DHS, 가석방·행정보류·감독부 석방자 대상 재량적 취업허가 요건 강화 제안

Some aliens who have final orders of removal but are temporarily released from custody on an order of supervision would eventually be out of the labor force even in the absence of this proposed rule. Since these aliens have been ordered removed, the Federal Government makes efforts to remove them from the United States on an ongoing basis regardless of employment authorization. For aliens who would no longer be eligible for employment authorization under this rule because the aliens do not meet the proposed exception—DHS has not determined that the removal of such aliens is impracticable because ICE has not identified them as unable to obtain travel documents—this rule would affect the timing of when such alien workers would be removed from the labor force, which could vary.

Further, some aliens who have been granted deferred action and aliens who have been granted parole would also eventually be out of the labor force even in the absence of this proposed rule. For both populations, the grant of deferred action and parole have limited validity periods and can be terminated at any time at DHS discretion. Additionally, for these aliens who would no longer be eligible for employment authorization under this rule because the aliens do not meet the proposed requirements, this rule would also affect the timing of when such alien workers would be removed from the labor force, which could vary.

This proposed rule would result in employers incurring labor turnover costs earlier in comparison to the state of the world in the absence of the proposed rule. Since the timing of when alien workers would be removed from the labor force is variable regardless of whether this proposed rule becomes final or not, DHS is unable to establish a baseline estimate of the labor turnover costs employers currently incur. In addition, DHS cannot quantify the labor turnover costs that employers would incur earlier than they would otherwise be due to the proposed rule because there is no way to know the timing for when aliens would be removed.

For aliens applying for renewal, employment authorization would only be granted to aliens who continue to meet the exception (under category (c)(18)), demonstrate economic necessity, do not have subsequent criminal convictions, are employed by a U.S. employer who is a participant in good standing in the E-Verify program, and establish that the aliens warrant a favorable exercise of discretion. The E-Verify program is a DHS web-based system that allows enrolled employers to confirm the identity and eligibility of their employees to work in the United States by electronically matching information provided by employees on the Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) against records available to DHS and the SSA.[301] DHS does not charge a fee for employers to participate in the E-Verify Program and create cases to confirm the identity and employment eligibility of newly hired employees. Employment authorization renewal applications would be denied for those aliens who cannot establish that he or she is employed by a U.S. employer who is a participant in good standing in E-Verify and the filing fee would not be refunded.[302] DHS does not know the number of aliens applying for renewal who would incur this cost once the rule is final.

Although there is no fee to use E-Verify, this proposed requirement would result in costs to newly enrolled employers. Employers who enroll in the E-Verify program would incur startup enrollment or program initiation costs as well as additional opportunity costs of time for ongoing annual training for the E-Verify program. DHS assumes that employers who are currently participating in the E-Verify program would not incur these costs since they previously incurred enrollment costs and would continue to participate in ongoing annual training regardless of this proposed rule.[303] Additionally, DHS expects that only newly enrolled employers would incur new costs for verifying the identity and work authorization of all of their newly hired ( printed page 34465) employees, including any new (c)(11), (c)(14), and/or (c)(18) workers as a result of this proposed rule. For employers currently enrolled in E-Verify who choose to hire a (c)(11), (c)(14), and/or (c)(18) alien worker, the proposed rule would not cause such employers to incur new costs since they already must use E-Verify for all newly hired employees as of the date they signed the E-Verify MOU.[304] Therefore, with or without the proposed rule, an employer already enrolled in the E-Verify program that chooses to hire a (c)(11), (c)(14), and/or (c)(18) alien worker would incur the opportunity cost of time to verify any newly hired employees.

Data show that some employers currently use E-Verify to confirm the identity and employment eligibility of (c)(11), (c)(14), and (c)(18) alien workers. Further, the requirement to participate in the E-Verify program is not new as certain employers are required to enroll in the program as a condition of Federal contracting, or as a condition of business licensing under State legislation or other applicable law or regulation.[305]

To renew employment authorization, the proposed rule would require that (c)(11), (c)(14), and (c)(18) alien workers be employed by or seek to be employed by employers enrolled in E-Verify who are in good standing. Therefore, the proposed rule would result in additional costs for employers that hire these alien workers only if such employers are not currently enrolled in the E-Verify program and who choose to retain their (c)(11), (c)(14), and/or (c)(18) alien workers.

For employers that have hired or intend to hire (c)(11), (c)(14), and/or (c)(18) alien workers but are not enrolled in the E-Verify program, such employers would incur opportunity costs of time to enroll. Participating in the E-Verify program and remaining in good standing requires employers to enroll in the program online,[306] electronically sign the associated MOU with DHS that sets the terms and conditions of participation in the program and create E-Verify cases for all newly hired employees. The MOU requires employers to abide by lawful hiring procedures and to ensure that no employee will be unfairly discriminated against as a result of E-Verify.[307] If an employer violates the terms of this agreement, it is grounds for immediate termination from the program.[308] Additionally, employers are required to designate and register at least one person that serves as an E-Verify administrator on their behalf.

For this analysis, DHS assumes that each employer participating in the E-Verify program designates one human resources (HR) specialist to manage the program on its behalf. Based on the most recent PRA Information Collection Package for E-Verify, DHS estimates the time burden for an HR specialist to undertake the tasks associated with the E-Verify program. DHS estimates the time burden for an HR specialist to complete the enrollment process is 2 hours 16 minutes (2.26 hours), on average, to provide basic company information, review and sign the MOU, take a new user training, and review the user guides.[309] Once enrolled in the E-Verify program, DHS estimates the time burden is 1 hour to complete ongoing annual training on new features and system updates.[310]

Once enrolled in the E-Verify program, the employer is responsible for ensuring that the employment eligibility verification process adheres to the requirements of the MOU and the employer verifies that all newly hired employees are employment authorized. After completing Form I-9, the employer must enter the newly hired employee's information in E-Verify where it is checked against records available to SSA and DHS. After checking an employee's information against these records, E-Verify returns the case processing results, which could either automatically confirm the employee as employment authorized or return a mismatch. Receiving a mismatch does not mean an employee is not authorized to work in the United States; rather, it indicates there is an initial system mismatch between the information the employer entered in E-Verify from the employee's Form I-9 and the records available to DHS or SSA. Employees receiving a mismatch have the option to contest (take action) or not contest (not take action) to resolve the DHS and/or SSA mismatch case result. E-Verify requires employers to promptly inform the employee about the mismatch and provide instructions for contesting it. The E-Verify website also provides detailed information about contesting the mismatch.[311]

In the absence of specific population data on which entities would continue to hire (c)(11), (c)(14), and/or (c)(18) alien workers, it is only possible to calculate an estimated average unit cost for an employer not currently participating in E-Verify to hire one renewal alien worker. In this analysis, DHS uses an hourly compensation rate for estimating the opportunity cost of time for an HR specialist. DHS uses this occupation as a proxy for those who might prepare and complete the verification for an employer. DHS notes that not all employers may have an HR specialist, but rather some equivalent occupation may prepare and complete the verification and create the E-Verify case.

According to the most recent BLS data, the average hourly wage rate for HR specialists is $36.57.[312] DHS estimates the hourly compensation rates by adjusting the average hourly wage rates by a benefit-to-wage multiplier to account for the full cost of benefits, such as paid leave, insurance, and retirement. Based on the most recent report by the BLS on the average employers' costs for employee compensation for all civilian workers in major occupational groups and industries, DHS estimates that the benefits-to-wage multiplier is 1.45.[313] Therefore, DHS calculates an average hourly compensation rate of $53.03 for ( printed page 34466) HR specialists.[314] Applying this average hourly compensation rate to the estimated time burden of 2.26 hours for the enrollment process, DHS estimates an average opportunity cost of time for a new employer to enroll in E-Verify is $119.85.[315] DHS assumes the estimated opportunity cost of time to enroll in the E-Verify program is a one-time cost to employers. In addition, DHS estimates the opportunity cost of time associated with 1 hour of ongoing annual training for newly enrolled entities would be $53.03 annually in the years following enrollment.

Newly enrolled employers would also incur opportunity costs of time to enter employee information into the E-Verify system to confirm their identity and work authorization. DHS estimates the time burden for an HR specialist to submit a case in E-Verify is 7.74 minutes (or 0.129 hours).[316] Therefore, DHS estimates the opportunity cost of time would be approximately $6.84 per case.[317]

DHS estimates the total first year cost for a new employer to enroll in E-Verify and create a single E-Verify case in the E-Verify system would be approximately $126.69.[318] In subsequent years, DHS estimates newly-enrolled employers would incur costs of $59.87, at minimum, to maintain their account and create one new E-Verify case for their alien worker.[319] DHS recognizes that the actual cost to newly-enrolled employers of using E-Verify would be higher since case submissions would also include all newly hired employees, not just (c)(11), (c)(14), or (c)(18) alien workers. However, since DHS cannot predict how many employees each employer would hire in the future, DHS cannot estimate how many additional E-Verify cases an employer may expect to create. Employers already enrolled in the E-Verify program who choose to hire (c)(11), (c)(14), or (c)(18) alien workers in subsequent years would incur costs even in the absence of this proposed rule.

Employers that are not currently participating in E-Verify face the binary choice of participating in or not participating in the program. If the employer who had hired a (c)(11), (c)(14), or (c)(18) alien worker does not participate, the employer faces the potential for labor turnover costs. If the employer does participate, the employer incurs the cost of enrolling and participating in the program and implementing the program requirements. On one hand, since the discretionary EADs discussed in this proposed rule can be variable and some can be terminated at any time at DHS discretion, there might be some disincentive not to participate in E-Verify. However, as discussed in the “Population” section, DHS cannot make reliable estimates of the number of employers that would enroll and participate in E-Verify, and as such, cannot estimate total costs germane to this implementation.

In order to properly account for costs involving employers who have hired aliens who are discretionary EAD holders, DHS introduces the costs applicable to discuss labor turnover and E-Verify in separate segments. DHS anticipates this proposed rule would impose labor-related turnover costs on U.S. employers who employ (c)(11), (c)(14), and/or (c)(18) alien workers who would remain eligible under this rule but are not enrolled in E-Verify and opt not to enroll. Employers would incur labor turnover costs because these alien workers would remain eligible for initial employment authorization under this rule but would not be eligible to renew employment authorization since the alien workers would be unable to establish that they are employed by a U.S. employer who is a participant in good standing in E-Verify. As a result, alien workers would no longer be able to work and presumably employers would need to find a replacement worker.

For aliens who would remain eligible for employment authorization in the (c)(18) category under this rule, the duration of time to remove aliens on OSUP from the U.S. would likely be longer than average as DHS has determined that removal for these aliens is impracticable because all countries from which DHS has requested travel documents have affirmatively declined to issue such documents. Therefore, employers who do not use or are enrolled in E-Verify would incur turnover costs in cases where their (c)(18) alien workers would remain eligible for employment authorization under this rule. However, U.S. employers who are not enrolled in E-Verify could avoid turnover costs by choosing to enroll in the program. If an employer chooses to enroll in E-Verify, the employer would instead incur the associated costs to enroll in the system, submit cases (for all newly hired employees, not just (c)(18) alien workers), and maintain their account.

Employment separations can generate substantial labor turnover costs to employers that can be divided into several components. First are the direct or “hard” costs that involve separation and replacement costs. The separation costs include exit interviews, severance pay, and costs of temporarily covering the employee's duties and functions with other employees, which may require overtime or temporary staffing. The replacement costs typically include expenses of advertising positions, search and agency fees, screening applicants, interviews, background verification, employment testing, hiring bonuses (and/or incentives), and possible travel and relocation costs. Once hired, employers face additional training, orientation, and assessment costs.

