Chamber Urges DHS to Withdraw Rule Ending 60-Day Grace Period

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is urging DHS to withdraw a proposed rule that would eliminate the discretionary 60-day grace period for nonimmigrant workers, warning that the change would double petition filings and strip status protection from an average of 208,187 dependents each year. In a comment letter dated November 6, 2026, signed by Patrick Shen, the Chamber's vice president for immigration policy, the business group called the proposal — DHS Docket No. USCIS-2026-0364, RIN 1615-AD22 — a costly disruption with unproven benefits.

The NPRM, published in the Federal Register on September 11, 2026, would end the grace period codified at 8 C.F.R. § 214.1(l)(2) for workers in the E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, O-1, and TN classifications, plus their dependents. The rule took its current form in 2016 and became effective January 17, 2017, as part of the AC21 implementing rule. It allows a covered worker up to 60 consecutive days — or the remainder of the validity period, whichever is shorter — of maintained status after employment ends, once per authorized validity period, without authorizing employment.

What does the Chamber say is wrong with DHS's rationale?

DHS justifies elimination partly as a workload measure, citing more than 1.9 million petitions and applications received from the start of fiscal 2018 through May 20, 2026, that potentially required a grace-period assessment. The Chamber counters that this figure is a screening universe, not evidence of savings: DHS does not say how many filings needed more than an initial screen, nor does it quantify the time or cost elimination would save.

The letter also attacks DHS's statutory argument. The agency relies on INA § 214(a), which lets it set the "time and conditions" of admission, but, as the Chamber notes, "the same statutory authority DHS invokes to eliminate the grace period is the authority it used to create it." The statute, the letter argues, does not compel immediate departure upon job loss, and DHS already retains discretion to shorten the period case by case.

What new burdens would the rule create?

The Chamber lays out offsetting costs it says outweigh any screening efficiency:

• A surge of rushed I-539 filings to convert to B status, likely under-documented and triggering more Requests for Evidence.
• Two sequential, interdependent petitions per re-employed worker instead of one — the second cannot be adjudicated until the first change of status is approved — which the Chamber says doubles the active caseload.
• More referrals to immigration court, shifting work to DOJ and ICE.
• Spillover onto consular posts abroad, where workers with lapsed status would seek appointments, extending wait times or compressing interviews.

DHS's own estimates, the letter notes, acknowledge lost income for workers, removal proceedings for some, and temporary productivity losses for employers — yet treats these effects qualitatively rather than with an economy-wide analysis.

How many people are affected?

DHS reports a five-year average of 208,187 dependents associated with covered principal beneficiaries annually, including 239,649 in fiscal 2022 — approval counts, not counts of grace-period users. Using withdrawn and revoked Form I-129 petitions as a proxy, DHS estimates an annual average of 3,795 workers had a new petition filed within 60 days of a prior petition's withdrawal, while acknowledging it cannot reliably identify all grace-period users or distinguish voluntary from involuntary separations.

For employers, the stakes center on talent pipelines. Under current law, an H-1B portability petition lets a worker start a new job upon filing rather than upon approval. Eliminating the grace period removes that bridge, forcing a hiring employer to wait through petition adjudication, visa processing, travel and readmission. "Retaining this talent rather than pushing it out over an administrative technicality is in the national interest," the Chamber writes.

The letter also flags the NPRM's lack of a transition period, grandfathering or safe harbor for workers already inside a grace period when a final rule takes effect, despite DHS's acknowledgment that employers built workforce planning and compliance systems around the rule since 2017 — reliance DHS dismisses as "misplaced."

What alternatives does the Chamber propose?

The letter lists less disruptive options: targeted use of existing discretion in cases involving fraud or security concerns; a shorter grace period; filing-based protection for workers who timely file a nonfrivolous petition; clearer documentation standards; and prospective implementation with grandfathering.

DHS discusses alternatives in the NPRM but rejects them for failing to satisfy its policy of immediate departure. The Chamber, whose members employ workers across every affected classification, says it stands ready to work with DHS on program integrity. Whether the agency withdraws the rule, quantifies its claimed savings, or finalizes it as proposed will shape workforce planning for employers that hire high-skilled foreign talent in the year ahead.