAD expires. The automatic extension, therefore,

poses a security vulnerability that could allow bad actors to continue

to work and generate income to potentially finance nefarious activities

that pose an imminent threat to the American public. Granting benefits

without proper vetting and full adjudication is contrary to the DHS

mission to enhance benefit integrity and better protect public safety

and national security.\161\

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

\159\ 90 FR 48799 48807-48808 (Oct. 30, 2025).

\160\ 90 FR 48799, 48808 (Oct. 30, 2025).

\161\ See, e.g., Conference Report to accompany H.R. 4567

[Report 108-774], ``Making Appropriations for the Department of

Homeland Security for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2005,''

p. 74 (Oct. 9, 2004), https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-108hrpt774/pdf/CRPT-108hrpt774.pdf (recommending, among other things, the

creation of an organization to conduct ``law enforcement/background

checks on every applicant, beneficiary, and petitioner prior to

granting immigration benefits.'') (last visited May 26, 2026).

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

DHS has determined that the potential impact that some aliens may

experience a temporary lapse in the validity of their employment

authorization and/or EAD is outweighed by the need to better protect

the safety and security of the American people by ensuring that

employment authorization and/or an EAD is not granted until USCIS has

thoroughly vetted and screened the applicant, resolved any derogatory

hits, and determined that the alien continues to be eligible for the

immigration benefit and merits a favorable exercise of discretion, as

applicable.

v. Reliance Interests

Comment: Many commenters stated that the IFR disregarded

significant reliance interests that DHS itself reaffirmed when it

issued a permanent 540-day automatic extension less than one year

before the IFR. Commenters said the 2025 IFR eliminates extensions

entirely, imposing consequences DHS recently deemed economically

harmful and operationally unworkable. Several commenters added that

this reversal in policy, without new evidence or a reasoned

explanation, violates the APA.

Several commenters stated that for nearly a decade, USCIS has

automatically provided an extension of some length to some groups of

workers with expiring EADs. The commenters said that employers and

workers structured hiring, staffing, payroll planning, and employee

retention around that assurance, and now, DHS cannot abruptly withdraw

the permanent 540-day automatic extension without addressing these

significant reliance interests. The commenters said that doing so

violates core administrative law principles, because Dep't of Homeland

Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 591 U.S. 1, 30 (2020), concluded

that agencies must meaningfully consider reliance interests when

abandoning prior policy.

Several commenters stated that the IFR failed to consider the

reliance interests of broader stakeholders, including state and local

governments, service providers, regional economies, and federal

agencies, all of whom depend on stable workforces. A commenter stated

that in Maine, automatic extensions are especially critical for the

thousands of immigrants who rely on regulatory stability and plan their

lives around this expectation, and DHS's actions failed to properly

consider these significant reliance interests and have ``pulled the rug

out from under them without explanation.''

Response: DHS disagrees with the assertion that the IFR did not

sufficiently consider the reliance interests of the regulated public on

the prior rules that provided for automatic extension of EADs and/or

employment authorization based on a timely filed renewal application.

The IFR specifically discussed and acknowledged reliance interests and

explained why DHS has determined that any reliance interests are

outweighed by the removal of automatic extensions for aliens in certain

employment authorization categories. See 90 FR 48809-10. In preparing

this final rule, DHS further considered all comments that articulated

specific reliance interests.

DHS believes that the benefits of this rule to the United States

outweigh any reliance interests held by the alien, his or her family,

the employer or the public at-large in the automatic extensions of EADs

to avoid temporary lapses in employment authorization and/or EAD

validity. The Federal Government has a duty to protect U.S. national

security, public safety, and the integrity of immigration benefits, and

in the context of the IFR and this final rule, to better ensure that

employment authorization is provided in a manner consistent with

prohibiting the unlawful employment of aliens. Any reliance interest in

the prior regulatory framework and policy does not outweigh the need to

protect public safety and the integrity of immigration benefits and

employment authorization.

vi. Failure To Consider Alternatives

Comment: A commenter argued that DHS's rejection of two

alternatives ((1) returning to a 180-day automatic work permit

extension period and (2) issuing interim EAD cards) without substantive

analysis and based upon unsubstantiated risks to national security does

not satisfy the APA's requirement of ``meaningful consideration of

alternatives.''

Response: DHS disagrees with the commenter's assertion that it did

not meaningfully consider reasonable alternatives. These were

reasonable alternatives for DHS to consider since they are prior DHS

policies. As DHS explained in the IFR, and reiterates in this final

rule, these and the other sub regulatory alternatives mentioned above

suffer the same flaws as the up-to-540-day automatic extension. The

automatic extension of an EAD, whether for 180 days, 540 days, or

through the issuance of an interim EAD, grants the benefit of extending

an alien's expired employment authorization and/or EAD merely by filing

a timely renewal EAD application. That is, the benefit is granted

without USCIS first performing the following actions: an eligibility

determination, completing vetting and screening checks, resolving

potential hits of derogatory information in connection with the aliens,

and a determination that the employment authorization should be granted

in the exercise of discretion, if applicable. If DHS pursued these

options, aliens with derogatory information flagged during the

background check process would nevertheless still obtain an automatic

extension of 180 days, or an interim EAD, even if derogatory

information cannot be reviewed and resolved, and their application

denied, before the alien's EAD expires. These automatic extensions

therefore pose a security vulnerability that could allow bad actors to

continue to work and generate income to potentially finance nefarious

activities that pose an imminent threat to the American public.

Comment: Multiple commenters stated that the IFR failed to consider

reasonable alternatives to eliminating automatic extensions entirely,

which violates the standards of ``rational decision-making'' required

under the APA. A commenter said DHS did not articulate any

consideration of alternative, sub-regulatory means to achieve increased

security for the American public, such as providing direction to staff

to prioritize the vetting of EAD renewal applications, which

[[Page 65347]]

would be appropriate and a better option to meet the agency's security

goals than the rule's termination of the post-2024 practice of

providing automatic extensions of employment authorization and/or EADs

for 540 days for eligible aliens who timely filed. A commenter stated

that DHS ignores the straightforward solution of printing extension

confirmations on secure paper or commonsense alternatives such as

issuing multiple EADs with consecutive validity periods or improving

USCIS data systems to identify and expedite renewal applications for

applicants whose EAD will imminently expired, and that rejecting a

simple administrative fix in favor of a rule that foreseeably creates

widespread employment interruptions reflects precisely the sort of

arbitrary and capricious decision-making the APA prohibits.