Second, direct costs involve loss of productivity and possibly profitability due to operational and production disruptions, which can include errors from other employees that may temporally fill the position. Some analysts have identified a third cost segment, which is a type of indirect cost, which encompasses loss of institutional knowledge, networking, and impacts to work-culture, morale, and interpersonal relationships. This last type of cost is almost impossible to measure quantitatively.[320]

There are numerous studies and reports concerning labor turnover costs available from Human Resource entities that are cited across correspondent literature. Some focus on specific occupations, industries, salary levels, and often measure turnover cost in slightly different ways. Labor turnover ( printed page 34467) cost is generally reported as a share of annual earnings or an actual cost per employee. Usually, these reports measure the more direct, or “hard” costs associated with turnover and not intangible effects, such as worker morale or lost productivity. Many reports cite a 2012 report published by the Center for American Progress (CAP) that surveyed more than 30 studies that considered both direct ( e.g., separation and replacement) and indirect ( e.g., loss of institutional knowledge) costs.[321] DHS captures lost productivity—proxied by estimated earnings to aliens—should employers not be able to immediately find replacement labor for previously eligible aliens applying for employment authorization who would have been granted work authorization without this proposed rule. DHS requests public comments on how, or if, that measure of productivity may overlap with the types of productivity covered in the CAP report captured here, such as from the substitutability of replacement labor.

The CAP and other reports that we reviewed confirm three central aspects of turnover cost: (1) that they vary substantially across industries and jobs; (2) that they tend to grow (in absolute and percentage terms) according to skill level and earnings; and (3) that they are higher for salaried workers compared to hourly wage earners. The report notes that specialized technical jobs and highly paid jobs in line with senior or executive levels, which involve high levels of education, credentials, and stringent hiring criteria, can generate disproportionately high replacement costs that can reach more than 100 percent of the salary—compared to jobs with low educational and technical requirements.[322] However, the CAP survey found that costs tend to range within a bound of 10 percent to around 40 percent of the salary. For example, CAP found despite wide variation and range, for workers earning on average $75,000 per year or less ($2012), turnover costs ranged typically from 10 to 30 percent of the salary, clustering at about 21 percent. More recent reports indicate that the typical cost is about one-third of the salary.[323]

DHS examined a 2020 report by the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, which updated the earlier CAP study results to provide information on about thirty-five studies on turnover costs.324 We selected data points that captured both the annual earnings salary (which the study benchmarked to 2019 levels) and turnover costs. We then culled the data applicable to salary levels introduced in the (c)(18) “Earnings” section of this proposed rule. Twenty-seven resulting data points were employed for the analysis (Table V.37). The mean of 22.4 percent and the median of 16.6 percent of annual salary are amenable to the metrics reported in the studies referenced above and fall within a substantial range, from 2.1 percent to 68.7 percent (Table V.38).

( printed page 34468)

Additionally, the scatterplots presented in Figures V.1(A) and V.1(B) with the fitted least squares line clearly reveal that turnover cost is an increasing function of the annual earnings, with a moderately strong correlation coefficient of 0.421.[325] Figure V.1(A) plots the cost as a percentage of salary, as this is how it is inputted into the estimation, while Figure V.1(B) plots the cost in actual dollars, for context.

( printed page 34469)

In the absence of specific data on which employers hire (c)(11), (c)(14), and/or (c)(18) alien workers and use, or would enroll in, E-Verify, it is only possible to calculate an estimated range of average per employee turnover costs an employer not currently participating in E-Verify could incur. In order to estimate labor turnover costs, DHS uses estimated employee annual earnings of $36,144 based on the effective minimum wage as a lower bound and $81,440 based on the average wage developed previously in this analysis ( see (c)(18) “Earnings” section) and an upper bound. DHS multiplied each of these estimated employee annual earnings by 22.4 percent in accordance with an average (mean) cost percent derived from the 2020 report by the Washington Center for Equitable Growth ( see Table V.38). Using annual earnings based on the effective minimum wage (lower bound), DHS estimates labor turnover costs would be approximately $8,096 per worker and using the annual earnings based on the average wage (upper bound), DHS estimates labor turnover costs would be approximately $18,243 per worker.[326] Turnover costs would be higher if a U.S. employer that does not use or enroll in E-Verify employs more than one (c)(11), (c)(14), and/or (c)(18) alien worker who would remain eligible under this rule. DHS ( printed page 34470) recognizes that turnover costs would occur in the year an EAD expires and, depending on the effective date of this rule should it become finalized, employers who incur turnover costs may incur them in up to two consecutive fiscal years.

DHS is unable to predict how many employers would actually participate in E-Verify in order to retain their (c)(11), (c)(14), and/or (c)(18) alien workers or the total number of employment authorizations employers would confirm through E-Verify should they choose to participate. DHS assumes that employers would make a cost-benefit decision between incurring labor turnover costs and incurring the current and future costs to enroll and participate in E-Verify. DHS recognizes that an employer that enrolls and participates in E-Verify would confirm employment authorization for all new hires, not only their alien workers. Unlike the development of the costs germane to forgone earnings, in which DHS could at least deduce a range for the population based on some limited data, doing so here would be completely speculative, and we do not endeavor to rely on a range here.

As noted in the preamble and discussed elsewhere, aliens applying for employment authorization under § 274a.12(c) must submit biometrics in accordance with § 103.16 of this chapter, with any required fee. This includes all other (c) categories not discussed earlier in this analysis.[327] For this proposed rule, DHS is unable to project population estimates with any precision for these other (c) categories due to uncertainty regarding the status of some of the populations. The administration's current immigration enforcement priorities, including E.O. 14159 “Protecting the American People Against Invasion,” may impact the populations of these other (c) categories to varying degrees. Further, DHS recently published a proposed rule, Employment Authorization Reform for Asylum Applicants (“Asylum EAD Reform Rule”), addressing employment authorization for aliens with pending applications for asylum under § 274a.12(c)(8). However, DHS acknowledges similar biometrics costs for aliens applying for employment authorization under the other (c) categories as those described in the “Monetized Impact Analysis” section. The estimated cost for biometrics submission would range between $109.35 and $202.54 per alien.

The INA provides for the collection of fees at a level that will ensure recovery of the full costs of providing adjudication and naturalization services, including administrative costs and services provided without charge to certain aliens and petitioners. See section 286(m) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1356(m). DHS notes that USCIS establishes its fees by assigning costs to an adjudication based on its relative adjudication burden and use of USCIS resources. Fees are established at an amount that is necessary to recover these assigned costs, such as salaries and benefits for clerical positions, officers, and managerial positions, plus an amount to recover unassigned overhead ( e.g., facility rent, IT equipment and systems) and immigration benefits provided without a fee charge. Consequently, since USCIS immigration fees are based on resource expenditures related to the service in question, USCIS uses the fee associated with an information collection as a reasonable measure of the collection's costs to USCIS. Therefore, DHS has established the fee for the adjudication of Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, and the corresponding Form I-765 Worksheet. DHS notes that the proposed rule may increase USCIS' costs associated with adjudicating employment authorization requests because of the requirement to submit supporting documentary evidence when submitting Form I-765WS. USCIS currently does not charge a filing fee for Form I-765WS. While a filing fee is not charged for this form, the cost to USCIS is captured in the fee for Form I-765. Future adjustments to the fee schedule may be necessary to recover the additional operating costs and will be determined at USCIS' next comprehensive biennial fee review.

The benefits potentially realized by the proposed rule are qualitative. DHS estimates that American workers could have a better chance of obtaining jobs that some (c)(11), (c)(14), and (c)(18) alien workers currently hold, as the proposed rule would reduce employment authorization eligibility for these alien worker populations. This proposed rule would limit employment authorization under the (c)(11), (c)(14), and (c)(18) categories to better align with the DHS enforcement mission and the Administration's immigration enforcement priorities, including those outlined in E.O. 14159, Protecting the American People Against Invasion, and the Administration's efforts to strengthen protections of American workers.

In addition, E.O. 14159 entrusts DHS with the faithful execution of existing immigration laws and enables DHS to ensure the successful enforcement of final orders of removal to enhance public safety and national security. Without this proposed rule, aliens with final orders of removal could be incentivized to compete with American workers for jobs and resources instead of complying with their removal order. The proposed restriction on the ability to obtain work authorization may increase incentives for aliens with final orders of removal to depart the United States, which could decrease the amount of time aliens are in this status and could save government resources expended while aliens are temporarily released on an order of supervision and pending repatriation. ICE oversees the monitoring and tracking of aliens on an order of supervision as well as effectuates their removal from the United States.[328] Managing aliens temporarily released on an order of supervision consumes DHS resources. Specifically, ICE must devote resources to track and monitor the status of these aliens. This includes conducting regular check-ins to ensure compliance with conditions of release. These cases absorb scarce enforcement resources that could be diverted to, among other things, identifying and detaining criminal aliens. If fewer aliens with final orders of removal on an order of supervision remain in the United States for an extended period because this rule increases the incentives for them to depart, then ICE is likely to spend fewer resources on monitoring and tracking aliens on an order of supervision.

This proposed rule would create a consistent policy for adjudicating employment authorization applications for aliens who apply for employment authorization under the (c)(11), (c)(14), and (c)18) categories. Having a consistent policy on imposing restrictions on the ability to obtain employment authorization could also incentivize aliens who apply for employment authorization under the (c)(11) and (c)(14) categories (and who ( printed page 34471) may no longer be eligible) to voluntarily depart the United States earlier, thereby saving government resources to track and monitor these aliens once their parole or deferred action expires.

Monetizing this benefit is not possible at this time. Although the Federal Government makes efforts to remove these aliens from the United States on an ongoing basis regardless of employment authorization, there is no way to know the timing of when aliens would be removed, if an alien would be motivated to self-deport or, ultimately, who would execute the removal.

Additionally, the proposal to require aliens applying for employment authorization under the (c)(11), (c)(14), and (c)(18) categories to submit additional financial documentary evidence to establish an economic necessity to work may reduce abuse and fraud in the EAD program. Aliens would be required to submit Form I-765WS, which requires submission of annual income, annual expenses, and a total current value of an alien's assets, along with supporting financial documentary evidence.[329] The additional documentation alongside Form I-765WS will provide a clear record of an alien's assets, creating transparency of an alien's financial status, and thus enabling the detection of irregularities in an alien's documentation. DHS is unable to quantify the benefits that would result from an increase in the required supporting financial documentation. Finally, the added requirement that aliens be employed by a U.S. employer who is a participant in good standing in E-Verify to remain eligible to renew employment authorization, along with codifying biometrics as a requirement for aliens applying under § 274a.12(c), would ensure that employers are hiring legally eligible alien workers and would enable aliens to be vetted against government databases for criminal records and verify their identity before issuing an EAD, which would promote a consistent policy when granting employment authorization and also uphold the integrity of the immigration system.

As discussed in the “Population” sections of this analysis, USCIS anticipates approving somewhere between 37,933 and 106,053 Form I-765 applications annually from aliens with final orders of removal, aliens granted deferred action, and aliens granted parole in the absence of this proposed rule.[330] The U.S. labor force consists of a total of 168,547,000 workers, according to recent data (Dec. 2024).[331] Therefore, the maximum population affected by this proposed rule (about 106,053) represents 0.063 percent of the U.S. labor force, suggesting that the number of potential workers no longer eligible for employment authorization make up a very small percentage of the U.S. labor market.[332]

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Public Law 104-121 (Mar. 29, 1996), requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, and small organizations during the development of their rules. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, or governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.[333]

This proposed rule is estimated to result in a reduction in the number of aliens with final orders of removal—and are temporarily released on an order of supervision except in cases where the alien meets the exception under this proposed rule ( i.e., removal is impracticable because all countries from which DHS requested travel documents have affirmatively declined to issue such documents)—aliens granted deferred action, and aliens granted parole who are eligible for employment authorization. DHS has estimated that the rule would cover an upper bound population of about 106,053 aliens annually. As previously explained, the provision being proposed may result in forgone labor earnings for aliens with final orders of removal, aliens granted deferred action, and aliens granted parole. This rule directly regulates and impacts aliens with EADs, and individuals are not considered a small entity under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Some entities (including employers) could be indirectly impacted by labor turnover costs or the costs of implementing and utilizing E-Verify by this proposed rule because they employ an affected alien. DHS has prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) to accompany this proposed rule.

