Comment Submitted by Sudhir Jain

To Whom It May Concern: I am writing to oppose this proposed rule as it applies to H-4 dependent spouses who hold employment authorization under 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(26).My spouse is on H4 EAD and works in school. While the rule's preamble focuses almost entirely on parole (c)(11), deferred action (c)(14), and orders of supervision (c)(18), several of its general provisions are drafted to reach every category under § 274a.12(c) — including (c)(26) — and the Department names (c)(26) in its own scope lists. I ask the Department to reconsider extending these changes to H-4 EADs, for the reasons below. **1. The "arrest without disposition" standard is inappropriate for an eligibility-based dependent category.** Proposed § 274a.13(a)(1)(iv) would allow USCIS to deny an EAD to any applicant who "has been arrested for, charged with (without disposition), indicted for, or has been convicted of, any criminal act," and the preamble extends this to sealed, expunged, and diversion outcomes. H-4 eligibility has historically been mechanical and predictable, tied to the spouse's H-1B status and green-card stage. Converting it into a discretionary determination in which an arrest that never led to a conviction — or a matter a court has already sealed — can justify denial departs sharply from due-process norms and from how this dependent category has always functioned. If the Department retains any criminal factor for (c)(26), it should be limited to convictions for serious offenses, not arrests or charges without disposition. **2. Mandatory biometrics on every renewal will worsen already-documented H-4 processing gaps.** Proposed § 274a.13(a)(1)(iii) would require biometrics from all § 274a.12(c) applicants, including on renewals. H-4 EAD adjudication already suffers from inconsistent biometrics scheduling and RFEs, and there is no automatic extension for category (c)(26). Adding a mandatory biometrics step to every renewal — for a population that presents no identified security concern and has already been vetted through the underlying H-1B/H-4 process — will predictably create or lengthen gaps in work authorization, causing affected spouses to lose jobs and employers to lose trained staff. The Department should exempt (c)(26) renewals from mandatory biometrics or, at minimum, provide an automatic extension to prevent authorization gaps. **3. Automatic termination adds risk without a corresponding benefit for H-4.** Proposed § 274a.14(a)(1)(v) would automatically terminate an EAD when "the underlying basis for employment authorization is terminated or denied." For H-4, work authorization is already tied to the principal's H-1B status; layering an automatic-termination trigger on top introduces the risk that a facially valid EAD is treated as void based on a status change the employee may not yet know about, with no notice mechanism specified. The Department should clarify what notice an H-4 EAD holder and their employer will receive before any automatic termination takes effect. **4. The stated rationale does not fit H-4 spouses.** The rule is justified by the goal of protecting American workers and disincentivizing aliens with removal orders from remaining in the country. H-4 spouses are lawfully present dependents of skilled nonimmigrant workers, not individuals with removal orders. Many hold advanced degrees and work in high-demand fields. Sweeping them into a framework designed for enforcement-priority populations is a poor fit and undercuts the rule's own reasoning. **5. The economic analysis does not account for the H-4 population.** The Department's cost analysis models lost earnings only for (c)(11), (c)(14), and (c)(18), while acknowledging that biometrics costs and the criminal screen extend to "all other" (c) categories, including (c)(26). The rule therefore imposes real costs — application delays, lost wages, employer turnover — on H-4 households without quantifying them. I ask the Department to analyze the specific impact on the (c)(26) population before finalizing. **Request.** I respectfully ask the Department to (a) exempt category (c)(26) from the general provisions of this rule, or in the alternative (b) limit any criminal-history factor to convictions for serious offenses, exempt (c)(26) renewals from mandatory biometrics (or provide an automatic extension), and specify a notice process before any automatic termination. The Department has not justified applying these enforcement-oriented changes to lawfully present dependent spouses. Thank you for considering this comment.