Comment Submitted by Anonymous

Docket No. USCIS-2026-0067 RIN 1615-AC98 Re: Clarification of Discretionary Employment Authorization for Certain Aliens, 91 FR 34352 To Whom It May Concern: I am writing to oppose this proposed rule. I am married to an H-1B worker and hold employment authorization as an H-4 spouse, so this proposal directly affects my ability to keep working lawfully in the United States. I don’t believe the Department has adequately justified the changes it is proposing. My main concern is that the rule takes work-authorization categories that have long been eligibility-based and predictable, and rewrites 8 CFR 274a.12(c) and 274a.13 so that a mere arrest can become grounds to deny a work permit. As drafted, anyone arrested, charged, or indicted for a criminal offense is presumed unworthy of a favorable discretionary decision, even where the charge was later dropped, dismissed, resolved through diversion, or expunged or sealed. Letting an arrest with no conviction decide the outcome is fundamentally unjust. Our legal system does not treat an arrest as proof of guilt, and a dismissal or expungement is meant to close the matter for good. This rule instead turns that closed, favorable outcome into a lasting barrier to earning a living. This is also an abrupt, unexplained break from current practice. Today, when an applicant has an old arrest with no conviction, the agency reviews the court records, the final disposition, and the applicant’s positive equities together — and applicants with clean outcomes and strong records are regularly approved under that case-by-case approach. The proposed rule would replace that balancing test with a near-automatic presumption of denial, rebuttable only by showing a significant countervailing public interest, which the Department defines almost entirely around assisting law enforcement. Ordinary students, spouses, and green-card applicants have essentially no way to meet that bar. The rule effectively erases the factors — family ties, employment history, tax compliance, community involvement, a favorable legal outcome — that make approval possible today. The Department never acknowledges it is reversing its own established practice, nor explains why. A change this significant, offered without reasoned justification and without accounting for the reliance interests of people currently working lawfully, is arbitrary and capricious. My work authorization lets our family maintain financial stability while we go through the immigration process properly, and my income supports our household. Penalizing a family’s breadwinner over an arrest that never led to a conviction, or a case dismissed or expunged years ago, would cause real financial harm to families who have done everything right. This rule effectively treats spouses like me as a security risk, when we are simply trying to work and support the people who depend on us. I’m also concerned by the requirement that every applicant in these categories submit biometrics at each initial and renewal filing. For applicants with no identified security concern, this adds cost, slows processing, and creates another way a case can be denied over a missed or rescheduled appointment. Layering this on top of the new presumption compounds the burden on law-abiding families and employers. Separately, I ask the Department to consider offering premium processing for H-4 EAD applications, similar to what already exists for F-1 OPT/STEM OPT EAD processing. H-4 spouses currently wait months for an initial approval or renewal, and that delay puts our jobs directly at risk — employers cannot indefinitely hold a position open, and a lapse in status through no fault of the applicant can mean losing a job we are otherwise fully qualified and authorized to do. Extending premium processing to this category would reduce that risk without changing the substantive eligibility standard. Finally, the rule’s claim that these decisions are within the agency’s sole, unreviewable discretion would leave applicants no meaningful way to challenge a wrongful denial. Combined with a presumption triggered by a bare arrest, this invites erroneous denials no one can correct. For these reasons, I urge the Department to withdraw this rule. At minimum, I ask that it exclude eligibility-based categories — including F-1 practical training under (c)(3), H-4 spouses under (c)(26), and adjustment-of-status applicants under (c)(9) — from the new criminal-history presumption, preserve the individualized, totality-of-the-circumstances review that currently governs these cases fairly, and extend premium processing to H-4 EAD applications. Thank you for considering my comment. Respectfully, A concerned H-4 spouse