1. A description of the reasons why the action by the agency is being considered.

DHS has determined that the current employment authorization regulations governing discretionary employment authorization do not adequately reflect DHS's enforcement mission and priorities. As discussed more fully in the preamble, DHS's current immigration enforcement priorities include (1) the prompt removal of aliens who have received a final order of removal from the United States; (2) carrying out the directives contained in E.O. 14159 “Protecting the American People Against Invasion;” and (3) implementing the Administration's objective of strengthening protections for American workers. DHS is proposing through this rulemaking to align its discretionary authority to grant employment authorization with its immigration enforcement mission and priorities. Enforcement is essential to the integrity of the immigration system.

2. A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, the proposed rule.

DHS's authority to detain and release aliens ordered removed from custody on an order of supervision and to grant employment authorization is found in several statutory provisions. Section 102 of the HSA (Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135), 6 U.S.C. 112, and section 103 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1103, charge the Secretary with the administration and enforcement of the immigration and naturalization laws of the United States.[334] In addition to establishing the Secretary's general authority to administer and enforce immigration ( printed page 34472) laws, section 103 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1103, enumerates various related authorities, including the Secretary's authority to establish regulations as are necessary for carrying out his or her authority. Section 241 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1231, governs the detention, release, removal, and employment eligibility of aliens after they have received an administratively final order of removal. Section 274A of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1324a, governs employment of aliens who are authorized to be employed by statute or in the discretion of the Secretary and the requirements U.S. employers must follow to verify the identity and employment authorization of their employees. The authority to establish and operate E-Verify is found in sections 401-405 of IIRIRA, Public Law 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009-546. The Secretary proposes the changes in this rule under these authorities.

3. A description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply.

This rule directly regulates and impacts aliens with EADs, and individuals are not considered a small entity under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Since some small entities may be indirectly impacted by this proposed rule by employing an affected alien, DHS has developed this IRFA to evaluate the potential impact on small entities. Small entities could incur costs due to the proposed rule if they employ EAD holders who are affected by the new requirements of the proposed rule. However, DHS does not currently require information on the employer or employment status of the EAD holder and thus is unable to determine how many entities could be impacted by the proposed rule or whether the entities impacted would be considered small entities. This is because these EADs are open market EADs,[335] and therefore DHS does not currently collect information on the employer or the employment status of the EAD holder. This proposed rule may cause some existing EAD holders to be ineligible to renew their employment authorization. In such cases, small entities may incur opportunity costs associated with having to choose the next best alternative to immediately filling a job an EAD holder would have filled in situations where eligibility for the employment authorization category is not met. If entities cannot find reasonable substitutes for the labor the aliens on discretionary EADs described in this proposed rule would have provided, removing employment authorization eligibility for these aliens would result primarily in costs to those entities through lost productivity and lost profits. DHS expects that this type of turnover would be incurred in the first two years after the effective date of this rule.[336] Small entities, that do not currently participate in E-Verify would incur costs to implement and use the program in order to retain aliens temporarily released on OSUP in order for the alien to be eligible to renew employment authorization under this rule. DHS estimates the total first year cost for a new entity to enroll in the E-Verify program and create a single E-Verify case would be approximately $126.69.[337] In subsequent years, DHS estimates newly enrolled entities would incur a minimal annual cost of $59.87 to maintain their account and create one new case for their category (c)(11), (c)(14), and (c)(18) alien workers.[338] DHS recognizes that the actual cost to newly enrolled entities of using E-Verify would be higher since case submissions would also include all newly hired employees, not just category (c)(11), (c)(14), and (c)(18) alien workers. However, since DHS cannot predict how many employees each entity would hire in the future, DHS cannot estimate how many additional E-Verify cases an entity may expect to create. Entities already enrolled in the E-Verify program who choose to hire category (c)(11), (c)(14), and (c)(18) alien workers in subsequent years would incur costs even in the absence of this proposed rule.

Small entities that are not participating in E-Verify face the binary choice of participating or not participating in the program. If an entity who had hired a category (c)(11), (c)(14), and (c)(18) alien worker does not participate, the entity faces the potential for labor turnover costs. If the entity does participate, the entity incurs the cost of enrolling and participating in the E-Verify program and implementing the program requirements. On one hand, since the validity period for the discretionary EADs can be variable and some can be terminated at any time at DHS discretion, there might be some disincentive not to participate in E-Verify. However, as discussed in the “Population” section, DHS cannot make reliable estimates of the number of entities that would enroll and participate in E-Verify, and as such, cannot estimate total costs germane to this implementation.

If a small entity who employs category (c)(11), (c)(14), and (c)(18) alien workers who would remain eligible under this rule is not enrolled in E-Verify and opts not to enroll, the entity would incur labor-related turnover costs. Entities would incur labor turnover costs because these alien workers would remain eligible for initial employment authorization under this rule but would not be eligible to renew employment authorization since these aliens would be unable to establish that they are employed by an entity enrolled in E-Verify. As a result, alien workers would no longer be able to work and presumably entities would need to find a replacement worker. For aliens who would remain eligible for employment authorization under this rule—specifically aliens who are under category (c)(18) and who meet the exception under this proposed rule ( i.e., removal is impracticable because all countries from which DHS requested travel documents have affirmatively declined to issue such documents)—the duration of time to remove aliens on an order of supervision from the U.S. would likely be longer than average as DHS has determined that removal for these aliens is impracticable because all countries from which DHS has requested travel documents have affirmatively declined to issue such documents. Aliens under category (c)(11) and (c)(14) would also retain some eligibility under this rule so long as the aliens are able to provide the necessary documents to prove their economic necessity to work, which will be determined by use of the Federal Poverty Guidelines under title 42 of the U.S. Code. However, entities who do not use or are enrolled in E-Verify would incur turnover costs in cases where their category (c)(11), (c)(14), and (c)(18) alien workers would remain eligible for employment authorization under this rule and instead would have to find an eligible employer. ( printed page 34473)

Using annual earnings based on the effective minimum wage (lower bound), DHS estimates labor turnover costs would be approximately $8,096 per worker and using the annual earnings based on the average wage (upper bound), DHS estimates labor turnover costs would be approximately $18,243 per worker.[339] Turnover costs would be higher if a U.S. employer that does not use or enroll in E-Verify employs more than one category (c)(11), (c)(14), or (c)(18) alien worker who would remain eligible under this rule. DHS recognizes that turnover costs would occur in the year an EAD expires and, depending on the effective date of this rule should it become finalized, employers who incur turnover costs may incur them in up to two consecutive fiscal years.

DHS is unable to predict how many entities would participate in E-Verify in order to retain their category (c)(11), (c)(14), or (c)(18) alien workers or the total number of employment authorizations these entities would confirm through E-Verify should they choose to participate. DHS assumes that entities would make a cost-benefit decision between incurring labor turnover costs and incurring the current and future costs to enroll and participate in E-Verify. DHS recognizes that an entity that enrolls and participates in E-Verify would confirm employment authorization for all new hires, not only their discretionary EAD alien workers.

DHS has no way to predict how many small entities would adopt the E-Verify system and how many workers they would vet. Since this rule proposes a reduction in eligibility for employment authorization for aliens with final orders of removal, aliens granted deferred action, and aliens granted parole, the impact on the renewal population would depend on which aliens remain eligible and if the alien's employer already participates in E-Verify or would be willing to enroll and participate in E-Verify if the employer is not enrolled. DHS cannot rule out that some employers would incur labor turnover costs as a result of choosing not to enroll and participate in E-Verify. Because of the uncertainty regarding eligibility, DHS is unable to estimate a range for the renewal population that would be impacted by this provision and attempting to do so would be completely speculative. However, DHS acknowledges there could be aliens applying for renewal who would be impacted by this provision, which could, in turn, affect employers, some of which could be small entities. DHS seeks comments from the public on the impacts to small entities from enrolling and participating in the E-Verify program. DHS also seeks public comment on the number of small businesses that may be affected as well as compliance costs to those small businesses as a result of this proposed rule.

4. A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities that will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record.

This rule would not directly impose any reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements on small entities.

5. Identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the proposed rule.

DHS has recently published a proposed rule, Employment Authorization Reform for Asylum Applicants (“Asylum EAD Reform Rule”) addressing employment authorization for aliens with pending applications for asylum under 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(8) and 8 CFR 208.7. DHS is also concurrently proposing to amend its regulations concerning the use and submission of biometrics in the administration and enforcement of immigration and naturalization laws and the adjudication of any immigration application, petition, or benefit or any other related request or collection of information (“Biometrics Rule”).

6. Description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rule that accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and that minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.

This rule directly regulates and impacts aliens with final orders of removal, aliens granted deferred action, and aliens granted parole, and individuals are not considered a small entity under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Accordingly, DHS is not aware of any alternatives to the proposed rule that accomplish the stated objectives and that would minimize the economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities as this rule already imposes no direct costs on small entities. DHS requests comment and seeks alternatives from the public that will accomplish the same objectives.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) is intended, among other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on State, local, and Tribal governments.[340] Title II of UMRA requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed rule, or final rule for which the agency published a proposed rule, which includes any Federal mandate that may result in a $100 million or more expenditure (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. See2 U.S.C. 1532(a). The inflation adjusted value of $100 million in 1995 is approximately $206 million in 2024 based on the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U).[341]

This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate, because it would not impose any enforceable duty upon any other level of government or private sector entity. Rather, there may be some private-public partnership investment projects and beneficial downstream effects to State or local governments because the rule would codify the set aside for infrastructure projects. Any downstream effects on such entities would arise solely due to their voluntary choices, and the voluntary choices of others, and would not be a consequence of an enforceable duty imposed by this rule. Similarly, any costs or transfer effects on State and local governments would not result from a Federal mandate as that term is defined under UMRA. The requirements of title II of UMRA; therefore, do not apply, and DHS has not prepared a statement under UMRA. DHS has, however, analyzed many of the potential effects of this proposed action in the RIA above. ( printed page 34474)

This proposed rule is a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, also known as the Congressional Review Act (CRA) as enacted in section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 847, 868 et seq. Accordingly, this rule, if enacted as a final rule, would be effective absent any exceptions at least 60 days after the date on which Congress receives a report submitted by DHS under the CRA, or 60 days after the final rule's publication, whichever is later. 5 U.S.C. 801.

This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of E.O. 13132, Federalism, it is determined that this proposed rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.

This proposed rule was drafted and reviewed in accordance with E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule was written to provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct and was reviewed carefully to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguities, so as to minimize litigation and undue burden on the Federal court system. DHS has determined that this proposed rule meets the applicable standards provided in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988.

DHS has reviewed this rule in line with the requirements of section 654 of the Treasury General Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998). DHS has systematically reviewed the criteria specified in section 654(c)(1) of the statute by evaluating whether this regulatory action: (1) impacts the stability or safety of the family, particularly in terms of marital commitment; (2) impacts the authority of parents in the education, nurture, and supervision of their children; (3) helps the family perform its functions; (4) affects disposable income or poverty of families and children; (5) only financially impacts families, if at all, to the extent such impacts are justified; (6) may be carried out by State or local government or by the family; or (7) establishes a policy concerning the relationship between the behavior and personal responsibility of youth and the norms of society. If the agency determines a regulation may negatively affect family well-being, then the agency must provide an adequate rationale for its implementation.

