DHS Proposes Ending the 60-Day Grace Period: What Job Loss Would Mean for H-1B, L-1, O-1, and Other Workers

📢 Immigration news, not a change in the law yet: DHS has proposed eliminating the up-to-60-day grace period that certain employment-based visa holders may use after their qualifying job or activity ends. The proposal is not final. The current grace period remains in effect today.

The proposal appeared in the Federal Register on September 11, 2026, as Eliminating the Discretionary 60-Day Grace Period, 91 FR 57807, DHS Docket No. USCIS-2026-0364. DHS is accepting comments through November 10, 2026. After the comment period, the agency must review the submissions before deciding whether to issue a final rule, change the proposal, or abandon it. There is no final rule or effective date now.

Here is what the proposal could mean if DHS finalizes it as written, and what remains true for now.

Who would be affected by the proposed rule?

The current grace period covers workers in these classifications, along with their eligible dependents:

• H-1B and H-1B1 (including H-1B1 workers from Chile and Singapore)
• L-1 intracompany transferees
• O-1 workers with extraordinary ability or achievement
• E-1, E-2, and E-3 workers
• TN professionals from Canada and Mexico

The proposal concerns a worker’s qualifying employment or activity ending before the authorized period of stay expires. That could happen after a layoff, termination, resignation, project ending, or employer closure.

Dependent status (such as H-4, L-2, E, O-3, or TD status) is generally tied to the principal worker’s status. If the principal worker’s status is affected, the consequences may extend to the family, including a spouse or children.

What does the 60-day grace period do today?

Under current 8 CFR 214.1(l)(2), certain workers whose qualifying employment or activity ends may remain in the United States for up to 60 days, or until the end of their authorized validity period if sooner. DHS can shorten or eliminate the grace period in an individual case.

The grace period is discretionary, not a guaranteed 60 days in every situation. It also does not itself authorize you to work. A separate basis for work authorization is required.

During the applicable period, a worker may have time to pursue a qualifying next step, such as a new employer petition, a change of status, or another available immigration process. The particular option depends on the person’s circumstances and the rules for the relevant category.

What would change if DHS finalizes the proposal?

DHS proposes to remove the grace-period provision from 8 CFR 214.1(l)(2). If finalized as written, a worker generally would be expected to depart the United States when the qualifying employment or activity ends, unless another legal basis authorizes the worker to remain.

In practical terms, the proposal would remove the regulatory cushion that currently allows eligible workers to remain for a limited period after a job ends. It could make it much harder to find a new employer and complete the necessary immigration steps without leaving the country. DHS says a worker who later obtains new qualifying employment could seek readmission after receiving the required approvals; for many people, that process would involve a new petition and consular processing.

The proposal does not say every person must leave regardless of other circumstances. DHS’s proposed language recognizes an exception where someone is otherwise authorized to lawfully remain. Whether that exception applies is a case-specific legal question.

A failure to maintain status can have serious consequences. Federal law makes a noncitizen deportable for failing to maintain or comply with the conditions of nonimmigrant status. That does not mean every status violation automatically produces the same unlawful-presence calculation. Unlawful presence and its potential effect on future immigration applications involve separate legal rules and facts.

Would the rule affect your spouse or children?

It could. Under the proposal, dependents’ status may also be affected when the principal worker’s qualifying employment ends. For example, an H-4 spouse or child may not have a separate grace period independent of the H-1B principal’s situation.

That could create difficult family decisions involving a spouse’s employment authorization, a child’s school year, housing, and pending immigration applications. The possible impact would depend on the family’s immigration circumstances and whether another lawful basis to remain applies.

Why is DHS proposing this change?

DHS gives three main reasons:

1. Linking status to qualifying work. DHS says the affected visa classifications are tied by statute to specified employment or activities, and it believes the grace period separates lawful status from that underlying basis.
2. Reducing administrative work. USCIS says officers spend time deciding whether a grace period applies, verifying when employment ended, and determining whether to shorten or eliminate the period.
3. Program integrity. DHS says removing the grace period would better align its regulations with the statutory basis for the visa categories.