Another commenter said that DHS's failure to address consecutive

EAD validity periods underscores the inadequacy of its ``proper

planning'' rationale and confirms that the agency did not meaningfully

consider reasonable, less disruptive alternatives, which is in

violation of the APA.

Response: DHS considered the alternatives suggested by the

commenters but declined to adopt them. This administration's priority

is the robust vetting of all aliens in our country to better protect

the safety of American workers and the public at large. The IFR, and

this final rule, will enhance public safety by ensuring proper vetting

before issuing renewal EADs, which are important benefits, and improve

program integrity. DHS is enhancing its vetting and screening efforts,

increasing its ability to detect aliens with potentially harmful

intent, deter fraud, and place removable aliens into proceedings. DHS

uses all applicable provisions under the law, to protect the United

States from those who are a risk to public safety and national

security. This includes more frequent vetting of aliens, including more

frequent determinations that an alien granted an EAD continues to

remain eligible for employment authorization, and continues to merit a

favorable exercise of discretion, as applicable. DHS believes that it

would be inconsistent with these policy goals for USCIS to issue,

concurrently or in close proximity, multiple EADs to the same alien

with consecutive validity periods. Essentially, this would allow an

alien to submit multiple EAD applications at or around the same time,

and consecutive EADs would be tantamount to one EAD with a longer

validity period. The result of this alternative would be less frequent

vetting and eligibility determinations, which would be directly

contrary to DHS's stated policy goal of the IFR and this final rule.

DHS does not agree that identifying and expediting renewal

applications for applicants whose EAD will imminently expire is a

reasonable alternative. Such an approach, even if operationally

feasible, would simply encourage and incentivize applicants to wait

until the last minute before filing the EAD renewal application.

Expediting the applications of those who wait to file would have the

unintended consequence of delaying the adjudication of those who filed

six months in advance of their EAD expiration. DHS does not believe it

is reasonable to reward applicants who wait until the last minute to

file their renewal EAD application by moving those applications to the

front of the processing queue to the disadvantage of other applicants

who filed months in advance.

Furthermore, DHS does not agree that a reasonable alternative is to

issue evidence of an automatic extension of employment authorization on

secure paper, as that would not further the policy goal of more

frequently vetting, screening, and adjudicating continued eligibility

and that the alien continues to merit a favorable exercise of

discretion, as applicable. Secure paper would also not resolve the

issue DHS noted in the IFR \162\ pertaining to the risks associated

with automatic extension of employment authorization and the potential

for employer confusion as to when the automatic extension of employment

authorization ends. The potential confusion stems from the fact that

the alien, not their employer, is the party to the renewal application

and is the one notified if the renewal application is denied. Their

employer is not separately notified and is dependent on notification

from the alien that their renewal application has been denied and they

are no longer employment authorized. If the alien does not immediately

notify their employer, the employer could unknowingly employ an alien

who is no longer authorized to work in the United States. The use of

secure paper to print evidence of the automatic extension would have no

effect on this issue, or the need to ensure more frequent vetting and

screening and that the alien continues to be eligible for employment

authorization and merits a favorable exercise of discretion, as

applicable.

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

\162\ See 90 FR 48799, 48808-48809 (Oct. 30, 2025).

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

vii. Comment Period

Comment: Several commenters requested that DHS extend the comment

period beyond the December 1, 2025 deadline. An individual commenter

requested that DHS extend the comment period to 60 days beyond December

1, 2025. Additional commenters requested that DHS rescind the IFR's

implementation and provide a full 90-day comment period. One commenter

requested that DHS reopen the comment period for at least 60 days.

Response: DHS believes that the 33-day comment period from October

30, 2025, to December 1, 2025, was sufficient and reasonable, given the

straightforward purpose of the IFR, as evidenced by the quality of

comments that DHS carefully considered in the promulgation of this

final rule.

The APA does not specify a minimum comment period. On January 20,

2025, the President issued E.O. 14159, Protecting the American People

Against Invasion (Jan. 20, 2025), 90 FR 8443, 8446 (Jan. 29, 2025),

which put the public on notice that it was the President's priority to

take all appropriate action to alien any departmental activities with

the policies set out by the President and to ensure, among others,

``that employment authorization is provided in a manner consistent with

section 274A of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1324a, and that employment

authorization is not provided to any unauthorized alien in the United

States.''

Additionally, on Jan. 20, 2025, the President also issued E.O.

14161, Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorists and other

National Security and Public Safety Threats, which directs the

coordination among the departments to identify all resources that may

be used to ensure that all aliens seeking admission to the United

States, or who are already in the United States, are vetted and

screened to the maximum degree possible. On October 29, 2025, the IFR

was published for public inspection, which allowed individuals to

familiarize themselves with the rule. On October 30, 2025, the comment

period opened with the publication of the rule in the Federal Register

and commenters had 33 days, that is to December 1, 2025, to provide

comments. DHS believes that the 33-day period is sufficient given the

straightforward purpose of the IFR.

Comment: Commenters stated that the post-promulgation comment

period offered by DHS was insufficient to bypass the APA's notice and

comment procedures. Courts have repeatedly held that such after-the-

fact opportunities

[[Page 65348]]

cannot substitute for prior notice and comment. Once a rule takes

effect, the ability to influence the agency's decision-making is, as a

practical matter, diminished. The commenters added that pre-

promulgation notice and comment are not optional--they are statutory

prerequisites for a legislative rule to be valid, especially in this

instance where the IFR will have far reaching effects. A commenter said

they were not afforded the customary notice and comment period to

conduct a full, data-driven economic or labor market impact analysis

prior to implementation, which undermines their ability to provide DHS

with the comprehensive, evidence-based assessment that this rule

warrants. A different commenter similarly stated that with more time

and a comment period that accounts for stakeholder input prior to

implementation, they would have submitted more feedback directly

relevant to the IFR. A few commenters requested that DHS conduct a full

notice and comment process to consider stakeholder input.