DHS has determined that the proposed rule may adversely cause personal and family-related hardships, including causing disruptions to the alien and his or her U.S. citizen or LPR spouse and/or children dependent on the income currently earned by the affected alien and may decrease disposable income and increase the poverty of certain family members.

DHS has also determined the proposed rule may decrease disposable income and increase the poverty of certain families and children, including U.S. citizen children. However, DHS notes that employment authorization under these categories are a discretionary benefit and temporary in nature.[342] Families without durable lawful status should ultimately not solely rely upon discretionary categories of employment authorization and may experience hardship should they fail to take into account the temporary and discretionary nature of such benefits. The same is true for aliens with a final order of removal who will eventually be removed from the country, and their families should ultimately expect to experience such hardships.

However, for the reasons stated elsewhere in this preamble, DHS has determined that the benefits of the action justify the financial impact on such families. As described throughout this proposed rule, DHS has compelling legal and policy reasons for the proposed regulatory action. Any hardship that may occur because of an alien's inability to work is outweighed by DHS's goals of restoring the integrity of the immigration system through enforcement and judiciously using its discretion in those limited circumstances that serve a legitimate government interest. As described in the Purpose, Background, and Discussion sections of this rule, DHS has compelling legal and policy reasons for the proposed regulatory action, including the enforcement of the general prohibition against providing aliens ordered removed with employment authorization and disincentivizing those aliens with final orders of removal from remaining in the United States without a durable lawful status. This proposed rule's impact is justified, and no further actions are required.

Finally, DHS has also determined that the proposed rule neither strengthens nor erodes the authority and rights of parents in the education, nurture, and supervision of their children. The proposed rule also does not affect the ability of families to perform their functions or substitute governmental activity or function for the functions of families. This is not an action that can be carried out by State or local government, nor does the action establish an implicit or explicit policy concerning the relationship between the behavior and personal responsibility of youths and the norms of society.

This rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

DHS and its components analyze proposed regulatory actions to determine whether the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., applies and, if so, what degree of analysis is required. DHS Directive 023-01 Rev. 01 “Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act” (Dir. 023-01 Rev. 01) and Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01 Rev. 01 (Instruction Manual) [343] establish the policies and procedures that DHS and its components use to comply with NEPA.

NEPA allows Federal agencies to establish, in their NEPA implementing procedures, categories of actions (“categorical exclusions”) that experience has shown do not, individually or cumulatively, have a significant effect on the human environment and, therefore, do not require an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.[344] The ( printed page 34475) Instruction Manual, Appendix A lists the DHS Categorical Exclusions.[345]

Under DHS NEPA implementing procedures, for an action to be categorically excluded, it must satisfy each of the following three conditions: (1) The entire action clearly fits within one or more of the categorical exclusions; (2) the action is not a piece of a larger action; and (3) no extraordinary circumstances exist that create the potential for a significant environmental effect.[346]

This proposed rule is limited to amending the regulatory criteria for applying for employment authorization and clarifies discretionary employment authorization eligibility for aliens paroled into the United States temporarily for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit, for aliens granted deferred action, and for aliens who have a final order of removal and who are temporarily released from custody on an order of supervision. This proposed rule is strictly administrative and procedural and amends DHS's existing regulations governing employment authorization. DHS has reviewed this proposed rule and finds that no significant impact on the environment, or any change in environmental effect will result from the amendments being promulgated in this proposed rule.

Accordingly, DHS finds that the promulgation of this proposed rule's amendments to current regulations clearly fits within categorical exclusion A3 established in DHS's NEPA implementing procedures as an administrative change with no change in environmental effect, is not part of a larger Federal action, and does not present extraordinary circumstances that create the potential for a significant environmental effect. Therefore, the proposed amendments are categorically excluded from further NEPA review.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, 109 Stat. 163 (1995), all Departments are required to submit to OMB, for review and approval, any reporting or recordkeeping requirements inherent in a rule. USCIS is revising two information collections in association with this rulemaking action:

USCIS invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits to the information collection instrument.

Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0040 in the body of the letter and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the methods under the ADDRESSES and “Public Participation” sections of this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection should address one or more of the following four points:

(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

(1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection.

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Employment Authorization.

(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of DHS sponsoring the collection: I-765; USCIS.

(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. Form I-765 collects information needed to determine if an alien is eligible for an initial EAD, a replacement EAD, or a subsequent EAD upon the expiration of a previous EAD under the same eligibility category. Aliens in many immigration statuses are required to possess an EAD as evidence of work authorization. To be authorized for employment, an alien must be lawfully admitted for permanent residence or authorized to be so employed by the INA or under regulations issued by DHS. Pursuant to statutory or regulatory authorization, certain classes of aliens are authorized to be employed in the United States without restrictions as to location or type of employment as a condition of their admission or subsequent change to one of the indicated classes. USCIS may determine the validity period assigned to any document issued evidencing an alien's authorization to work in the United States. These classes of aliens authorized to accept employment are listed in 8 CFR 274a.12. USCIS also collects biometric information from certain aliens applying for EADs to verify the alien's identity, check or update their background information, and produce the EAD card. An alien applying for employment authorization can apply for a Social Security number and Social Security card using Form I-765.

(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection I-765 (paper) is 1,682,157 and the estimated hour burden per response is 4.88 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection I-765 (electronic) is 455,653 and the estimated hour burden per response is 4 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the I-765 PDFi submission process is 148,190 and the estimated burden per response is 4.312 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-765WS is 302,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1 hour; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Biometric Processing is 302,355 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.17 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Passport-Style Photographs is 2,286,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 0.5 hours.

(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 12,441,047 hours.

(7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $400,895,820.

USCIS invites the general public and other federal agencies to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to ( printed page 34476) obtain comments regarding the proposed edits to the information collection instrument.

Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0013 in the body of the letter and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the methods under the ADDRESSES and “Public Participation” sections of this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection should address one or more of the following four points:

(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Overview of this information collection:

(1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection.

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Travel Document.

(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of DHS sponsoring the collection: Form I-131; USCIS.

(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. Certain aliens, principally lawful permanent residents, conditional permanent residents, refugees, asylees, aliens applying for adjustment of status, aliens with pending Temporary Protected Status (TPS) applications and granted TPS, eligible recipients of DACA, aliens inside the United States seeking an Advance Parole Document, aliens outside the United States seeking an Advance Parole Document, and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands long-term residents seeking Advance Permission to Travel to allow them to travel to the United States and lawfully enter or reenter the United States. U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents will no longer utilize Form I-131 to request parole for their eligible family members under the Cuban Family Reunification Parole or Haitian Family Reunification Parole processes.

(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-131 (paper) is 976,639 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.167 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-131 (online) is 30,205 and the estimated hour burden per response is 2 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for biometrics processing is 49,615 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.17 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for passport-style photos is 16,600 and the estimated hour burden per response is 0.5 hours.

(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 3,219,776 hours.

(7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $296,178,136.

This rule would not cause the taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

Accordingly, DHS proposes to amend parts 106, 241, and 274a of chapter I, subchapter B, of title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

1. The authority citation for part 106 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1254a, 1254b, 1304, 1356; Pub. L. 107-609; 48 U.S.C. 1806; Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (6 U.S.C. 101 note); Pub. L. 115-218, 132 Stat. 1547; Pub. L. 116-159, 134 Stat. 709.

2. Section 106.2 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(44)(ii)(F) and (a)(44)(iv)(D) to read as follows:

§ 106.2

Fees.

(a) * * *

(44) * * *

(ii) * * *

(F) Persons granted Withholding of Deportation or Removal or Deferral of Removal;

* * * * *

(iv) * * *

(D) Persons granted Withholding of Deportation or Removal or Deferral of Removal;

* * * * *

3. The authority citation for part 241 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a; 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1182, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1231, 1251, 1253, 1255, 1330, 1362; 18 U.S.C. 4002, 4013(c)(4); Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (6 U.S.C. 101, et seq.); 8 CFR part 2.

4. Section 241.4 is amended by revising paragraph (j)(3) to read as follows:

§ 241.4

Continued detention of inadmissible, criminal, and other aliens beyond the removal period.

* * * * *

(j) * * *

(3) Employment authorization. An alien who is subject to a final order of deportation or removal and whom ICE has temporarily released from custody on an order of supervision pursuant to section 241(a)(3) of the Act after making the required assessment under section 241(a)(7) of the Act may apply to USCIS for employment authorization pursuant to the procedures prescribed under §§ 274a.12(c)(18) and 274a.13 of this chapter. Any grant of employment authorization by USCIS is discretionary. USCIS will only grant employment authorization if USCIS determines that the alien meets the criteria for employment authorization under § 274a.12(c)(18) of this chapter and warrants a favorable exercise of discretion. The alien must request employment authorization on the form ( printed page 34477) and in the manner prescribed by USCIS and according to the form instructions.

* * * * *

5. Section 241.5 is amended by revising the paragraph (a) introductory text and paragraph (c) to read as follows:

§ 241.5

Conditions of release after removal period.

(a) Order of supervision. Any alien U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) determines should be released from custody or detention pursuant to §§ 241.4 and 241.13(h) of this part, shall only be released on an order of supervision and shall be issued a completed Form I-220B, Order of Supervision, or successor form, which specifies the conditions for release and consequences for failure to comply with the conditions of release, including DHS's authority to take the alien back into custody and the potential for criminal charges and fines under § 243 of the Act if the alien fails to comply with the terms of supervised release. The Secretary, Director of ICE, or designated delegate shall have the authority to issue an order of supervision under this section. The order of supervision shall specify conditions of supervision including, but not limited to, the following:

* * * * *

(c) Employment authorization. An alien who is subject to a final order of removal and whom U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has released on an order of supervision pursuant to section 241(a)(3) of the Act and under this section may apply to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for employment authorization on the form designated by USCIS, with the appropriate fee and in accordance with the form instructions, pursuant to the procedures prescribed under §§ 274a.12 and 274a.13 of this chapter.

6. Section 241.13 is amended by revising paragraph (h)(3) to read as follows:

§ 241.13

Determination of whether there is a significant likelihood of removing a detained alien in the reasonably foreseeable future.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

(3) Employment authorization. USCIS may, in the exercise of its discretion, grant employment authorization under the same conditions set forth in §§ 241.5, 274a.12(c)(18), and 274a.13 of this chapter for aliens released under an order of supervision.

* * * * *

7. The authority citation for part 274a continues to read as follows:

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1105a, 1324; 48 U.S.C. 1806; Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890, as amended by Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat 599; Title VII of Pub. L. 110-229, 122 Stat. 754; Pub. L. 115-218, 132 Stat. 1547; 8 CFR part 2.

8. Section 274a.12 is amended by revising the introductory text of paragraph (c), paragraph (c)(11), paragraph (c)(14), and paragraph (c)(18) to read as follows:

§ 274a.12

Classes of aliens authorized to accept employment.

* * * * *

(c) Aliens who must apply to receive employment authorization. An alien within a class of aliens described in this section must apply in order to receive employment authorization and an employment authorization document. Except as otherwise provided by law and except for aliens described in paragraph (c)(8), whether to authorize employment of an alien within a class described in this section is in the sole and unreviewable discretion of USCIS.

* * * * *

(11) Except as provided in paragraphs (b)(37) and (c)(34) of this section and § 212.19(h)(4), § 235.3(b)(2)(iii), and § 235.3(b)(4)(ii) of this chapter, an alien paroled into the United States temporarily for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit pursuant to section 212(d)(5) of the Act.

(i) An alien may be granted employment authorization under this paragraph and 8 CFR 274.13(a)(3) only if the alien establishes:

(A) An economic necessity for employment; and

(B) The alien warrants a favorable exercise of discretion.

