Comment Submitted by Anonymous

Docket No. USCIS-2026-0067 Re: Clarification of Discretionary Employment Authorization for Certain Aliens, 91 FR 34352 Dear DHS / USCIS, I am writing to express my strong opposition to this proposed rule and to respectfully urge the Department of Homeland Security to either withdraw the proposal entirely or maintain individualized, case-by-case reviews for employment authorization applications. I came to the United States in 2011 and have lived and worked here lawfully under H-1B status. My wife and I are building our roots here, and we are proud parents raising two middle school-aged sons who are U.S. citizen children. Throughout my time in this country, I have consistently supported the U.S. economy by paying daily sales and purchase taxes, employee taxes, and property taxes. Crucially, during the COVID-19 pandemic, I continued working on-site at my office to directly support the health and well-being of the American public during a national crisis. I am currently pursuing lawful permanent residence through the employment-based immigration process. Although I currently work under H-1B status, applicants in my situation often rely on employment authorization (EAD) while waiting for adjustment of status applications to be processed. Employment authorization exists so that individuals who are lawfully present are not forced out of the workforce because of lengthy administrative delays. I strongly oppose this rule because it would allow an arrest to create a presumption against granting employment authorization—even when no charges were ever filed in court. An arrest is not a finding of guilt. In cases where an arrest was completely dismissed without court filings and the record was subsequently sealed and destroyed based on a finding of factual innocence, treating it as a negative discretionary factor is fundamentally unjust. A record sealed due to factual innocence legally proves that no wrongdoing occurred, and uncharged matters should never serve as a barrier to work authorization. Furthermore, a rigid, blanket rule fails to account for the passage of time. An isolated arrest from over a decade ago—followed by more than ten years of continuous compliance with the law, consistent tax contributions, essential public service, and strong family values—clearly demonstrates good moral character. Instead of adopting a broad negative presumption, USCIS must evaluate each applicant on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the totality of circumstances. A fair evaluation should consider final legal dispositions, actual findings of innocence, employment history, tax compliance, pandemic service, and the best interests of U.S. citizen children. For these reasons, I firmly oppose this proposed rule and urge the Department to withdraw it. If the Department decides to proceed, it must preserve a true case-by-case review mechanism that evaluates the complete facts rather than relying on automated or presumptive denials based on arrest records alone. Thank you for considering my comment. Our family sincerely hopes that USCIS upholds fairness, justice, and individualized review under the law.