Response: DHS disagrees with the commenters that allowing for post-

promulgation comments when issuing the IFR may be insufficient for

purposes of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and that the rule

may be invalid or otherwise procedurally deficient. Unless a statutory

exception to notice and comment rulemaking applies, the APA requires

agencies to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal

requires that the notice of proposed rulemaking contain reference to

the legal authority under which the rule is proposed and either the

terms or substance of the proposed rule or a description of the

subjects and issues involved. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(2)-(3). DHS has

complied with the requirements under the APA. The IFR explained the

relevant issues and the Department's rationale why it was ending the

automatic extensions of employment authorizations and/or EADs under 8

CFR 274a.13. DHS also demonstrated that it had good cause to bypass

standard notice and comment procedures under the APA. With the issuance

of the IFR, DHS invited the public to participate in the rulemaking,

thus giving stakeholders an opportunity to provide comments on every

aspect of this rule, including potential modifications. DHS is now

considering all comments received on the IFR and responded to them in

this preamble, thereby providing the notice and comment process sought

by commenters. DHS thus has met every statutory requisite for the IFR

and this final rule to be a properly issued legislative rule under the

APA.\163\

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

\163\ Cf. Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home

v. Pennsylvania, 591 U.S. 657, 683-84 (2020) (finding that an IFR

satisfied the APA's notice requirements).

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

Comment: Several commenters expressed that the issuance of the rule

as an IFR with immediate effect that same day deprived stakeholders of

any meaningful opportunity to review, comment, or prepare for

compliance.

Response: As stated in the IFR, DHS issued the IFR without prior

notice or public procedures because DHS was invoking the ``good cause''

exception under the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). For the same reason, DHS

found that a delayed effective date of 30-days was not required. See 5

U.S.C. 553(d)(3). Both provisions allow an agency to publish a measure

immediately if acting expeditiously is warranted. DHS further explained

in the IFR why it was necessary for the agency to move so expeditiously

in promulgating and implementing this rule. With the issuance of the

IFR, however, DHS invited the public to participate in the rulemaking,

thus giving stakeholders an opportunity to provide comments on every

aspect of this rule, including potential modifications. DHS has now

considered all comments received on the IFR and responded to them in

this preamble, thereby providing the notice and comment process sought

by commenters. Furthermore, DHS also explained in the IFR that the

regulatory amendment involves a foreign affairs function under 5 U.S.C.

553(a)(1) and that therefore, the agency may forego notice and comment

rulemaking and a delayed effective date. Therefore, the IFR and this

final rule complied with the process required under the APA for rules

that are excepted from notice and comment.

viii. Comment Submission Requirements

Comment: A couple of commenters stated that DHS's requirement that

comments be submitted in English deprived many asylum seekers and other

immigrants of their right to comment on the IFR and to provide input

grounded in their own lived experiences. The commenter stated that many

asylum seekers come from countries where English is not the primary

language and may not have the ability and resources to prepare comments

in English.

Response: DHS does not agree that the requirement that comments be

submitted in English, or accompanied by an English translation,

deprived aliens of the opportunity to comment on the IFR.

As stated in the IFR, comments ``must be submitted in English, or

an English translation must be provided.'' \164\ That requirement is

consistent with longstanding USCIS practice and with E.O. 14224,

Designating English as the Official Language of the United States, 90

FR 11363 (Mar. 1, 2025). This requirement does not limit who may submit

comments. It only specifies the language in which comments must appear

in the rulemaking record so that they can be reviewed and considered on

a consistent basis as part of the administrative process.

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

\164\ 90 FR 48799-800.

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

Nothing in the IFR prevented non-English-speaking individuals,

including asylum seekers and other immigrants, from participating in

this rulemaking. Individuals and organizations were free to submit

comments translated into English, whether prepared by the commenter or

with the assistance of online translation tools or counsel, community

organizations, or other representatives. Many of the comments DHS

received came from advocacy and legal-services organizations that

described, in detail, the lived experiences and concerns of asylum

seekers and other non-English-speaking communities.

The English-language requirement for comments in this rulemaking

does not restrict who may have their views considered in the

development of this final rule.

Comment: A commenter said that the FRN states that the comments

must include the agency and docket number, but that requirement is

arbitrary and capricious with respect to online submissions. Online

submissions are linked to the specific FRN so there is no ambiguity as

to which FRN is at issue. The commenter said that any decision to

exclude comments from consideration because of these administrative

barriers violates the APA and the whole purpose of soliciting comments

from the public. Another commenter asked why comments must have USCIS

Docket No. USCIS-2025-0271 for DHS to consider them.

One commenter stated that comments should be restricted to U.S.

citizens.

Response: DHS considered all comments received in the docket.

Accordingly, commenters' concerns about DHS's requirements for labeling

comments are moot.

Finally, the APA requires that a rule be published in the Federal

[[Page 65349]]

and, unless an exception to the notice and comment procedures applies,

to give interested people an opportunity to participate in the

rulemaking. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b). The APA does not restrict public

participation in rules to U.S. citizens, and DHS would not have a legal

basis to do so.

12. Regulatory Impact Analysis

i. Methodology

Comment: Many commenters stated that the IFR fails to provide any

substantive economic impact analysis of eliminating automatic EAD

extensions and did not reconcile its position with DHS's recent finding

that automatic extensions yield substantial economic benefits.

Multiple commenters stated that the IFR failed to meet the

standards required by E.O. 12866 for economically significant rules.

They stated that such rules must be supported by a clear statement of

need, a thorough examination of alternative approaches, and a detailed

benefit-cost analysis.

Several commenters remarked that USCIS relies on ``conjectural

concerns'' such as a remittance-based theory that are inconsistent with

DHS's own statistics.