(ii) To renew employment authorization under this paragraph, the alien must also establish that he or she is employed by or seeking employment with a U.S. employer who is a participant in good standing in E-Verify by providing the E-Verify Company Identification Number (or Client Company Identification Number if the U.S. employer uses an agent) of the employer.

* * * * *

(14) Except as provided for in paragraph (c)(33) or (c)(40) of this section, an alien who has been granted deferred action, an act of administrative convenience to the government that gives some cases lower priority.

(i) An alien may be granted employment authorization under this paragraph only if the alien establishes:

(A) An economic necessity for employment; and

(B) The alien warrants a favorable exercise of discretion.

(ii) To renew employment authorization under this paragraph, the alien must also establish that he or she is employed by or seeking employment with a U.S. employer who is a participant in good standing in E-Verify by providing the E-Verify Company Identification Number (or Client Company Identification Number if the U.S. employer uses an agent) of the employer.

* * * * *

(18) An alien against whom a final order of removal exists, including aliens granted deferral of removal pursuant to § 208.17 or § 1208.17 of this title, and who is temporarily released from custody on an order of supervision under the authority contained in section 241(a)(3) of the Act and § 241.5 of this chapter.

(i) An alien may be granted employment authorization under this paragraph only if the alien establishes:

(A) Compliance with the conditions of release described in his or her order of supervision;

(B) The alien is one whose removal DHS has determined is impracticable because all countries from which DHS requested travel documents have failed to issue such documents;

(C) An economic necessity to be employed; and

(D) The alien warrants a favorable exercise of discretion.

(ii) In addition to the requirements described in paragraph (e) of this section, to establish economic necessity for employment, an alien may demonstrate that he or she is a primary provider of economic support for a dependent U.S. citizen, lawful permanent resident, or lawfully present child(ren), spouse, or parent(s).

(iii) To renew employment authorization under this paragraph, the alien must also establish that he or she is employed by or seeking employment with a U.S. employer who is a participant in good standing in E-Verify by providing the E-Verify Company Identification Number (or Client Company Identification Number if the U.S. employer uses an agent) of the employer.

* * * * *

(e) Basic criteria to establish economic necessity. The poverty guidelines updated periodically in the Federal Register by the U.S. Department ( printed page 34478) of Health and Human Services under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 9902(2) will be used as the basic criteria to establish eligibility for employment authorization when the alien's economic necessity is identified as a factor. The alien shall submit an application for employment authorization listing his or her assets, income, and expenses as evidence of his or her economic need to work. Permission to work granted on the basis of the alien's application for employment authorization may be revoked in accordance with the procedures set forth in 274a.14(b) of this chapter upon a showing that the information contained in the statement was not true and correct.

9. Section 274a.13 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1), adding a paragraph heading to paragraph (a)(2), adding paragraph (a)(3), and revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

§ 274a.13

Application for employment authorization.

(a) * * *

(1) Aliens who must apply for employment authorization under § 274a.12(c) of this chapter.

(i) An alien authorized employment under § 274a.12(c) shall be subject to all conditions and restrictions specified by applicable law, regulations, form instructions, or on the employment authorization document.

(ii) USCIS, in its discretion, may establish a specific validity period for an employment authorization document issued to an alien who falls within one of the classes of aliens described in § 274a.12(c), which may include authorization to work while any administrative appeal or judicial review of an application, petition, or request is pending.

(iii) Aliens applying for employment authorization under § 274a.12(c) must submit biometrics in accordance with § 103.16 of this chapter, with any required fee. USCIS shall notify aliens of the proper date, time, and location to appear for the submission of biometrics after the application for employment authorization has been filed.

(iv) The approval of applications for initial employment authorization or renewal of employment authorization filed under § 274a.12(c), except as otherwise provided by law and except for aliens described in § 274a.12(c)(8), is within the sole and unreviewable discretion of USCIS. In general, unless DHS has determined that there are significant countervailing public interests, USCIS will not grant employment authorization under any of the following circumstances,:

(A) The alien has been arrested for, charged with (without disposition), indicted for, or has been convicted of, any criminal act;

(B) The alien admits to committing a violent or dangerous crime, even if the alien has never been formally arrested, charged, indicted, or convicted; or

(C) There is evidence of the alien's membership in a gang or terrorist organization.

(2) Aliens applying for asylum. * * *

(3) Aliens under orders of supervision. In addition to the requirements under paragraph (a), an alien who is applying for initial employment authorization under § 274a.12(c)(18) must also submit the following supporting documentation:

(i) An administrative removal order issued by DHS or a decision by an Immigration Judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) demonstrating that the alien is subject to a final order of removal or deportation;

(ii) A form designated by USCIS, such as a completed Form I-765 including Form I-765WS, to show economic necessity pursuant to § 274a.12(e), as well as documentary evidence of economic necessity, such as statements of income, expenses, and assets, and/or demonstrate that he or she is a primary provider of economic support for a dependent U.S. citizen, lawful permanent resident, or lawfully present child(ren), spouse, or parent(s);

(iii) The complete Form I-220B, Order of Supervision, or successor form, including the Personal Report Record that reflects that the alien is complying with the conditions for supervised release. The Form I-220B must also reflect that DHS has determined that the alien's removal is impracticable at this time because every country the U.S. government has asked to accept the alien, as described in section 241(b) of the Act, failed to provide the appropriate travel documents; and

(iv) If a condition of the order of supervision is to support a law enforcement investigation or prosecution, the alien must provide evidence that he or she is materially cooperating with Federal, State, or local law enforcement on a criminal investigation or prosecution. This includes a completed designated form executed by a qualifying law enforcement entity certifying material cooperation.

(b) Approval of application. If USCIS approves a request for employment authorization or an Employment Authorization Document (Form I-766), USCIS will issue an employment authorization document valid for a specific period, and the alien will be subject to any terms and conditions required by applicable law, regulations, form instructions, or specified on the employment authorization document. USCIS has discretion to determine, except as otherwise provided by law, the period for employment authorization, except that employment authorization under § 274a.12(c)(14) and (c)(18) shall not exceed 1 year.

* * * * *

10. Section 274a.14 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(i)-(iii) and adding paragraphs (a)(1)(iv)-(vi) to read as follows:

§ 274a.14

Termination of employment authorization.

(a) * * *

(1) * * *

(i) The expiration date specified by USCIS on the employment authorization document is reached;

(ii) Removal proceedings are instituted (however, this shall not preclude the subsequent authorization of employment pursuant to § 274a.12(c) where appropriate);

(iii) The alien is granted voluntary departure;

(iv) The alien receives an administratively final order of removal (however, this shall not preclude the subsequent authorization of employment pursuant to § 274a.12(c) where appropriate);

(v) The underlying basis for employment authorization is terminated or denied; or

(vi) Under § 274a.12(c)(18):

(A) If a condition of the order of supervision is the alien's material support of a law enforcement investigation or prosecution, the termination of any agreement with the relevant law enforcement entity or the conclusion of the investigation or prosecution; or

(B) DHS or the alien obtains the travel or other documents necessary to effectuate the alien's removal from the United States.

* * * * *

Markwayne Mullin,

Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

1. Currently, except as provided in 8 CFR 274a.12(b)(37) and (c)(34) and 8 CFR 212.19(h)(4), an alien paroled into the United States temporarily for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit pursuant to section 212(d)(5) of the Act is eligible for employment authorization under 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(11) ((c)(11) category).

Back to Citation

2. Currently, except as provided in 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(33), an alien who has been granted deferred action, an act of administrative convenience to the government that gives some cases lower priority, is eligible for employment authorization under 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(14) ((c)(14) category) if the alien establishes an economic necessity for employment.

Back to Citation

3. Currently, an alien against whom a final order of deportation or removal exists and who is released on an order of supervision under the authority contained in section 241(a)(3) of the Act, and who meets other eligibility criteria may be granted employment authorization under 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(18) ((c)(18) category).

Back to Citation

4. In this proposed rule, this means arrested or charged regardless of the disposition.

Back to Citation

5. 90 FR 8443 (Jan. 29, 2025).

Back to Citation

6. See, e.g., INA sec. 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b); see also8 CFR 214.2(h)(6)(i).

Back to Citation

7. See American Council for Nationalities Service Interpreter Releases, Vol. 51, No. 16 “Foreign Student Work Policy Changed” (May 14, 1974).

Back to Citation

8. Id.

Back to Citation

9. See Bernsen, Sam, General Counsel, INS, DOJ, “Leave to Labor” as published in American Counsel for Nationalities Service Interpreter Releases, Vol. 52, No 35 (Sept. 2, 1975).

Back to Citation

10. Id.

Back to Citation

11. See GAO, Controls Over Foreign Students in U.S. Postsecondary Institutions Are Still Ineffective, https://www.gao.gov/​products/​hrd-83-27 (Mar. 10, 1983). Department of State (DOS) data on F-1 student visa issuances only goes back to 1987. See https://travel.state.gov/​content/​dam/​visas/​Statistics/​Non-Immigrant-Statistics/​NIVClassIssuedDetailed/​NIVClassIssued-DetailedFY1987-1991.pdf. Accordingly, official data for 1974 F-1 visa admissions is not available from DOS.

Back to Citation

12. For more information, please see Tables V.4, V.11, and V.16.

Back to Citation

13. See E.O. 14159, Protecting the American People Against Invasion, 90 FR 8443 (Jan. 29, 2025).

Back to Citation

14. For example, as noted elsewhere in this rule, USCIS is engaged in concurrent rulemaking on other employment authorization in the asylum context.

Back to Citation

15. Although several provisions of the INA discussed in this proposed rule refer exclusively to the “Attorney General,” such provisions are now to be read as referring to the Secretary by operation of the HSA. See 6 U.S.C. 202(3), 251, 271(b), 542 note, and 557; 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(1) and (g), 1551 note; Nielsen v. Preap, 586 U.S. 392, 397 n.2 (2019).

Back to Citation

16. Courts have acknowledged that Congress delegated authority to DHS to grant or extend employment authorization to certain classes of aliens. See, e.g., Wash. All. of Tech. Workers v. DHS, 50 F.4th 164, 191-92 (D.C. Cir. 2022) (“What matters is that section 1324a(h)(3) expressly acknowledges that employment authorization need not be specifically conferred by statute; it can also be granted by regulation.”). DHS is exercising this discretionary authority consistent with all applicable authorities, including the referenced authorities in the HSA, and sections 103, 208, 212(d)(5)(A), 241, and 274A(h)(3) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1158, 1182(d)(5)(A), 1231, and 1324a(h)(3), as well as the Administrative Procedure Act at 5 U.S.C. 553. See Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 395 (2024) (“In a case involving an agency, of course, the statute's meaning may well be that the agency is authorized to exercise a degree of discretion. Congress has often enacted such statutes. For example, some statutes `expressly delegate' to an agency the authority to give meaning to a particular statutory term. Others empower an agency to prescribe rules to `fill up the details' of a statutory scheme, or to regulate subject to the limits imposed by a term or phrase that leaves agencies with flexibility,' such as `appropriate' or `reasonable.' ”) (citations omitted).

Back to Citation

17. See Section 100003(b)(1) of Part I, Title X of Public Law 119-21 (July 4, 2025), 8 U.S.C. 1803(b)(1) (defining the validity period for initial employment authorization of parolees to a period of 1 year or for the duration of the alien's parole, whichever is shorter.); see also Section 100010(a) of Part I, Title X of Public Law 119-21 (July 4, 2025), 8 U.S.C. 1809(a) (defining the validity period for renewal employment authorization of parolees to a period of 1 year or for the duration of the alien's parole, whichever is shorter).

