Clarification of Discretionary Employment Authorization for Certain Aliens

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.

The commenter, an individual whose spouse is an H-4 dependent with work authorization, opposes the proposed rule because it applies enforcement-oriented requirements (like broad criminal history checks and mandatory biometrics) to a category that should remain mechanical and predictable. They argue these changes will cause work authorization gaps, lack proper notice for terminations, and impose economic costs on H-4 spouses without a valid security justification.

The commenter, an H-4 visa holder, opposes the proposed rule because it creates a presumption of denial for work authorizations based on arrests even without convictions. They argue the rule is arbitrary, unfairly penalizes families, and lacks a reasoned explanation for departing from current individualized balancing practices.

An H-4 visa holder opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it unfairly creates a presumption of denial for work authorizations based on arrests that did not lead to convictions. The commenter highlights the potential for significant financial harm to families and requests that eligibility-based categories be excluded from the new criminal history presumption.

An H-1B visa holder and spouse of an H-4 EAD holder opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it unfairly penalizes individuals for past arrests even when charges are dismissed or expunged. The commenter highlights that the rule will create significant financial instability for families, increase processing delays, and discourage employers from hiring H-4 EAD holders.

A concerned adjustment applicant opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it unfairly creates a presumption of denial for work authorization based on arrests even without convictions. The commenter highlights that the rule undermines the purpose of interim work authorization and advocates for maintaining an individualized review process.

Aditya Cherukupalli, an international student, opposes the proposed rule because it creates a presumption of denial for work authorizations based on arrests, even if charges were dismissed or expunged. He argues the rule is arbitrary, removes individualized balancing, and creates unnecessary burdens for students and families.

The commenter, an individual, supports the action by requesting that USCIS streamline the issuance and renewal of Employment Authorization Documents (EADs). They argue that timely processing is essential to prevent lawfully present individuals from losing their jobs due to administrative delays.

The commenter, a private individual sponsoring a Ukrainian family with TPS, argues that the government's slow processing of work authorization cards is causing severe financial hardship for the family. They urge the government to streamline the bureaucracy and process the forms in a timely manner.

The commenter opposes the proposed rule because it creates difficult discretionary barriers for applicants, particularly children, to prove a "need" for employment authorization. They argue that the rule should instead preserve objective eligibility standards and include mandatory adjudication deadlines to prevent harm caused by processing delays.