One commenter stated that the rule declined to quantify

productivity losses or turnover costs, elements that were addressed in

the 2024 rule with detailed estimates of economic impact. The commenter

noted that DHS speculated that renewal filings would decrease but did

not account for the number of current EAD holders who would need to

renew or the implications of shortened validity periods, which might

require more frequent renewals.

One commenter provided a conservative scenario analysis to

demonstrate that the economic impact would exceed the $100 million

threshold for economically significant rules under Executive Order

12866.

Multiple commenters expressed concern that eliminating automatic

extensions would disrupt a significant portion of the U.S. labor force.

They cited DHS's acknowledgment that foreign-born workers constitute

roughly 20% of the U.S. civilian workforce and argued that eliminating

automatic extensions would not simply affect individual households or

hypothetical outflows abroad but would disrupt up to one-fifth of the

U.S. labor force and the U.S. employers, tax revenues, and economic

activity tied to that workforce.

One commenter specifically noted that the impact would be

significantly more severe in New York City, where the foreign-born

workforce comprises approximately 1.8 million people, about 44.3

percent of the city's total labor force.

Another commenter stated that California alone is home to over 10.5

million immigrants, comprising 27.3 percent of the state's population,

and that in California, immigrants have contributed $168.1 billion in

taxes and have $404.4 billion in spending power. The commenter stated

that California relies on the contribution of working immigrants to

stimulate the economy.

Response: DHS believes it conducted an analysis in full compliance

with E.O. 12866, and DHS described that this rule would affect those

aliens who would no longer receive an automatic EAD extension. DHS did

designate the IFR as a ``significant regulatory action'' and

economically significant as defined under section 3(f)(1) of E.O.

12866, because its annual effects on the economy may exceed $100

million in any year of the analysis. Although there is likely to be

variation and uncertainty in populations and filing behavior, DHS

estimated in this final rule the number of EADs that are expected to

lapse, and the estimated duration of the lapse, for a specific 18-month

window based on some specific assumptions. See Section V.B.1 of this

preamble for more information.

In previous rules, DHS attempted to stabilize aliens' earnings and

avoid labor turnover costs of employers. DHS also continues to work to

improve processing times and reduce backlogs. However, the Department

has shifted focus to prioritizing public safety, national security and

benefit integrity. Due to this shift, DHS acknowledges that there will

be impacts to EAD renewal applicants for the classes covered in the

previous extension actions and their employers. DHS disagrees with the

comment that this rule would destabilize up to one-fifth of the

national labor force and the employers, tax revenues, and economic

activity that depend on that workforce or that the discussion about

remittances in the IFR is inconsistent with DHS statistics. The

reference in the IFR to the total percentage of foreign-born workers in

the United States was in the context of the foreign affairs exception

and a broader discussion about the significance of remittances,

including by aliens affected by this rule, on foreign affairs. This

rule applies directly to certain categories of renewal applications

that were previously provided automatic extensions and not, as the

commenter suggests, to every foreign-born worker in the U.S. economy.

ii. Impact on Individuals

Comment: One commenter remarked that the IFR would severely harm

Colorado's economy and businesses and that the automatic extension that

come from the temporary final rules of 2022 and 2024 resulted in wage

stabilization worth $10 billion to employment authorized aliens and

average cost savings of $3.5 billion to U.S. employers over that

period.

Another commenter stated that recent and proposed immigration

policies will raise the cost of goods and services for U.S. families.

Response: In previous rules providing for the automatic extension

of employment authorization and/or EADs based on the timely filing of a

renewal EAD application, DHS attempted to stabilize aliens' earnings

and avoid labor turnover costs of employers; however, the Department

has shifted focus to prioritizing public safety, national security and

benefit integrity. Due to this shift, DHS acknowledges that there will

be impacts on a portion of the U.S. labor force. DHS disagrees that

this specific immigration policy alone is going to be the sole reason

for the costs of goods and services to increase.

iii. Impact on the U.S. Economy, Employers, and Labor Force

Comment: Multiple commenters provided input on the RIA's assessment

of impacts on the economy. One submission expressed concern that USCIS

recognized the negative impacts of removing the automatic extension

period on aliens and employers but declined to conduct any economic

analysis during the rulemaking. The commenter said that such an

approach disregarded an estimated $4 billion in turnover costs and

additional burdens on employers and Form I-9 vendors to update systems

and policies. By omitting quantification of significant costs, the

commenter reasoned that DHS cannot credibly claim it weighed the IFR's

benefits against its costs, as the IFR provided no numeric estimates

despite prior rules showing costs in the billions of dollars.

Furthermore, the commenter said that the immediate effect of the IFR

would place significant burdens on employers and vendors. The commenter

concluded that DHS's justification for immediate implementation--to

prevent a surge in renewal applications--would not outweigh the

operational and economic strain imposed on employers and industry.

Likewise, another commenter expressed concern that the IFR offered

[[Page 65350]]

no new economic analysis and did not reconcile its approach with DHS's

recent determination that automatic extensions provide substantial

economic benefits. The commenter said that although DHS conducted

detailed modeling less than a year earlier, the IFR stated the agency

could not quantify the impact of eliminating extensions while bypassing

notice and comment procedures. The commenter remarked that DHS

previously found extensions stabilize billions in earnings, reduce

turnover costs, and increase tax revenue, yet the IFR relied on

speculative concerns instead of updated data. Moreover, the commenter

said DHS's own figures, removing extensions could destabilize up to

one-fifth of the labor force, creating systemic risks to employers, tax

revenues, and economic activity that the 2024 Final Rule had

acknowledged but the IFR failed to address.

Similarly, one commenter stated that DHS had not estimated or

considered the economic value and workforce impact of EADs in the IFR.