Back to Citation

18. See Section 100003(c)(1) of Part I, Title X of Public Law 119-21 (July 4, 2025), 8 U.S.C. 1803(c)(1) (defining the validity period for initial employment authorization of aliens granted TPS to a period of 1 year or for the duration of the TPS designation, whichever is shorter.); see also Section 100012(a) of Part I, Title X of Public Law 119-21 (July 4, 2025), 8 U.S.C. 1811(a) (defining the validity period for renewal employment authorization of those granted TPS to a period of 1 year or for the duration of the TPS designation, whichever is shorter).

Back to Citation

19. As discussed later in this preamble, the proposed changes under 8 CFR 274a.13(a) will require all aliens applying for employment authorization under § 274a.12(c) to submit biometrics at an ASC. DHS is concurrently proposing to amend its regulations concerning the submissions and use of biometrics by an NPRM. The overlapping policy objectives between the biometrics rule and this proposed rule were considered when developing the populations and costs associated with submitting biometrics under this proposed rule. As such, this rule will only consider the impacts of biometrics submission for those aliens that apply for employment authorization under § 274a.12(c).

Back to Citation

20. “DHS Announces Historic Travel Assistance and Stipend for Voluntary Self-Deportation” (release date May 5, 2025), https://www.dhs.gov/​news/​2025/​05/​05/​dhs-announces-historic-travel-assistance-and-stipend-voluntary-self-deportation, (last viewed Nov. 26, 2025).

Back to Citation

21. It is important to note that costs can vary significantly based on individual circumstances, such as the method of removal, the alien's location, detention costs, transportation expenses, legal proceedings, and other logistical considerations.

Back to Citation

22. For a complete summary of regulatory changes and additional guidance in this proposed rule, please see Section IV, “Discussion of Proposed Rule.”

Back to Citation

23. All other categories include: (c)(1)-(10), (c)(12), (c)(16), (c)(17), (c)(19)-(22), (c)(24)-(26), (c)(33)-(36), and (c)(40).

Back to Citation

24. We note that DHS does not know the portion of overall impacts of this rule that are transfers or costs and assume that if companies can find replacement labor for the positions the (c)(11), (c)(14), or (c)(18) alien worker would have filled, removing employment authorization from these aliens would result in primarily distributional effects in the form of transfers from aliens to others that are currently in the U.S. labor force (or workers induced to return to the labor market). Please see Section V.A.5. “Costs to Employers” for more information.

Back to Citation

25. This scenario assumes that all the labor substitutes for the positions the aliens would have filled were previously unemployed. If a labor substitute was previously employed, then there could be a potential tax loss stemming from the position that was vacated.

Back to Citation

26. See Edo, A. (2019). The Impact of Immigration on the Labor Market. Journal of Economic Surveys, Vol. 33(3), pp. 922-948.

Back to Citation

27. Example calculations at 7 percent: The median for compensation (transfer) of $0 and $2,877,152,531 = $1,443,576,266. The median for taxes (transfer) of $0 and $304,644,371 = $152,322,185. The median for biometrics (cost) of $3,440,598 and $8,425,002 = $5,932,800. The median for forms (cost) of $934,778 and $2,622,217 = $1,778,497. The median for lost productivity (cost) of $0 and $2,887,152,531 = $1,443,576,266. The median for total costs of $4,375,376 and $2,898,199,750 = $1,451,287,563.

Back to Citation

28. OMB, “Circular A-4” (Sept. 17, 2003).

Back to Citation

29. E.O. 13768, Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States, 82 FR 8799 (Jan. 30, 2017); E.O. 13788, Buy American and Hire American, 82 FR 18837 (Apr. 21, 2017).

Back to Citation

30. E.O. 13993, Revision of Civil Immigration Enforcement Policies and Priorities, 86 FR 7051 (Jan. 25, 2021).

Back to Citation

31. E.O. 14005, Ensuring the Future Is Made in All of America by All of America's Workers, 86 FR 7475 (Jan. 28, 2021).

Back to Citation

32. See, e.g., Office of Homeland Security Statistics, DHS, “Asylees: 2023” (Oct. 2024), https://ohss.dhs.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​2024-10/​2024_​1002_​ohss_​asylees_​fy2023.pdf.Note: This figure does not include cases associated with the Operation Allies Welcome (OAW) program. This program, established by the previous administration, resulted in disproportionately high grant rates for OAW cases. These cases were excluded to give a more accurate overview of the previous years' figures, as the OAW cases' priority and volume would have impacted the average if they had been included.

Back to Citation

33. See EOIR, Asylum Decisions (July 31, 2025) (comparing asylum grants versus the total of asylum grants and denials), https://www.justice.gov/​eoir/​media/​1344851/​dl?​inline.

Back to Citation

34. Collection and Use of Biometrics by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 90 FR49062 (Nov. 3, 2025).

Back to Citation

35. By “associated,” DHS means a person with substantial involvement or participation in the immigration benefit request or other request or collection of information, such as a named derivative, beneficiary, petitioner's signatory, sponsor, or co-applicant. The terms “file,” “submit,” and “associated with” or variations thereof, as used throughout this rule, do not relate to attorneys and accredited representatives, although attorneys and accredited representatives may file or submit a request on behalf of a client.

Back to Citation

36. See DHS, Biometrics, https://www.dhs.gov/​biometrics (last updated Jan. 24, 2025).

Back to Citation

37. INA sec. 241(a)(1)(A) and (B)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(1)(A) and (B)(i).

Back to Citation

38. INA sec. 241(a)(1)(C), 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(1)(C).

Back to Citation

39. 533 U.S. 678 (2001).

Back to Citation

40. Under 8 CFR 241.14, aliens with “special circumstances” are those: (1) that have a highly contagious disease that threatens public safety; (2) whose release would have serious adverse foreign policy implications; (3) who present a significant threat to national security or significant risk of terrorism; or (4) who are especially dangerous.

Back to Citation

41. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701.

Back to Citation

42. Id.

Back to Citation

43. Id.; see also8 CFR 241.13(d).

Back to Citation

44. INA 241(a)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(3); see also8 CFR 241.5. Aliens subject to an expedited removal order, however, are not subject to release on an order of supervision. INA sec. 235(b)(1)(B)(iii)(IV), 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(B)(iii)(IV) (an alien subject to expedited removal under section 235 “shall be detained pending a final determination of credible fear of persecution and, if found not to have such a fear, until removed”).

Back to Citation

45. See 8 CFR 241.5(a).

Back to Citation

46. INA sec. 241(a)(3), 8 U.S.C 1231(a)(3); 8 CFR 241.5(a). DHS may also require an alien temporarily released on an order of supervision to post a bond of a sufficient amount to ensure that the alien complies with the terms for release, including surrendering him- or herself to DHS custody for removal. 8 CFR 241.5(b).

Back to Citation

47. This is the most recent publicly available data. Furthermore, even though the average time to obtain travel documents across all countries was 187.19 days, the process for negotiating with foreign governments to obtain travel documents is dynamic. While there may be a period of inactivity by a particular foreign government to cooperate with issuing travel documents for a specific alien, a policy shift can also occur quickly and result in prompt repatriation. See Office of Inspector General, “ICE Faces Barriers in Timely Repatriation of Detained Aliens” (Mar. 11, 2019), https://www.oig.dhs.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​assets/​2019-03/​OIG-19-28-Mar19.pdf.

Back to Citation

48. Per internal DHS data and analysis.

Back to Citation

49. See INA sec. 243(d), 8 U.S.C. 1253(d); see also Memorandum of Understanding Between the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security Concerning Implementation of Section 428 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, para. 3(c) (2003).

Back to Citation

50. See, e.g., DHS, “DHS Announces Implementation of Visa Sanctions,” July 10, 2018 (implementing visa restrictions on the governments of Burma and Laos for denying or unreasonably delaying the acceptance of their nationals who have been ordered removed from the United States), https://www.dhs.gov/​archive/​news/​2018/​07/​10/​dhs-announces-implementation-visa-sanctions.

Back to Citation

51. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, Treaty Series, vol. 198, p. 137, art. 33 (July 28, 1951).

Back to Citation

52. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Treaty Series, vol. 1465 (Dec. 10, 1984).

Back to Citation

53. Id.

Back to Citation

54. See, e.g., Trinidad y Garcia v. Thomas, 683 F.3d 952, 955 (9th Cir. 2012); Pierre v. Gonzales, 502 F.3d 109, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2007); Matter of H-M-V-, 22 I&N Dec. 256, 259-60 (BIA 1998).

Back to Citation

55. The regulations at 8 CFR 208.16(d)(2) specifically provide that an application for withholding of removal under the regulations implementing CAT shall be denied if the alien falls within section 241(b)(3)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3)(B).

Back to Citation

56. INA sec. 212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A); see also8 CFR 212.5(a) and (c) through (e) (discretionary authority for establishing conditions of parole and for terminating parole).

Back to Citation

57. INA sec. 212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A).

Back to Citation

58. See, e.g., Kaplan v. Tod, 267 U.S. 228, 230 (1925); see also Nishimuru Ekiu v. United States, 142 U.S. 651, 661 (1892) (recognizing that the immigration authorities could authorize an alien to come ashore temporarily, without admission, while admissibility was litigated, leaving the alien in the same position as she was); Leng May Ma v. Barber, 357 U.S. 185, 188-90 (1958) (a paroled alien is still deemed an alien seeking admission to the United States).

Back to Citation

59. Public Law 82-414, 66 Stat. 163 (June 27, 1952).

Back to Citation

60. Id. at 66 Stat 188.

Back to Citation

61. See, e.g., H.R. Rep. 82-1365, p. 1706 (Feb. 14, 1952).

Back to Citation

62. See, e.g., Implementation of Haitian Family Reunification Parole Program, 79 FR 75581 (Dec. 18, 2014); Procedures for Credible Fear Screening and Consideration of Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and CAT Protection Claims by Asylum Officers, 87 FR 18078 (Mar. 29, 2022) (lowering the standard to parole an alien who had not yet established credible fear).

Back to Citation

63. See, e.g., H. Rept. 89-748, p. 3335 (Sept. 15, 1965), accompanying the Immigration and Nationality Act—Amendments of 1965:

Inasmuch as definite provision has now been made for refugees, it is the express intent of the committee that the parole provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which remain unchanged by this bill, be administered in accordance with the original intention of the drafters of the legislation. The parole provisions were designed to authorize the Attorney General to act only in emergent, individual, and isolated situations, such as the case of an alien who requires immediate medical attention, and not for the immigration of classes or groups outside the limit of the law.

Back to Citation

64. See, e.g., Public Law 85-559, 72 Stat. 419-20 (July 25, 1958) (stating that any alien who was paroled into the United States as a refugee from the Hungarian Revolution who is found “to have been and to be admissible as an immigrant at the time of his arrival in the United States and at the time of his inspection and examination, except for the fact that he was not and is not in possession of the documents required by . . . the Immigration and Nationality Act, shall be regarded as lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence as of the date of his arrival”); Public Law 89-732, 80 Stat. 1161 (Nov. 2, 1966) (similarly relating to aliens paroled into the United States after fleeing Cuba due to the 1959 Cuban Revolution).

Back to Citation

65. Public Law 96-212 (1980) (codified at 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(B)).

Back to Citation

66. E.g., Adam B. Cox & Cristina M. Rodríguez, The President and Immigration Law, 119 Yale L.J. 458, 474-76 (2009) (“Congress added the language to the INA in 1980 in large part to restrict the use of parole in refugee contexts, including with respect to the Executive's heavy reliance on the power to manage the Haitian exoduses.”); Peter Margulies, The Boundaries of Executive Discretion: Deferred Action, Unlawful Presence, and Immigration Law, 64 a.m. U. L. Rev. 1183, 1213 (2015) (“This language itself emerged in 1980 from congressional displeasure over expansive uses of discretion by the Executive Branch.”).

