DHS Advances Rule to Eliminate 60‑Day Grace Period for H‑1B and Other Work Visa Holders

The Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has advanced a proposed regulation titled “Eliminating the Discretionary 60‑day Grace Period,” sending the measure to the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for review on August 6, 2026. ( ).

Under current DHS policy, certain employment‑based nonimmigrants — including H‑1B, L‑1, O‑1, TN and some E‑category beneficiaries and their dependents — may be treated as having maintained status for up to 60 calendar days (or until their I‑94 expires) after their employment ends, a buffer that allows time to seek a new sponsor, change status, or depart the United States. The DHS proposal would seek to eliminate that discretionary 60‑day safety‑valve created by prior agency regulation. ( ).

The rule is still in the interagency review stage and has not been published in the Federal Register; the regulatory record and the substantive text of the proposal have not been made public. DHS must clear OIRA review before a notice of proposed rulemaking appears, at which point the public comment period would begin. Until the rulemaking is finalized, the existing 60‑day practice remains in effect. ( ).

The move is part of a broader set of immigration‑related regulatory actions the administration has been pursuing, including changes to student and work‑visa rules and to USCIS fee and processing policies, that together signal a major reworking of legal pathways for foreign nationals in the U.S. labor market. Business groups, universities and immigration advocates have warned that changes could disrupt staffing, research and startup hiring. ( ).

If finalized, the rule would reduce the leeway employers and workers now have after a sudden termination: employers that hire H‑1B or related visa holders would face narrower windows to file transfer petitions, while workers would have less time to line up alternative sponsorship or legal relief. Immigration attorneys and industry lobbyists have flagged the potential for immediate practical harm and increased deportation risk for people in transitional situations. ( ).

The proposal is likely to draw rapid pushback from technology firms, higher‑education institutions and advocacy groups that rely on highly skilled foreign labor; some foreign governments and diaspora organizations have already raised concerns about potential mass displacement of professionals. At the same time, supporters inside the administration argue that the 60‑day policy was an agency‑created exception that should be reconsidered as part of broader visa integrity and enforcement priorities. ( ).

What happens next is procedural but consequential: OIRA’s review will determine when — and whether — DHS publishes the proposed rule for public comment. If published, the rule would open a comment period, and opponents could press Congress for legislative fixes or prepare litigation challenging the agency’s authority to end a long‑standing discretionary practice. Those are likely paths for stakeholders if the proposal proceeds. ( ).