The commenter remarked that existing research had shown that work

authorization allowed migrants with temporary protections to make

significant economic contributions. For example, when the TPS

population was about 354,000 in 2021, estimates indicated billions in

tax contributions and spending power, and other studies suggested large

contributions to GDP. Similar findings were reported for DACA

recipients, including tax payments, household spending power, and wage

increases after receiving EADs. Additional research has shown that EADs

were associated with higher employment rates and wage gains for TPS

holders and asylum seekers. The commenter said that such studies

suggested that work authorization had positive effects on earnings, job

quality, and economic stability. The commenter concluded that if DHS

had conducted an economic analysis, it could have accounted for these

impacts before finalizing the rule.

One commenter said that DHS's own figures indicated that

eliminating automatic EAD extensions could disrupt a significant

portion of the U.S. workforce and impose substantial economic costs.

The commenter reasoned that such figures underscore the need for DHS to

complete a thorough economic analysis before finalizing the IFR.

Therefore, the commenter requested that DHS provide a comprehensive

economic analysis.

A commenter stated that DHS's prior analysis projected 293,000-

449,000 timely EAD renewal applicants would face work authorization

lapses, and USCIS data showed backlogs were already increasing before

the IFR, making lapses inevitable. The commenter further stated even

short lapses could cause thousands of dollars in lost wages per worker

and major operational disruptions. Lastly, the commenter stated that

DHS acknowledged the IFR would cause lost wages, productivity, payroll

tax contributions, as well as turnover costs, but failed to quantify

the aggregate impact.

Response: DHS agrees that this rule reverses some of the impacts

described in the prior automatic extension rules. As DHS acknowledged

in the IFR, temporary lapses in employment authorization and/or EAD

validity could result in cost and transfer impacts such as lost

compensation to workers, transfers between workers losing their

employment authorizations to replacement workers, employers' lost

productivity when they are not able to quickly replace employees with

lapses, and turnover costs for employers to find replacement employees.

DHS's 2024 final rule analysis projected that automatic extensions

would prevent a significant number of future lapses, but anticipated

that lapses would generally cease beginning in April 2026, even without

the 540-day extension.\165\ DHS acknowledges that the December 2025

reduction in EAD validity periods may lead to more frequent renewal

applications, potentially affecting this projection.\166\ However,

recent declines in the affected population and changes in filing

behavior make it nearly impossible to reliably estimate the number and

duration of lapses.

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

\165\ See 89 FR 101251 (Dec. 13, 2024), Table 12 (Population

Projections by Month, Rounded to Thousands).

\166\ The 2024 final rule analysis projection starting in April

2026 was based on the 5-year validity period in place at the time of

the 2024 final rule. In December 2025, USCIS shortened the validity

period to maximum of 18 months for certain categories. The reduced

validity period could impact the frequency of future renewal filings

See https://www.uscis.gov/save/current-user-agencies/news-alerts/reduced-validity-periods-for-newly-issued-employment-authorization-documents (last updated Jan. 12, 2026).

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

DHS has concluded that the need to ensure proper vetting and

screening, and continued eligibility, before granting renewed

employment authorization and issuing secure evidence of that

authorization outweighs the risk that some applicants might experience

a temporary lapse in employment authorization and/or EAD validity. The

prior automatic extension framework allowed aliens to continue working

for up to 540 days based solely on a pending renewal application,

during which time USCIS might identify, but not yet resolve, derogatory

information bearing on eligibility or security concerns. DHS has

determined that extending this benefit without updated adjudication and

screening is inconsistent with its mission and with E.O.s directing DHS

to ensure that employment authorization is not provided to unauthorized

aliens and that aliens in the United States are vetted and screened to

the maximum degree possible.\167\ DHS disagrees with the comment that

this rule would destabilize up to one-fifth of the national labor force

and the employers, tax revenues, and economic activity that depend on

that workforce. This rule applies directly to certain categories of

renewal applications that were previously eligible for automatic

extensions.

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

\167\ See E.O. 14159, Protecting the American People Against

Invasion 90 FR 8443, 8446 (Jan. 20, 2025); E.O. 14161, Protecting

the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National

Security and Public Safety Threats, 90 FR 8451, 8451 (Jan. 20,

2025).

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

iv. Other Comments on the RIA

Comment: A commenter asked that USCIS suspend further action with

the rule until it prepares and publishes a full RIA, an Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, and reopen the comment period for 60

days following the publishing of those materials.

Response: DHS published an RIA in the IFR providing a qualitative

assessment of benefits, transfers, and costs. In that analysis, DHS

acknowledged the possibility that some renewal applicants could

experience EAD lapses. However, due to factors such as population

changes, reduced filings, shorter validity periods for certain EADs,

DHS determined that the conditions are too uncertain to accurately

estimate the number or duration of lapses. Additionally, lower filing

volumes may allow DHS to address the backlog more rapidly.

While many renewal applicants covered by the two TFRs who received

automatic extensions may have eventually obtained five-year EADs,

projecting how many new and renewal EADs will be subject to the 18-

month validity period is highly speculative. As a result, DHS cannot

reliably estimate processing times, which are essential for calculating

lapses and their duration.

Within the IFR, DHS referenced prior analyses from the TFRs and

2024 final rule to demonstrate that it is aware of the past situations

of large lapses, but could not use prior historical data to

[[Page 65351]]

forecast the IFR's impact. Assuming prior spikes in EAD filings would

continue is inconsistent with recent data. See Table 1 in Section

IV.C.2.i.d. of this preamble. Therefore, at the time of the IFR and the

issuance of this final rule, DHS could not reliably estimate the number

or duration of lapsed EADs.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

requires agencies to prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis

when issuing a notice and comment rulemaking. DHS disagrees with the

claims that a proper regulatory flexibility analysis was not conducted.

The RFA's regulatory flexibility analysis requirements apply only to

those rules for which an agency is required to publish a general notice

of proposed rulemaking pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law. DHS

did not issue a notice of proposed rulemaking for this action.

Accordingly, DHS is not required to either certify that this IFR would

not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small

entities nor conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis. DHS

acknowledged that this interim final rule directly regulates

individuals, and individuals are not defined as ``small entities'' by

the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The rule indirectly impacts certain

employers if, in the future, processing times exceed the expiration

dates of EADs.