Back to Citation

67. S. Rep. 96-256 at 5 (1979).

Back to Citation

68. Refugee Act of 1979, S.643 Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 96th Cong. 253, (1979) (annual report of H.E.W. on the Indochinese Refugee Assistance Program) (describing an “expanded parole program” for 11,000 additional Cambodian, Vietnamese, and Laotian refugees); Marian Nash Leich, Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law, 82 a.m. J. of Int'l L. 336, 336-337 (1988) (parole for U.S. expatriates who had renounced U.S. citizenship) (citing to Circular Telegram, State 386507).

Back to Citation

69. Public Law 104-208, Div. C (Sept. 30, 1996).

Back to Citation

70. Id. at title VI, sec. 602.

Back to Citation

71. David J. Bier, 126 Parole Orders over 7 Decades: A Historical Review of Immigration Parole Orders, July 17, 2023, at https://www.cato.org/​blog/​126-parole-orders-over-7-decades-historical-review-immigration-parole-orders.

Back to Citation

72. Cong. Research Service, Visa Waiver Program (Oct. 15, 2024), https://www.congress.gov/​crs-product/​RL32221.

Back to Citation

73. 72 FR 65588 (Nov. 21, 2007).

Back to Citation

74. 79 FR 75581 (Dec. 12, 2014).

Back to Citation

75. 81 FR 28097 (May 9, 2016).

Back to Citation

76. See 82 FR 5238 (Jan. 17, 2017). In 2018, DHS published a proposed rule to rescind the International Entrepreneur Parole Program. 83 FR 24415 (May 29, 2018).

Back to Citation

77. 88 FR 1266 (Jan. 9, 2023); 88 FR 26329 (Apr. 28, 2023); 88 FR 1243 (Jan. 9, 2023); 88 FR 26327 (Apr. 28, 2023); 88 FR 1255 (Jan. 9, 2023); 87 FR 63507 (Oct. 19, 2022); 88 FR 1279 (Jan. 9, 2023).

Back to Citation

78. On March 25, 2025, the Trump Administration published a notice in the Federal Register titled, “Termination of Parole Processes for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans”. 90 FR 13611 (Mar. 25, 2025). On April 14, 2025, a United States district court issued a preliminary injunction order staying parts of the FRN. See Svitlana Doe, —v. Noem, 778 F. Supp. 3d 311 (D. Mass. 2025). However, DHS filed an application for a stay of the district court order with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which was denied. On May 8, 2025, DHS filed with the Supreme Court an application to stay the district court's order. On May 30, 2025, the Supreme Court granted DHS' application for stay of the district court's order pending disposition of the appeal pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Noem v. Doe, 145 S. Ct. 1524 (2025). Accordingly, the parole termination notices and employment authorization termination notices that DHS sent to aliens paroled under the CHNV parole programs remain in effect. USCIS also will not process any new requests for parole related to CHNV programs.

Back to Citation

79. See Section 100003(b)(1) of Part I, Title X of Public Law 119-21 (July 4, 2025), 8 U.S.C. 1803(b)(1) (defining the validity period for initial employment authorization of parolees to a period of 1 year or for the duration of the alien's parole, whichever is shorter); see also Section 100010(a) of Part I, Title X of Public Law 119-21 (July 4, 2025); 8 U.S.C. 1809(a) (defining the validity period for renewal employment authorization of parolees to a period of 1 year or for the duration of the alien's parole, whichever is shorter.). On July 22, 2025, USCIS published a notice in the Federal Register at 90 FR 34511announcing the new H.R. 1 fee requirements, applicable to benefit requests postmarked on or after July 22, 2025, which includes application for employment authorization filed by parolees under 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(11).

Back to Citation

80. Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130 U.S. 581, 606-09 (1889).

Back to Citation

81. For example, in 1996, Congress passed the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), Public Law 104-132, title IV, 110 Stat. 1214 (Apr. 24, 1996) and IIRIRA. AEDPA and IIRIRA made significant changes to U.S. immigration laws. By passing AEDPA and IIRIRA, Congress underscored the importance of enforcement of the immigration laws as critical for upholding national security, public safety, and the integrity of the U.S. immigration system.

Back to Citation

82. See Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA), Public Law 107-296, secs. 202(5), 234; 6 U.S.C. 202(5), 557; see also INA secs. 103(a)(1) 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(1)

Back to Citation

83. See, e.g., United States v. Texas, 599 U.S. 670, 679 (2023); Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 396 (2012); Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985).

Back to Citation

84. See, e.g., Reno v. Am.-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm. (AADC), 525 U.S. 471, 483-84 (1999).

Back to Citation

85. See, e.g., Heckler, 470 U.S. at 831-33; see also Texas, 599 U.S. at 678-79 (describing the Executive's power to prioritize and decide how aggressively to enforce the laws).

Back to Citation

86. See Charles Gordon et al., “Immigration Law and Procedure” (1956) 6 sec. 72.03(2)(h). See also generally Leon Wildes, “The Operations Instructions of The Immigration Service: Internal Guidelines or Binding Rules?,” 17 San Diego L. Rev. 99 (1979).

Back to Citation

87. Id.

Back to Citation

88. See Charles Gordon et al., at 16 § OI 242.1.

Back to Citation

89. Id.

Back to Citation

90. Cong. Research Service, An Overview of Discretionary Reprieves from Removal: Deferred Action, DACA, TPS, and Others (Apr. 10, 2018) https://www.congress.gov/​crs-product/​R45158.

Back to Citation

91. See INA sec. 204(a)(1)(D)(i)(II) and (IV) (aliens battered or subjected to extreme cruelty); INA sec. 237(d)(2) (victims of trafficking and qualifying criminal activity); title IV, subtitle C, sections 421-428, Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, Public Law 107-56, 115 Stat. 272 (Oct. 26, 2001) (certain family members of lawful permanent resident 9/11 victims); Posthumous Benefits for Surviving Spouses, Children, and Parents of Certain Military Personnel, National Defense Authorization Act of FY 2004, Public Law 108-136, 117 Stat. 1392, title XVII, sec. 1703(c)(1)(A) and (d)(1) (certain surviving spouses, parents, children of deceased veteran of U.S. Armed Forces).

Back to Citation

92. See AADC, 525 U.S. at 483-84.

Back to Citation

93. See, e.g., INA sec. 101(i)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1101(i)(2) (requiring T nonimmigrants to be employment authorized); INA sec. 214(c)(2)(E), 8 U.S.C. 1184(c)(2)(E) (requiring spouses of L nonimmigrants to be employment authorized); INA sec. 214(e)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1184(e)(2) (requiring spouses of E treaty traders/investors to be employment authorized; INA sec. 214(p)(3)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1184(p)(3)(B) (requiring U nonimmigrants to be employment authorized).

Back to Citation

94. See, e.g., INA sec. 106(a), 8 U.S.C. 1105a(a) (providing that the Secretary may grant employment authorization to alien spouses of certain nonimmigrants if the alien spouse or child of that alien spouse were battered or subjected to extreme cruelty); INA sec. 214(p)(6), 8 U.S.C. 1184(p)(6) (providing that the Secretary may grant employment authorization to aliens who have a pending bona fide application for U nonimmigrant status).

Back to Citation

95. Currently, biometrics collection generally refers to the collection of fingerprints, photographs, and signatures. See USCIS, “Preparing for Your Biometric Services Appointment” (July 6, 2023), https://www.uscis.gov/​forms/​forms-information/​preparing-your-biometric-services-appointment (describing biometrics as including fingerprints, photographs, and digital signature).

Back to Citation

96. USCIS issued a final rule to adjust fees in 2020, but that rule was preliminarily enjoined following litigation and ultimately never went into effect. 85 FR 46788 (Aug. 3, 2020); Immigrant Legal Res. Ctr. v. Wolf, 491 F. Supp. 3d 520 (N.D. Cal. 2020) ( ILRC); Nw. Immigrant Rights Project v. USCIS, 496 F. Supp. 3d 31 (D.D.C. 2020) ( NWIRP).

Back to Citation

97. The exception to this change is Form I-821, Application for Temporary Protected Status, which retained a separate biometric services fee due to the statutory $50 maximum TPS registration fee. 8 CFR 106.2(a)(48)(iii); see INA sec. 244(c)(1)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(c)(1)(B); 88 FR 485; see also8 U.S.C. 1254b(a) (“In addition to collection of registration fees described in section 1254a(c)(1)(B) of this title, fees for fingerprinting services, biometric services, and other necessary services may be collected when administering the program described in section 1254a of this title.”).

Back to Citation

98. https://www.uscis.gov/​g-1055 (last updated Mar. 6, 2025).

Back to Citation

99. See E-Verify, “About E-Verify” https://www.e-verify.gov/​about-e-verify.

Back to Citation

100. See, e.g.,E.O. 13465 of June 6, 2008, Amending Executive Order 12989, as amended,73 FR 33285 (June 6, 2008) (requiring that federal contractors participate in E-Verify); Ariz. Rev. Stat. sec. 23-214 (requiring every employer to “verify the employment eligibility of the employee through the E-Verify program”). Overall, 24 states have passed laws to require employers to utilize E-Verify to varying degrees, while 7 states, including Arizona, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Utah, have E-Verify laws that require all or most employers to use E-Verify.

Back to Citation

101. See E-Verify, “The E-Verify Memorandum of Understanding for Employers” (June 1, 2013), https://www.e-verify.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​everify/​memos/​MOUforEVerifyEmployer.pdf.

Back to Citation

103. See E-Verify, “Account Compliance,” https://www.e-verify.gov/​employers/​monitoring-and-compliance (last updated Aug. 20, 2019).

Back to Citation

104. See id. For example, E-Verify compares employee information against records in the SSA database and those available to DHS. Most employees are automatically confirmed as work authorized. In Fiscal Year 2024 (Oct. 2023-Sept. 2024), the E-Verify program processed a total of 42,766,806 cases. During this same time period, 98.49 percent of employees were automatically confirmed as authorized to work (“work authorized”) either instantly or within 24 hours, requiring no employee or employer action. See E-Verify, “E-Verify Performance,” https://www.e-verify.gov/​about-e-verify/​e-verify-data/​e-verify-performance (last updated Mar. 14, 2024).

Back to Citation

105. E-Verify User Manual, Section 1.4. “Verification Locations and Hiring Sites,” https://www.e-verify.gov/​quick-reference-guide-for-e-verify-enrollment-10-introduction/​14-verification-locations-and-hiring (last updated July 18, 2018).

Back to Citation

106. “E-Verify Performance,” https://www.e-verify.gov/​about-e-verify/​e-verify-data/​e-verify-performance (last updated Mar. 14, 2024).

Back to Citation

107. E-Verify, “May I Verify an Existing Employee in E-Verify?” (Aug. 18, 2023) (stating that only “federal contractors with a federal contract that contains the FAR E-Verify clause” may verify existing employees), https://www.e-verify.gov/​faq/​may-i-verify-an-existing-employee-in-e-verify.

Back to Citation

108. See, e.g., Elizabeth Jacobs, Center for Immigration Studies, The Availability of Work Authorization Is a Known `Pull Factor' for Illegal Immigration and the Submission of Fraudulent Asylum Claims (Feb. 7, 2024) (“The idea that work authorization availability serves as a strong incentive for an alien to file a fraudulent or frivolous asylum application is not a new one.”), https://cis.org/​Jacobs/​Availability-Work-Authorization-Known-Pull-Factor-Illegal-Immigration-and-Submission.

Back to Citation

109. See, e.g., The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Francine D. Blau and Christopher Mackie, Eds. National Academies Press, 2017 at 267 (“Another regularity consistent with theory is that there are larger negative effects on native wages from immigrant inflows in the short run ( i.e., in studies of the immediate impacts of abrupt immigrant inflows or in which inflows are observed over shorter periods of time, or in the case of the structural studies, when capital is assumed fixed).

