The US Department of Homeland Security is advancing a proposal that could eliminate the 60-day grace period available to H-1B workers after they lose their jobs, raising concern among Indian technology professionals and immigrant families. The proposal reached the White House Office of Management and Budget on August 6 for regulatory review. OMB records list it as a proposed rule titled “Eliminating the Discretionary 60-day Grace Period.” The measure has not taken effect. DHS has also not publicly released the full proposed regulatory text, meaning important details could still change during the review process. What the current 60-day rule allows Current federal regulations protect eligible foreign workers from immediately falling out of status solely because their employment ends. The rule allows a grace period of “up to 60 consecutive days” or until the worker’s authorised stay expires, whichever comes first. It covers workers in E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, O-1 and TN classifications. Their dependants also receive protection under the existing provision. During this period, an eligible H-1B worker can seek another sponsoring employer or pursue a change of immigration status. Workers can also prepare to leave the United States if another option is unavailable. USCIS introduced the grace-period provision through regulations that took effect in January 2017. It was designed to give employment-based non-immigrants greater flexibility after an unexpected termination. Why H-1B workers and families are concerned Removing the grace period could make a sudden job loss an immediate immigration problem for many foreign professionals. An H-1B worker who loses employment may have much less time to secure another sponsor. The change could also complicate efforts to move into another eligible immigration category. The consequences could extend to families. H-4 spouses and children generally depend on the principal H-1B holder maintaining the underlying immigration status. The issue carries particular importance for Indian professionals, including thousands employed across the US technology sector. Indian workers have long represented a major share of the H-1B workforce. Employers could also face tighter timelines when recruiting foreign professionals who have recently lost sponsored jobs. However, the existing regulation already gives DHS discretion to shorten or eliminate the current 60-day period in individual circumstances. Has the H-1B grace period ended? No. The 60-day grace period remains in force as of August 10, 2026. OMB records show the proposal remains under review and carries no legal deadline. It is still at the proposed-rule stage. If DHS moves ahead, the proposal would normally need publication through the federal rulemaking process before any final regulation could take effect. The government could modify, delay or withdraw it before then. For now, eligible H-1B workers who lose their jobs can continue relying on the existing grace-period rules. The development nevertheless increases uncertainty for foreign professionals whose legal status depends on employment. Any eventual removal of the protection could sharply reduce the time workers have to find a new employer, change status or arrange their departure from the United States.
US Judge Blocks Trump’s $100,000 H-1B Visa Fee in Major Legal Defeat
A federal judge struck down US President Donald Trump’s controversial $100,000 H-1B visas fee on Monday. The ruling marks a major setback for the administration’s efforts to restrict legal immigration. US District Judge Leo Sorokin issued the decision in Boston. Twenty Democratic state attorneys general filed the lawsuit after Trump announced the fee in September. The H-1B programme allows US employers to hire highly skilled foreign workers. It offers 65,000 visas each year. Another 20,000 visas go to applicants with advanced degrees. Successful applicants can work in the United States for three to six years. Before Trump announced the policy, employers usually paid between $2,000 and $5,000 in fees. The new charge increased costs more than twentyfold. Businesses, universities and healthcare institutions quickly criticised the move. Sorokin rejected the administration’s argument that the fee was a lawful penalty under federal immigration law. He concluded that the payment functioned as a tax. “Here, the substance and application of the $100,000 payment reveal that it is a tax, regardless of what the payment is called,” Sorokin wrote. The judge said Congress never authorised the president to impose such a tax. He also cited recent Supreme Court decisions that limit executive authority when federal law does not clearly grant specific powers. States Said Fee Hurt Recruitment of Skilled Workers The Trump administration defended the policy in court. Officials argued that immigration law gives the president broad authority to restrict the entry of foreign nationals when their admission could harm US interests. The administration said the fee would encourage companies to hire and train American workers. Trump had previously argued that employers misuse the H-1B programme. He said the system “has been deliberately exploited to replace, rather than supplement, American workers with lower-paid, lower-skilled labor.” The coalition of states disagreed. They argued that the fee would make it harder to recruit doctors, engineers, teachers and other skilled professionals. California Attorney General Rob Bonta led the lawsuit. He welcomed the ruling and said the policy threatened key sectors of the economy. “This tax was an attack on America’s ability to attract and retain the high-skilled talent that strengthens our economy and helps us meet critical workforce needs,” Bonta said. The states also argued that hospitals, universities and research institutions rely heavily on foreign talent. They said the fee would increase labour shortages in several industries. Visa Demand Fell Sharply After Fee Announcement Court filings showed that the policy discouraged employers from seeking H-1B visas. As of February 15, US Citizenship and Immigration Services had received only 85 payments of the $100,000 fee. The figure highlighted the dramatic decline in demand after the policy took effect. The White House did not immediately respond to Reuters after the ruling. However, administration officials signalled that they would continue defending the policy. White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers later criticised the decision. “President Trump has clear legal authority to restrict entry of any class of aliens he determines is not in America’s best interests, and that is exactly what he did,” Rogers said. The administration plans to appeal the ruling. The case could have far-reaching consequences for US immigration policy. It may also influence future efforts by presidents to impose financial restrictions without explicit approval from Congress. For now, employers that depend on highly skilled foreign workers have received a significant legal victory. The ruling removes one of the biggest barriers that the administration placed on the H-1B visa programme.