DHS used the IFR, in part, to address prior policy decisions that

resulted in the filing of an overwhelming and unmanageable number of

EAD applications making it more important than ever to conduct complete

and thorough vetting of applicants, including those filing for renewal

EADs, to mitigate potential risks to public safety and national

security. DHS understands that the IFR and this final rule, and any

resulting gaps in continued employment authorization, may have adverse

impacts on employers and applicants. However, as DHS noted in the IFR,

DHS expects that overall EAD filing rates (initials and renewals) are

likely to substantially decline given actions DHS has taken in support

of presidential directives, freeing up adjudicative resources to reduce

renewal EAD processing times and the need for renewal EAD applicants in

the longer term to rely on an automatic extension of their EAD to avoid

lapses in employment authorization and/or EAD validity due to

processing delays.

In addition, proper planning by an applicant, and monitoring of EAD

processing times, may allow the alien to mitigate the risk for the

alien, the alien's family, as well as the alien's employer that the

alien will experience prolonged lapses in their employment

authorization and/or EAD validity. Proper planning may ameliorate the

risk of losing valid employment authorization, as well as the

disruption and associated instability with business continuity or other

financial harm for employers and the community. Ultimately, granting

benefits without proper vetting and full adjudication is contrary to

the DHS mission to enhance benefit integrity and better protect public

safety and national security.\168\ DHS believes that this concern

justifies potential backlogs and operational challenges that may result

in a temporary lapse in employment authorization and/or EAD validity.

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

\168\ See, e.g., Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 4567

[Report 108-774], ``Making Appropriations for the Department of

Homeland Security for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2005,''

p. 74 (Oct. 9, 2004), https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-108hrpt774/pdf/CRPT-108hrpt774.pdf (recommending, among other things, the

creation of an organization to conduct ``law enforcement/background

checks on every applicant, beneficiary, and petitioner prior to

granting immigration benefits.'') (last visited May 26, 2026).

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

As explained, DHS has complied with the requirements of the APA and

RFA. Therefore, DHS will not adopt the commenters' suggestions to

withdraw the IFR, delay the implementation of the IFR or this final

rule, and provide an additional comment period.

13. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Comment: A few commenters remarked that small businesses may be

unfairly burdened with additional costs associated with administering a

more complex I-9 program in their workplace or may be burdened by

disruptions caused by lapses in employment authorization. Another

commenter said that the IFR will have a chilling effect on the hiring

of otherwise eligible non-citizen workers.

Commenters called for USCIS to conduct a complete RFA assessment. A

commenter said the RFA requires an Initial Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis unless the head of the agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small

entities (5 U.S.C. 603-605), and an adequate certification must be

supported by a factual basis. The commenter went on to detail impacts

to small entities. The commenter stated that, if DHS has certified no

significant impact without disaggregated data by sector and firm size,

empirical estimates of affected headcount, and a monetized impact

range, the certification is unsupported and unlawful. The commenter

concluded that DHS must publish an IRFA, evaluate alternatives that

minimize small-entity impacts, and seek small-entity input before

proceeding.

Response: DHS disagrees with the claims that a proper regulatory

flexibility analysis was not conducted. The RFA's regulatory

flexibility analysis requirements apply only to those rules for which

an agency is required to publish a general notice of proposed

rulemaking pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law.\169\ DHS did not

issue a notice of proposed rulemaking for this action. Accordingly, DHS

is not required to either certify that this IFR would not have a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities

nor conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis. DHS acknowledged that

this interim final rule directly regulates individuals, and individuals

are not defined as ``small entities'' by the Regulatory Flexibility

Act.\170\ The rule indirectly impacts certain employers if, in the

future, processing times exceed the expiration dates of EADs.

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

\169\ See 5 U.S.C. 604(a).

\170\ See 5 U.S.C. 604(a).

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

USCIS does take actions to address reducing burden and complexity

for employers. As DHS discussed previously, USCIS periodically updates

the M-274, offers guidance on the agency website, hosts several monthly

I-9 webinars, and has a Form I-9 Contact Center. Further, E-Verify is a

service that allows employers to electronically confirm employment

eligibility of newly hired workers.

As DHS stated in the IFR, it is the policy of the Administration

``to faithfully execute the immigration laws against all inadmissible

and removable aliens, particularly those aliens who threaten the safety

or security of the American people.'' \171\ Pursuant to this policy,

the Secretary of Homeland Security, in collaboration with the Secretary

of State and the Attorney General, has been directed to ``rescind the

policy decisions of the previous administration that led to the

increased or continued presence of illegal aliens in the United States,

and align any and all departmental activities with the policies set out

by this order and the immigration laws.'' \172\

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

\171\ See 90 FR 8443, 8446.

\172\ Id.

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

DHS has already taken a number of actions in support of the

directives described earlier in this final rule.\173\

[[Page 65352]]

Thus, in addition to the serious concerns relating to automatic EAD

extensions discussed previously, DHS is taking steps independent of

this rule, including narrowing the use of parole and to align TPS

designations with statutory criteria, that are likely to result in

lower EAD filing volumes and improve renewal EAD application processing

times. DHS anticipates that these may reduce processing time and

lapses. However, DHS cautions that various factors make it difficult to

estimate the number of lapses and when they will occur. Applicants may

also apply earlier to reduce the chances of lapses.

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

\173\ See, e.g., Termination of Parole Processes for Cubans,

Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans, 90 FR 13611 (Mar. 25, 2025);

Termination of the October 3, 2023 Designation of Venezuela for

Temporary Protected Status, 90 FR 9040 (Feb. 5, 2025); Special

Immigrant Juvenile Classification and Deferred Action, USCIS Policy

Alert (June 6, 2025) https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/policymanual-updates/20250606-SIJDeferredAction.pdf (last

visited June 13, 2025).

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

14. Paperwork Reduction Act

Comment: A commenter said that eliminating the automatic extension

directly affects two OMB-approved information collections: Form I-9

Employment Eligibility Verification (OMB Control No. 1615-0047) and

Form I-765 Application for Employment Authorization (OMB Control No.

