Comment Submitted by Isai Anbalagan

Comment in Opposition to the Proposed Rule: “Clarification of Discretionary Employment Authorization for Certain Aliens” I respectfully oppose this proposed rule. I am a lawful H-4 EAD holder who has fully complied with U.S. immigration laws and maintained lawful status throughout my stay in the United States. The H-4 Employment Authorization Document has had a profound positive impact on my family. It allowed me to reunite and live with my family in the United States instead of remaining separated because of immigration restrictions. It also enabled me to accept a better-paying position where I can fully utilize my professional skills. As a result, I pay more in federal, state, and local taxes, contribute to Social Security and Medicare, and support the U.S. economy. I have more than 18 years of experience in data engineering and data modernization, including the last 12 years in leadership and management roles. I currently manage a data engineering team in the retail industry. My team develops and maintains data platforms that improve operational efficiency, optimize inventory and supply chain decisions, and help grocery retailers keep prices as low as operationally possible while ensuring products remain available for consumers. This work supports American businesses and helps millions of families who rely on affordable groceries. My primary concern with this proposed rule is that it fundamentally changes work authorization categories that have long been predictable and eligibility-based into ones subject to broad discretionary denial. In particular, I am concerned that an arrest or criminal charge that never resulted in a conviction could create a presumption against granting employment authorization. In the American legal system, an arrest is not proof of guilt. Charges may be dismissed, individuals may be found not guilty, or cases may be resolved without any finding of wrongdoing. Treating such circumstances as a basis for denying employment authorization is inconsistent with fundamental principles of fairness and due process. I am also concerned that the proposal appears to replace the individualized review currently used by USCIS with a presumption that is difficult for ordinary applicants to overcome. Today, applicants can present evidence of lawful conduct, employment history, tax compliance, family responsibilities, and other positive factors. These considerations recognize that each case is unique. A rigid presumption risks denying employment authorization to individuals who have complied with the law and have demonstrated positive contributions to the United States. The proposed requirement for biometrics with every initial and renewal application also appears likely to increase costs, processing times, and administrative burdens for both applicants and USCIS, even where there are no identified security concerns. Additional procedural requirements may lead to unnecessary delays that affect families and employers who depend on uninterrupted employment authorization. Finally, I am concerned that expanding discretionary authority while limiting meaningful review of these decisions increases the risk of erroneous denials without an adequate opportunity for correction. Fair procedures and transparent decision-making are essential when a person’s livelihood and ability to support a family are at stake. As someone who has directly benefited from the H-4 EAD program, I can attest that it enables highly skilled professionals to contribute to the U.S. economy, fill important workforce needs, pay taxes, and strengthen American businesses. In my own case, it allowed me to reunite with my family, advance into a leadership position, and contribute my experience to improving retail operations that help keep grocery prices affordable for consumers. For these reasons, I respectfully urge DHS to withdraw this proposed rule. At a minimum, I ask DHS to preserve the current individualized, totality-of-the-circumstances review for eligibility-based employment authorization categories, including H-4 spouses, rather than adopting a presumption that may unfairly deny work authorization to otherwise qualified, law-abiding applicants. Thank you for considering my comments.