Trump Administration Seeks to End 60-Day Grace Period for H-1B Visa Holders

The Department of Homeland Security published a notice last week proposing to eliminate the 60-day grace period that has allowed certain nonimmigrant visa holders to remain in the United States after their sponsoring employment ends. The change would apply to H-1B specialty occupation workers as well as holders of E-1, E-2, L-1, O-1, TN, and H-1B1 visas. Under the existing rule, established in the final days of the Obama administration, these individuals could seek new sponsors or adjust status without immediate removal proceedings. The new proposal would tie legal presence more tightly to the specific job or activity that justified admission.

Officials describe the measure as restoring a direct link between an individual's immigration status and its original purpose. The Federal Register notice states that the policy reduces administrative burden by avoiding extended periods in which a visa holder is no longer connected to any qualifying employer or activity. Public comments will be accepted for 60 days before any final rule.

The grace period was introduced to give skilled workers time to transition between positions without leaving the country. Supporters at the time argued it supported labor market flexibility for employers reliant on specialized talent. Critics, however, have long maintained that decoupling status from employment creates opportunities for extended stays without continuous productive activity, complicating enforcement and shifting costs to taxpayers and competing workers.

The proposal arrives amid broader efforts to tighten oversight of temporary work visas. H-1B admissions have drawn scrutiny for years because annual caps are routinely oversubscribed and wages in some occupations show limited upward pressure despite claims of shortages. Removing the grace period would require laid-off workers to depart promptly unless they secure new sponsorship or another qualifying status, aligning presence more closely with active employment.

One recent case illustrates the practical effect. Soumi Chanda, who obtained an H-1B visa on her first attempt after years working in India, built a career in the United States over more than a decade. When her position ended in a layoff, the existing 60-day window required her to arrange departure and return to India. Such outcomes reflect the temporary nature of these visas, which were never designed as a path to permanent settlement independent of employer need.

Data on H-1B usage show heavy concentration in technology and engineering fields, with a significant share of approvals going to workers from India. Proponents of stricter rules argue that the program should function as a targeted supplement to the domestic labor force rather than a standing alternative. Eliminating the grace period would reinforce that distinction by ending the administrative allowance for job-search intervals.

The notice does not alter the underlying statutory requirements for these visa categories. Employers would still need to demonstrate that positions meet specialty criteria and wage standards where applicable. Workers who lose sponsorship would face the same requirement to maintain lawful status through new qualifying activity or departure.

If finalized, the rule would represent the most substantial adjustment to these nonimmigrant categories since the grace period took effect nearly a decade ago. It would place renewed emphasis on continuous employment as the condition for remaining in the country under these visas.