1615-0040/0016). The commenter said the rule does not appear to include

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) notices proposing revisions to these

collections or revised burden estimates and DHS must either (a) publish

PRA notices with revised burden and cost estimates aligned to the

rule's effects, or (b) explain why no change occurs and provide data

supporting that assertion. Proceeding without PRA compliance is a

defect.

Response: DHS has considered the comment asserting that this rule

triggers new information collection requirements under the PRA for Form

I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification (OMB Control No. 1615-0047),

and Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization (OMB Control

No. 1615-0040).

Under the PRA, an agency must obtain OMB approval when it seeks to

``collect information'' from 10 or more persons, or when it revises an

existing collection in a way that changes the information requested,

who must respond, how often they must respond, or the estimated burden

of responding. This rule does none of those things.

The rule does not change the Form I-765 itself, the data elements

on the form, the categories of individuals who file it, or the

circumstances under which it must be filed. Aliens who seek initial or

renewal employment authorization and/or EAD in the affected categories

will continue to use the same form, with the same instructions, to

request the same benefit. The rule changes only the regulatory

consequence that previously flowed automatically from the filing of

certain renewal applications, not the information collected on Form I-

765 or the obligation to file the form in the first place.

This rule also does not amend the requirements that govern

employers' use of Form I-9. Employers are required under section 274A

of the INA and 8 CFR 274a.2 to complete Form I-9 for each new hire and

to reverify employment authorization when previously presented

documentation expires. Those obligations exist independent of this

rule. While the elimination of automatic extensions may result in some

employers conducting reverification at different times than they would

have under the prior automatic-extension framework, the scope and

content of the information collected on Form I-9 are unchanged. The

rule does not add any new fields to Form I-9, does not create a new

reverification requirement, and does not expand the universe of

employers subject to the Form I-9 provisions. Accordingly, it does not

revise the underlying information collection approved under OMB Control

No. 1615-0047.

This rule does not require DHS or employers to collect new

categories of information, does not increase the frequency with which

individuals must submit information to DHS beyond what is already

required to seek or renew an EAD, and does not impose new recordkeeping

or reporting requirements on employers beyond existing Form I-9

obligations.

Consistent with the IFR's PRA discussion and the PRA section of

this final rule, DHS concludes that this rule does not introduce a new

collection of information or revise an existing collection within the

meaning of the PRA and that no new or amended OMB approval is required.

15. General Comments on Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

Comment: A commenter stated that DHS must provide more evidence for

why the rule's implementation is needed despite its likely negative

impact on families and must include a Family Policymaking Assessment as

required by Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government

Appropriations Act of 1999, 5 U.S.C. 601. The commenter said DHS's

rationale does not comprehensively consider how the loss of

discretionary income will impact families and fails to consider that

EADs are strongly tied to obtaining forms of identification. Without

the ability to drive, many families may be limited or prevented from

attending church, medical appointments, buying groceries, or taking

children to school. They may also have more difficulty accessing

utilities and their bank accounts. The commenter said the rule cannot

move forward without an adequate rationale that properly considers

these dynamics, which DHS failed to consider.

Another commenter stated that USCIS should prepare and publish a

written statement as required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995 (UMRA) to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on

State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. The

commenter said even conservative scenarios imply private sector costs

approaching or exceeding the threshold for a required UMRA analysis

based on lost wages, productivity, and turnover.

A commenter that supports the rule said DHS should add a

categorical exclusion to its NEPA procedures to strengthen its position

that this rule does not require a NEPA analysis. The commenter stated

that, in this IFR, DHS's NEPA implementation process was lacking though

the commenter agreed that this rule does not have a significant

environmental impact. The commenter went on to expand on DHS's

conclusion that the rule is ``strictly administrative and procedural''

and the appropriate use of categorical exclusion A3. The commenter

recommended that DHS strengthen the final version of this rule by

adopting NEPA procedures that draw a distinction between rules that

increase immigration (and therefore do have environmental impacts) and

rules that do not (and where the invocation of such categorical

exclusions are appropriate).

Response: DHS recognizes that this rule has the potential to impact

families, as described above and in the Interim Final Rule.\174\ DHS is

charged with protecting the national security and public safety of the

American people, and so is finalizing this regulation to enhance

benefit integrity and better protect public safety and national

security by prioritizing the proper vetting and screening of aliens and

ensuring continued eligibility before granting a new period of

employment authorization and/or a new EAD. DHS urges eligible aliens to

timely file renewal EAD applications to mitigate the risk that the

applicant may experience a temporary lapse in

[[Page 65353]]

employment authorization and/or EAD validity. Regarding the commenters'

concern that the rule inadequately considered impacts on aliens'

ability to obtain driver's licenses or other identification cards, DHS

emphasizes that the IFR explicitly explained that security concerns

outweigh granting automatic extensions of EADs in this context.\175\

Nevertheless, this rule does not prevent the use of properly issued

EADs for identification.

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

\174\ See 90 FR 48818-19.

\175\ 87 FR 48809. See 90 FR 48809, footnote 112.

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

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.\176\ Title I of UMRA

provides certain exceptions to its requirements and definitions. For

example, UMRA does not apply to rules issued with no notice of proposed

rulemaking, such as the IFR and this final rule.\177\ Further, this

rule does not impose an enforceable duty on EAD renewal applicants or

their employers and is thus not a federal mandate. Accordingly, there

is nothing further required for DHS to comply with UMRA.

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

\176\ The term ``Federal mandate'' means a Federal

intergovernmental mandate or a Federal private sector mandate. See 2

U.S.C. 1502(1) and 658(5) and (6).

\177\ See 2 U.S.C. 1532(a).

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

DHS appreciates the recommendation to reconsider how it approaches

NEPA and its categorical exclusions, specifically by differentiating

between regulations that would increase immigration or not. However,

this suggestion of adding an additional appropriate CATEX goes beyond

the scope of this rule.

