The Trump administration has formally proposed eliminating the 60-day grace period that allows H-1B workers and several other categories of foreign employees to remain in the US after losing or leaving a job, potentially turning an unexpected layoff into an immediate immigration problem.

Under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposal, workers covered by the rule would generally be considered to have failed to maintain their nonimmigrant status from the day after their employment or qualifying activity ends.

DHS says they and dependent family members would have to leave the US when employment ends unless they have another legal basis to remain.

The change is not yet in force. The existing 60-day grace period remains available while DHS completes the rulemaking process. The proposal, titled Eliminating the Discretionary 60-day Grace Period, is scheduled for publication in the Federal Register on Friday, 11 September, under Docket No. USCIS-2026-0364. Comments will be accepted for 60 days after publication before DHS can consider issuing a final rule.

No final effective date has been set.

The proposal extends well beyond H-1B workers. DHS wants to remove the grace period for people in the E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, O-1 and TN classifications, as well as spouses and children whose immigration status depends on the principal visa holder.

For Indian professionals, however, H-1B is where the impact would be concentrated. People born in India accounted for 71% of approved H-1B petitions in fiscal 2024, compared with about 12% for China, according to USCIS. India and China together accounted for 89% of approvals involving continuing H-1B employment.

What the current rule does

The grace period has been in place since 17 January 2017, after DHS introduced it as part of regulations intended to improve job mobility for highly skilled foreign workers and make it easier for US employers to recruit workers already in the country.

Under the current rule, workers in the covered categories whose employment ends before their authorized stay expires may receive up to 60 consecutive days in which USCIS can treat them as having maintained their status. The period cannot extend beyond the expiration of their existing authorized stay.

It is not permission to work for any employer during those 60 days. Instead, it gives workers time to find another sponsor, seek a change or extension of immigration status, pursue permanent residence where eligible or prepare to leave the country.

Nor is the full 60 days guaranteed. USCIS retains discretion to shorten or eliminate the period based on the circumstances of a case, including violations of status, unauthorized employment, fraud, national-security concerns or criminal convictions.

That distinction is central to DHS’s case for eliminating the rule. The department argues that the grace period has always been discretionary and that immigration status in these employment categories should remain directly connected to the job or activity on which admission to the US was based.

What would change

DHS proposes deleting 8 CFR 214.1(l)(2), the regulation containing the 60-day provision. If the change is finalized as proposed, the regulatory buffer would disappear. DHS says affected workers and their dependents would be considered to be failing to maintain nonimmigrant status beginning the day after the principal worker’s employment or qualifying activity ceases.

A footnote in the proposed rule goes further, saying an affected worker and dependents would have to depart the US on the day employment ends to avoid the consequences of failing to maintain status.

That does not mean a worker would automatically be deported the next morning. It means the regulatory protection that currently allows USCIS to treat a worker as maintaining status for up to 60 days would be gone. Remaining without another lawful basis could expose the worker to immigration consequences, including removability.

The change would cover workers who are dismissed as well as those who leave their jobs voluntarily. DHS says its data cannot reliably distinguish between employer-initiated terminations and workers who quit when an approved employment petition is withdrawn.

Workers who have some independent basis to remain in the US would not necessarily have to leave. Individual circumstances could include a separate immigration status or another authorization to remain, and workers pursuing adjustment of status may be differently situated depending on their cases.

H1B portability would remain

The proposal would not repeal the separate H-1B portability provision created by Congress. Eligible H-1B workers may generally begin working for a new H-1B employer as soon as that employer files a qualifying, nonfrivolous Form I-129 petition, without waiting for USCIS to approve it. DHS expressly recognizes that rule in its economic analysis.

What would disappear is much of the time available to make use of it after an unexpected job loss. Under the existing regime, a laid-off H-1B worker may have weeks to interview, obtain an offer and allow the new employer’s lawyers to prepare a petition. Without the grace period, the worker could no longer rely on continuing H-1B status while that process unfolds.

For employers, that could make hiring workers after layoffs considerably harder. A company would need to identify the worker and prepare a new petition much more quickly, or the worker might have to leave the US and continue the process from abroad.

DHS acknowledges that some workers could lose income because they may have to leave, search for another job from overseas and then return after obtaining the necessary authorization. It also acknowledges possible temporary productivity losses for businesses that previously recruited workers during the grace period.

The 10-day rule offers little protection

A separate grace period of up to 10 days remains in the regulations for several employment visa classifications, but it generally would not protect someone dismissed midway through an approved employment period. DHS says that provision applies after the validity period of an authorized stay ends. It does not apply simply because a worker’s employment ends before the approved validity period expires.

That means it is not a substitute for the 60-day provision that DHS now wants to eliminate. Families could lose status too. The proposal also reaches spouses and children whose status derives from the principal worker.

DHS says dependent status is tied to the principal visa holder, meaning dependents generally lose or change status when the principal worker does. The consequences could extend beyond residence. Some spouses in dependent categories are permitted to work in the US, including qualifying H-4 spouses and certain spouses of L-1 and E visa holders. Loss of the principal worker’s underlying status could therefore also disrupt a spouse’s ability to work.

DHS counted an annual average of 208,187 dependents associated with workers in the affected visa classifications from fiscal 2021 through 2025. But the department says it cannot reliably determine how many of those family members would actually have needed the 60-day grace period.