DHS also acknowledges that it is changing course. The grace period was created in a 2016 final rule, effective January 17, 2017, in part to give high-skilled workers facing sudden job loss time to find new employment or pursue other options, and to help employers manage changes in their workforce. DHS now argues that the earlier rule did not adequately consider statutory alignment and administrative burdens. It says it considered reliance interests but believes its stated goals outweigh them.

DHS also considered alternatives, including shortening the grace period, applying the change to only some visa categories, or keeping the period with stricter evidence requirements. It rejected those options in the proposal.

What costs and impacts does DHS estimate?

DHS’s regulatory analysis identifies possible effects on workers, families, and employers. These are DHS estimates, not predictions about what will happen to every person:

• DHS estimates a subset of 3,795 nonimmigrant beneficiaries may lose income if they need additional time to search for a job after departing the United States.
• For people who receive a Notice to Appear and attend an immigration hearing, DHS estimates time and travel costs of $204.43 to $300.53 per person.
• DHS expects USCIS to spend resources issuing Notices to Appear and initiating removal proceedings in some cases.
• DHS recognizes that employers seeking to hire affected workers may experience temporary productivity losses.
• Under existing law, H-1B and O-1 employers may be responsible for reasonable return transportation costs if they dismiss a beneficiary before the end of the authorized admission period and the beneficiary decides to depart.

The analysis uses historical data and assumptions. It does not establish that every worker who loses a job will incur these costs or face removal proceedings.

What remains available under current law?

For now, the current up-to-60-day grace period remains in effect. The proposal does not change today’s rules.

Other immigration provisions are distinct from the grace period. For example, some H-1B workers may have protections related to a pending PERM labor certification or approved I-140 that allow extensions beyond the usual maximum period of H-1B stay. Those AC21 extension rules concern maximum stay limits; they are not a substitute for the job-loss grace period.

The proposed rule targets the grace period after qualifying employment or activity ends. It does not propose removing the separate grace-period provisions that may apply after an authorized period of stay expires.

What should workers and employers do now?

There is no need to react as though the proposal is already law. But it is sensible to understand the proposal and avoid treating the 60-day period as a guaranteed job-search runway.

Workers and families can:

• Keep copies of key immigration documents and know when your authorized stay ends.
• Discuss potential employment changes early with your employer and immigration counsel, where possible.
• Consider how a departure could affect your family, housing, school plans, and pending applications.
• Review the proposed rule and consider submitting a comment by November 10, 2026.

Employers and HR teams can:

• Continue following current requirements while tracking whether DHS issues a final rule.
• Consider the potential immigration consequences of offboarding a sponsored employee when planning employment changes.
• Review the proposal’s discussion of possible H-1B and O-1 return transportation costs with counsel.

The proposal is part of a broader period of immigration-policy activity. Separate developments include a September 18, 2026 executive order directing additional scrutiny of H-1B employers with layoffs, a proposed additional $103,265 fee for certain H-1B petitions, an October 8 PERM processing suspension involving eight employers, and USCIS evidence guidance issued as PA-2026-05. These measures have different scopes and legal statuses; the proposed grace-period rule is not final.

How can you follow the proposal or submit a comment?

The comment deadline is November 10, 2026, before midnight Eastern Time. You can read the Federal Register proposal and submit comments through Regulations.gov, referencing DHS Docket No. USCIS-2026-0364. Comments become public, so consider limiting personal information.

We will keep you updated as DHS reviews comments and decides what to do next. If you have questions about how a job change or proposed rule could affect your specific immigration situation, contact Badmus & Associates to discuss your circumstances.

This article provides general information, not legal advice. Immigration outcomes depend on individual facts, and you should consult an immigration attorney about your situation. Contacting the firm does not create an attorney-client relationship.

#H1B #H1BGracePeriod #WorkVisaLayoff #USCIS #ImmigrationNews #O1Visa #L1Visa #TNVisa #ImmigrationAttorney