Clarification of Discretionary Employment Authorization for Certain Aliens

The commenter opposes the proposed rule restricting work eligibility for documented immigrants, arguing it will cause labor shortages in critical sectors and create economic harm. They contend that documented immigrants contribute significantly to the economy and that the new restrictions are redundant and costly.

The commenter, a lawful H-4 EAD holder and data engineering manager, opposes the proposed rule because it shifts eligibility-based work authorizations to a discretionary model that could unfairly penalize individuals for arrests without convictions. They argue that the rule replaces individualized reviews with rigid presumptions, increases administrative burdens, and risks erroneous denials for law-abiding professionals who contribute to the U.S. economy.

The commenter, a humanitarian parolee from Ukraine, opposes the proposed rule because it adds unnecessary barriers and delays to the employment authorization process for lawful parolees. They argue that the additional requirements for proof of economic necessity and E-Verify restrictions will harm their ability to support their family and maintain employment.

A Ukrainian immigrant living in the U.S. under the Uniting for Ukraine program supports the proposed action to protect access to employment authorization. The commenter argues that work authorization provides stability, dignity, and economic contribution for eligible families and individuals.

An EB-1A adjustment applicant opposes the proposed criminal history presumption and biometrics requirements for (c)(9) and (c)(26) employment authorizations. The commenter argues that the rule unfairly impacts self-petitioners, creates unnecessary burdens for those with clean records, and fails to account for the reliance interests of families.

An individual who arrived from Ukraine under the Uniting for Ukraine program opposes the proposed restrictions on discretionary employment authorization for humanitarian parolees. The commenter argues that the proposal would create unnecessary delays and administrative burdens for families who need to work to remain financially independent and avoid public assistance.

An H-4 visa holder and derivative adjustment applicant opposes the proposed rule because it subjects her (c)(26) and (c)(9) employment authorizations to a criminal history presumption and redundant biometrics requirements. She argues that these measures create unnecessary risks for families with no new criminal history and requests specific exemptions for dismissed arrests and existing biometrics.

An H-4 spouse opposes the proposed rule because it would create a near-automatic presumption of denial for work authorizations based on arrests without convictions, which they argue is arbitrary and capricious. The commenter requests that the Department withdraw the rule, preserve individualized reviews, and consider offering premium processing for H-4 EAD applications.