Please see Section V.J. below for our discussion of this rule's

implementation and NEPA. As stated in the IFR, and below in this final

rule, DHS finds that this action falls strictly within CATEX A3 of the

DHS Instructions Manual 023-01-001-1, relating to the promulgation of

rules, issuance of rulings or interpretations, and the development and

publication of policies, orders, directives and notices procedures,

manuals and advisory circulars and other guidance documents that are

administrative or procedural in nature, and that interpret or amend and

existing regulation without changing its environmental effect. See DHS

Instructions Manual 023-01-001-1, CATEX A3.

Comment: A commenter stated that the rule was not listed on the

Unified Agenda or the regulatory information dashboard until October

30, 2025. According to RegInfo.gov, the IFR was submitted to the OMB's

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) on October 29 and

posted for public inspection the same day. The commenter stated that

this timeline not only deprived the regulated public of both notice and

an opportunity to comment, but it also marked a ``radical departure''

from the traditional process of careful OIRA review and deliberation.

The commenter stated that it is impossible to envision meaningful OIRA

review, a step that is not only conceptually essential but required

under Executive Order 12866, in a single day.

Response: First, Executive Order 12866 establishes procedures for

OIRA review of significant regulatory actions, but ``does not create

any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or

equity by a party against the United States'' or an agency.\178\

Accordingly while commenters are correct that there was not advance

notice of the rule's consideration at OIRA prior to publication of the

rule, and that commenters accordingly did not have an opportunity for a

listening session before OIRA prior to publication, DHS followed all

legally required procedures for publication of the rule. Further, DHS

emphasizes that commenters had the opportunity to comment under the APA

on the IFR, as explained above in previous responses addressing notice

and comment procedures.

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

\178\ See E.O. 12866 at sec. 10; 58 FR 51384.

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

Second, the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory

Actions, issued under E.O. 12866, is a planning tool published

semiannually to inform the public about upcoming regulatory actions.

See, generally, Section 4 of E.O. 12866 (Planning Mechanism); see also

OIRA, OMB, ``About the Unified Agenda.'' There is not a legal

requirement that agencies announce rules in the Unified Agenda prior to

publication in the Federal Register or taking effect. Accordingly, the

omission of a rule in the United Agenda does not invalidate or

otherwise render procedurally defective a rule properly promulgated in

accordance with applicable law and the APA. Instead, the APA requires

agencies to provide notice of a rulemaking via the Federal Register.

See 5 U.S.C. 553(b).\179\

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

\179\ Alternatively, the APA also allows for the provision of

notice in other ways if the people subject to the rule ``are named

and either personally served or otherwise have actual notice''. 5

U.S.C. 553(b).

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

Finally, the procedures for review by OIRA at the OMB are not

within the purview of DHS. Accordingly, comments regarding actions

taken by OIRA during their review are outside the scope of this

rulemaking.

D. Additional Out of Scope Comments

Comment: Commenters asked to end other classifications, such as: L-

1, H-1B, and H-4 nonimmigrant classifications. Other commenters

advocated for: allowing aliens to maintain their legal status under the

H-1B visa program; deporting or ending employment authorization for

aliens; expanded worksite auditing, particularly for employment-based

nonimmigrant visa categories; protecting newcomers; granting immigrant

aliens green cards; the creation of a startup visa; and enabling

employment authorization for the accompanying spouse incident to

dependent status.

One commenter argued that aliens in T nonimmigrant status should be

allowed automatic extension of EADs. Another commenter said that they

were displeased with the current administration.

Response: This rule addresses processes for the extension of EADs

and employment authorization in certain circumstances. The comments

above addressed topics or EAD categories outside the scope of this rule

and will not be addressed in this final rule.\180\

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

\180\ T nonimmigrants were not among the classes of aliens who

received automatic extensions of their employment authorization, and

they are therefore not impacted by either the IFR or this final

rule.

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

V. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

A. Administrative Procedure Act: Delayed Effective Date

This final rule is exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act

(APA)'s delayed effective date requirement under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)

because DHS has for good cause found that it is unnecessary to delay

implementation of this final rule.

Although the good cause exception for the 30-day effective date in

5 U.S.C. 553(d) mirrors the ``good cause'' language of 5 U.S.C. 553(b),

the good cause exception from the 30-day effective date requirement is

easier to meet because these provisions have different purposes. See

Riverbend Farms, Inc. v. Madigan, 958 F.2d 1479, 1485 (9th Cir. 1992);

see also U.S. Steel Corp. v. EPA, 605 F.2d 283, 289-90 (7th Cir. 1979)

(good cause more easily found as to 30-day waiting period). Unlike the

notice-and-comment requirement, which is designed to ensure public

participation in rulemaking, the 30-day waiting period is intended to

give affected parties time to

[[Page 65354]]

adjust their behavior before the final rule takes effect. See Riverbend

Farms, 958 F.2d at 1485.

It is unnecessary to delay this final rule's effective date because

in this final rule, DHS is addressing public comments solicited as part

of the IFR that has been in effect since October 30, 2025. In this

final rule, DHS is not making any substantive or non-substantive

changes to the IFR published in October 2025. There is no need to give

affected parties additional time to adjust their behavior before this

final rule takes effect. Therefore, a delayed effective date serves no

purpose, and this final rule is effective immediately.

B. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive

Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and 14192

(Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation)

E.O.s 12866 and 13563 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.

E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying costs and benefits,

reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. E.O.

14192 directs agencies to significantly reduce the private expenditures

required to comply with Federal regulations and provides that ``any new

incremental costs associated with the new regulations shall, to the

extent permitted by law be offset by the elimination of existing costs

associated with at least 10 prior regulations.''

This final rule has been designated a ``significant regulatory

action'' and economically significant as defined under section 3(f)(1)

of E.O. 12866, because its annual effects on the economy may exceed

$100 million in any year of the analysis. Accordingly, this rule has

been reviewed by the OMB.

This final rule is not an E.O. 14192 regulatory action because it

is being issued with respect to an immigration-related function of the

United States. The rule's primary direct purpose 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 E.O.

14192, titled `Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation' '' (Mar. 26,