DHS says the rule creates a burden

The administration argues that employment-based temporary immigration status should remain tied directly to the employment or activity that justified a person’s admission to the country.

DHS also says administering the grace period has become burdensome because USCIS officers reviewing later immigration applications may have to determine when employment ended, whether the grace period applied and whether it should be shortened or eliminated.

Evidence establishing the final day of employment can vary widely, DHS says. In some cases officers have to infer the termination date from payroll records or other documents rather than a clear notice from the employer.

From October 1, 2017, through May 20, 2026, DHS identified more than 1.9 million petitions and applications in which USCIS potentially had to assess whether the grace period applied. The department describes that as a significant adjudicative burden.

That number is not the number of people who used the grace period. It is the much broader pool of cases in which USCIS says an officer potentially had to consider the issue.

DHS considered less sweeping alternatives, including shortening the 60 days, retaining the benefit for some visa categories or requiring additional evidence.

It rejected those approaches. The department said a shorter period would still require USCIS officers to determine whether workers qualified and would not resolve what it views as a mismatch between employment-based status and continued presence after the underlying employment ends.

How many workers actually use it

DHS acknowledges that it does not directly track use of the grace period, so its estimate of the affected population is built from petition withdrawals and subsequent immigration filings.

Between fiscal 2021 and 2025, DHS identified 328,758 workers in the covered visa categories whose employment ended or who changed employers, an annual average of 65,752.

Of that five-year population, 5.77% had a new Form I-129 petition filed by another employer within 60 days of withdrawal of the previous petition. Another 1.70% filed to extend or change status, 0.59% sought adjustment of status and 0.02% applied for a compelling-circumstances employment authorization document.

The figures come with substantial limitations. Some visa categories do not require employers to notify USCIS immediately when employment ends, while the data can include workers who voluntarily changed jobs rather than people who were laid off. DHS also cannot identify every worker who may have changed jobs before an old employer formally withdrew a petition.

Using that data, DHS estimates that an average of 3,795 workers a year had a new employment petition filed during the possible 60-day window. Of those, about 3,765, or 99.2%, were H-1B workers. That concentration helps explain why a rule covering eight different visa classifications is likely to be felt primarily in the H-1B system.

Employers could face faster decisions

US companies that employ foreign professionals could also have to change how they manage recruitment and layoffs.

A company seeking to hire an H-1B worker who has just lost another job would have considerably less room to complete interviews, make an offer and prepare an immigration petition while the worker remains in the US under the previous status.

DHS accepts that some employers could experience a temporary loss of productivity. Its proposed rule says companies could instead hire qualified US workers, redistribute work internally or go through the immigration process needed to employ the foreign worker.

The department nevertheless says the overall proposal is unlikely to affect the national labor force or individual state labor forces significantly. Any labor-market effects, it says, are more likely to be localized.

Technology companies, professional-services firms and outsourcing groups are among the major users of H-1B visas. Deloitte, PwC, EY, Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Infosys Ltd, HCL Technologies Ltd and LTIMindtree Ltd are among large sponsors.

There is another consequence for companies conducting layoffs. Employers that dismiss an H-1B or O-1 worker before the end of the authorized admission period can be responsible for the reasonable cost of the employee’s return transportation to their home country. That obligation does not generally apply when the employee voluntarily quits.

DHS acknowledges workers built lives around rule

The proposed rule is unusually explicit about the disruption it could cause.

DHS acknowledges that employers may have made staffing decisions on the assumption that recently terminated foreign employees had time to transfer to a new sponsor. It also says workers and their families may have made career and personal decisions on the expectation that the grace period would give them time to remain legally in the US while pursuing another immigration option.

Some, the department notes, may have bought homes, paid taxes and become involved in their local communities.

DHS nevertheless concludes that those reliance interests are outweighed by what it sees as the need to reconnect immigration status directly to the employment on which it is based and to reduce USCIS’s administrative workload.

Immigration lawyers and advocates say eliminating the period would turn job losses that are already financially disruptive into immediate immigration crises.

“Many H-1B workers have been here for years, and they and their families have established themselves in their communities,” Gabriel Chin, a professor at the University of California, Davis School of Law, told Reuters.

Indian professionals face the biggest exposure

The proposal is likely to draw particular scrutiny in India because of the country’s dominance of the H-1B system.

India-born workers accounted for 71% of all H-1B petition approvals in fiscal 2024, according to USCIS. Computer-related jobs have historically accounted for the largest share of H-1B employment, and Indian technology and consulting groups are among the program’s biggest users.

The 60-day period can be especially important for workers who have spent years in the US on temporary visas while waiting for an employment-based green card.

Under the current system, losing a job does not necessarily end that longer immigration path. A worker may have up to 60 days, subject to USCIS discretion and the expiration of the existing authorized stay, to find another sponsor or take another immigration step.

If DHS adopts the proposal unchanged, that buffer would disappear. For H-1B workers, the statutory ability to move to another employer would remain. What would change is the amount of time available after an unexpected termination to find that employer and get a petition filed.

The Federal Register notice is a proposed rule, not a final one. DHS has invited comments on its effects on workers, families, employers and communities before deciding whether to proceed. Until that process is completed and a final rule takes effect, the existing 60-day grace period remains in place.