Comment Submitted by Anonymous

Docket No. USCIS-2026-0067 RIN 1615-AC98 Re: Clarification of Discretionary Employment Authorization for Certain Aliens, 91 FR 34352 I oppose the criminal history presumption and the biometrics requirement as applied, through 8 CFR 274a.12(c) and 274a.13, to (c)(9) employment authorization. I am an H-1B nonimmigrant working as a Senior Site Reliability Engineer for a globally reputed IT Company in Austin, Texas, lawfully present and employed for ten years. I self-petitioned in the EB-1A extraordinary ability classification -- no employer petition, no labor certification, no job offer -- and USCIS approved it. My I-485 is pending. I hold a (c)(9) EAD I have never activated. The American-worker rationale does not reach this population. The preamble supports it with data from the (c)(11), (c)(14), and (c)(18) populations. Congress exempted EB-1 extraordinary ability from labor certification and any job offer because such individuals benefit the country, and USCIS made that finding in my case. The Department should not extend to categories it did not analyze a justification developed for three that it did. The exception is too narrow to reach the Department's own favorable findings. The presumption may be overcome only on a showing of significant countervailing public interests, described principally as assisting law enforcement. So written, cooperating with an investigation qualifies but an adjudicated finding of national benefit does not. If it is meant to reach the benefit Congress recognized in EB-1, the text should say so. The rule never explains why an outright dismissal counts against an applicant. It addresses only non-conviction outcomes involving an agreement imposing punishment or restraint -- diversion, deferred adjudication, expunged records -- where the applicant accepted something in exchange. That reasoning does not transfer to a charge dismissed outright, with no agreement or penalty, yet the first prong sweeps it in, triggered by arrest alone. Having reasoned through the harder case, the Department cannot leave the easier one unexplained. The unused (c)(9) EAD is insurance, and the rule destroys its value. H-1B status is employer-tied and fragile; many applicants renew (c)(9) without ever using it because a layoff or untimely filing can end work with little notice. Under this rule each renewal becomes a fresh discretionary adjudication carrying a presumption of denial. The economic analysis counts only applicants employed on the card, not those holding it as a contingency. The presumption also duplicates and exceeds the criminal admissibility review the I-485 already receives under INA 212(a)(2), a framework with defined exceptions and waivers. Retrogression compounds the exposure. The August 2026 Visa Bulletin holds the EB-1 final action date for India at October 15, 2022. An applicant decided in eighteen months meets this presumption once; one in a retrogressed category meets it five or six times across a decade on an unchanged record. Where USCIS has already granted authorization after reviewing a criminal record, a renewal presenting no new history should not face a fresh presumption. Repeat biometrics are duplicative: these applicants already gave biometrics with the I-485 and cleared background checks. Requiring them again at each filing adds cost and a new failure mode -- denial for a missed appointment -- with no security benefit. Automatic termination is especially severe for self-petitioners. Expanding 274a.14(a)(1) to reach denial of the underlying application would end work authorization immediately, without notice or wind-down, and a self-petitioner has no employer to file an alternative petition. The Department should address what happens while a timely motion to reopen is pending; a presumption of denial with no review guarantees uncorrected error. The harm falls on a citizen family. My spouse's employment authorization is derivative of my status and sits in (c)(26), which this rule also sweeps in, so one adverse call ends two incomes at once. Our child is a United States citizen. We bought a home in reliance on authorization the government granted and renewed. A denial on an arrest that produced no conviction means lost income, mortgage default, and a citizen child's family choosing between separation and departure. Requests: (1) State expressly whether (c)(9) and (c)(26) are among the currently non-discretionary categories. (2) Exclude eligibility-based categories -- (c)(9), (c)(26), (c)(3) -- and retain individualized review. (3) If any presumption is retained, exclude arrests not resulting in conviction -- dismissal, acquittal, and declination absent an agreement imposing a penalty or restraint. (4) Exempt applicants whose biometrics are already on file. (5) Address in Section IV.H the reliance interests of applicants and families holding unused (c)(9) authorization as protection against loss of status. Respectfully, A concerned EB-1A adjustment applicant, TX