Back to Citation

110. Id. at 241 (“Some notable patterns emerge. Confirming expectations based on economic theory about which groups are most negatively affected by immigration, native dropouts tend to be more negatively affected than better-educated natives (as indicated by comparing results for dropouts with the overall results for all workers or all men or women). The results in the table also suggest that this negative effect may be compounded for native minorities.”).

Back to Citation

111. 90 FR 17525 (Apr. 28, 2025).

Back to Citation

112. 90 FR 8471 (Jan. 30, 2025).

Back to Citation

113. See INA sec. 235(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1).

Back to Citation

114. See generally Zadvydas, 533 U.S. 678 (recognizing a six-month period of detention to be presumptively reasonable for aliens with final orders of removal).

Back to Citation

115. Office of Inspector General, DHS, “ICE Faces Barriers in Timely Repatriation of Detained Aliens” (Mar. 11, 2019), Table 2, https://www.oig.dhs.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​assets/​2019-03/​OIG-19-28-Mar19.pdf. Please note, this is the most recent data available.

Back to Citation

116. The Department notes that current 8 CFR 241.5(c)(1)—that an officer may grant employment authorization if “the alien cannot be removed in a timely manner”—does not directly mirror INA 241(a)(7)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(7)(A) (“No alien ordered removed shall be eligible . . . unless the Attorney General makes a specific finding that—(A) the alien cannot be removed due to the refusal of all countries designated by the alien or under this section to receive the alien”). The Department believes the changes made to 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(18)—providing that an alien is eligible for work authorization under this category only if all countries from which DHS requested travel documents have failed to issue such documents—is more closely aligned with INA 241(a)(7)(A).

Back to Citation

117. Section 241(h) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1231(h), specifically states “(h) Statutory construction.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to create any substantive or procedural right or benefit that is legally enforceable by any party against the United States or its agencies or officers or any other person.”

Back to Citation

118. See, e.g., Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U.S. 330, 339 (1979) (“Canons of construction ordinarily suggest that terms connected by a disjunctive be given separate meanings, unless the context dictates otherwise; here it does not.”) (citations omitted).

Back to Citation

119. See INA sec. 101(a)(15)(T), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(T) (eligibility requirements include compliance with any reasonable request from a law enforcement agency for assistance in the investigation or prosecution of human trafficking).

Back to Citation

120. See INA sec. 101(a)(15)(U), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(U) (eligibility requirements include helpfulness to law enforcement in the investigation or prosecution of a qualifying crime).

Back to Citation

121. See INA sec. 101(a)(15)(S), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(S) (eligibility requirements include providing law enforcement critical, reliable information necessary to the successful investigation or prosecution of a criminal organization).

Back to Citation

122. See 22 U.S.C. 7105(c)(3); 28 CFR 1100.35 (Federal law enforcement official must determine the alien is a victim of a severe form of trafficking and may be a potential witness to such trafficking).

Back to Citation

123. See E.O. 14159, Protecting the American People Against Invasion, 90 FR 8443 (Jan. 29, 2025).

Back to Citation

124. When releasing on OSUP an alien who has been ordered removed, ICE is not necessarily determining that all applicable foreign countries are refusing to accept the alien. ICE's efforts to effectuate removal are always ongoing, and even after an alien is temporarily released on OSUP, ICE may return the alien to custody and remove the alien from the United States.

Back to Citation

125. All initial and renewal EADs issued under category (c)(18) are currently valid for 1 year upon issuance. Replacement EAD cards are issued for the same dates as the previous card that would have had a validity period of 1 year.

Back to Citation

126. There are some exceptions to eligibility for employment authorization for individuals paroled into the United States. See, e.g.,8 CFR 212.19(h)(4) (a child of an entrepreneur parolee is not employment authorized). Further, in 2022, DHS and the Department of Justice adopted an interim final rule that added new paragraphs 8 CFR 235.3(b)(2)(iii) and (b)(4)(ii), clarifying that “parole” for aliens in expedited removal or during periods of detention pending a credible fear interview would be for the limited purpose of parole out of custody and would not serve as an independent basis for employment authorization. Procedures for Credible Fear Screening and Consideration of Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and CAT Protection Claims by Asylum Officers,87 FR 18078 (Mar. 29, 2022); see8 CFR 235.3(b)(2)(iii) (a grant of parole for an alien in expedited removal is for the limited purpose of parole out of custody, and does not serve as a basis for employment authorization) and 8 CFR 235.3(b)(4)(ii) (parole of aliens pending credible fear determination is for limited purpose of parole out of custody, and does not serve as a basis for employment authorization).

Back to Citation

127. Not all categories of (c)(11) EADs require a fee. For example, (c)(11) EADs for Special Parole processes for Immigrant Military Members and Veterans Initiative, where the alien is a current or former U.S. armed forces service member, do not have a fee. For additional information, see G-1055, Fee Schedule, https://www.uscis.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​document/​forms/​g-1055.pdf.

Back to Citation

128. See Section 100003(b)(1) of One Big Beautiful Bill Act (also known as “H.R. 1”), Immigration and Law Enforcement Matters, Part I, Title X of Public Law 119-21, 139 Stat. 72 (July 4, 2025). 8 U.S.C. 1803(b)(1) (requiring new immigration fees and defining the validity period for initial employment authorization of parolees to a period of 1 year or for the duration of the alien's parole, whichever is shorter.); 90 FR 34511 (July 22, 2025) (USCIS notice announcing the new fees required by HR-1); “USCIS Updates Fees Based on H.R.1” (release date July 18, 2025), https://www.uscis.gov/​newsroom/​alerts/​uscis-updates-fees-based-on-hr-1 (last viewed on July 28, 2025). For EADs issued prior to July 22, 2025, the date of the USCIS Federal Register notice announcing the new HR-1 fees, parole-based EADs were generally valid for the duration of the parole period.

Back to Citation

129. For more information, please see Table V.16: Total Annual Form I-765 (c)(11) Filings Receipts and Approvals, FY 2015 through FY 2024.

Back to Citation

130. As explained above, DHS and the Department of Justice adopted an interim final rule in 2022 that added new paragraphs 8 CFR 235.3(b)(2)(iii) and (b)(4)(ii), clarifying that “parole” for aliens in expedited removal or during periods of detention pending a credible fear interview would be for the limited purpose of parole out of custody and would not serve as an independent basis for employment authorization. 87 FR 18078; see8 CFR 235.3(b)(2)(iii) (a grant of parole for an alien in expedited removal is for the limited purpose of parole out of custody, and does not serve as a basis for employment authorization); see also8 CFR 235.3(b)(4)(ii) (parole of aliens pending credible fear determination is for limited purpose of parole out of custody, and does not serve as a basis for employment authorization).

Back to Citation

131. See, e.g., Heckler, 470 U.S. 831.

Back to Citation

132. For additional information, see USCIS, DHS, “Fee Schedule,” G-1055 (Apr. 3, 2025), https://www.uscis.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​document/​forms/​g-1055.pdf.

Back to Citation

133. See 8 CFR 274a.12(e).

Back to Citation

134. See, e.g., Matter of Patel, 17 I&N Dec. 597 (BIA 1980) (discussing discretionary aspect of adjustment of status adjudications).

Back to Citation

135. See USCIS, “Policy Manual,” Volume 1, General Policies and Procedures, Part E, Adjudications, Chapter 8, Discretionary Analysis, FN 47, https://www.uscis.gov/​policy-manual/​volume-1-part-e-chapter-8.

Back to Citation

136. See USCIS, “Policy Manual,” Volume 1, General Policies and Procedures, Part E, Adjudications, Chapter 8, Discretionary Analysis, https://www.uscis.gov/​policy-manual/​volume-1-part-e-chapter-8.

Back to Citation

137. See INA 244(a)(1)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(a)(1)(B) ((c)(19)); INA 210(d)(2)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1160(d)(2)(B) ((c)(20)); INA 245A(e), 8 U.S.C. 1255a(e) ((c)(22)); Legal Immigration Family Equity Act (LIFE Act), Public Law 106-553, Sec. 1104(c)(3)(C), 114 Stat. 2762, 2762A-148 ((c)(24)).

Back to Citation

138. For example, the regulations have long excepted and continue to except (c)(8) EADs from discretionary considerations. 8 CFR 274a.13(a)(1).

Back to Citation

139. 90 FR 8443.

Back to Citation

140. 90 FR 8451.

Back to Citation

141. See “Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records,” 83 FR 36950 (July 31, 2018).

Back to Citation

142. In all cases, the previous “Biometric Services Fee” was incorporated into the related form filing fee, with the exception of Form I-821, Application for Temporary Protected Status. See 89 FR 6194 (Jan. 31, 2024).

Back to Citation

143. https://www.uscis.gov/​g-1055 (last updated Mar. 6, 2025).

Back to Citation

144. E-Verify Employer Search Tool can be found at: https://www.e-verify.gov/​e-verify-employer-search.

Back to Citation

145. Id.

Back to Citation

146. This is the same requirement as that of F-1 students applying for a 24-month extension of post-completion optional practical training, more commonly known as STEM OPT. 8 CFR 214.2(f)(10)(ii)(C)(5).

Back to Citation

147. See generally DHS, “Annual Report 2024: Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman,” section “Meeting the Growing Demand for Employment Authorization Documents” (June 28, 2024), https://www.dhs.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​2024-07/​24_​0628_​cisomb_​2024-annual-report.pdf.

Back to Citation

148. See also8 CFR 274a.12(e), which provides that the Federal Poverty Guidelines issued by the Department of Health and Human Services under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 9902(2) will be used as the basic criteria to establish eligibility for employment authorization when economic necessity is a factor.

Back to Citation

149. In the event an alien who has been granted deferral of removal under the regulations implementing CAT was not issued or does not have an order of supervision, the alien will need to make arrangements with ICE to request issuance of or a copy of their order of supervision.

Back to Citation

150. See Section IV.A.3.

Back to Citation

151. See Section IV.B.4 for a further discussion on E-Verify and the definition of “in good standing.”

Back to Citation

152. See Section IV.A.3 and Section III.B.8 for further discussion on E-Verify and the definition of “in good standing.”

Back to Citation

153. After the functions of the former INS were transferred to the Secretary pursuant to the HSA, Public Law107-296, sec. 441(c) (6 U.S.C. 251(2)), the functions were further delegated to component heads. ICE now has primary authority over all enforcement actions and USCIS has authority over adjudications of immigration benefits, including issuance of EADs. See DHS Delegation No. 7030.2, “Delegation of Authority to the Assistant Secretary for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement” (Nov. 13, 2004); DHS Delegation No. 0150.1, “Delegation to the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services” (June 5, 2003).

Back to Citation

154. See, e.g.,8 CFR 274a.12(c)(11) (aliens temporarily paroled into the United States); 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(17)(ii) (domestic servants temporarily visiting the United States).

Back to Citation

155. See DHS v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 591 U.S. 1, 32 (2020) (noting that DHS could conclude that reliance is “unjustified in light of the express limitations” in relevant immigration policy).

Back to Citation

156. For more information and calculations, see Section V.A.8.

Back to Citation

157. This proposed rule would increase the time burden of Form-I-765 by 30 minutes (0.5 hours) for a total of 4.88 hours. This proposed rule would also increase the time burden of Form I-765WS by 30 minutes (0.5 hours) for a total of 1 hour (0.5 hours to complete the form and 0.5 hours to provide supplementary documentation). However, alien workers that file under 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(14) are already required to submit Form I-765WS, and due to the proposed requirement that aliens provide supplementary documentation with the Form I-765WS this proposed rule would increase the time burden of Form I-765WS by 30 minutes (0.5 hours) for a total of 0.5 hours for category (c)(14) alien workers. Thus, completing both forms will have an estimated time burden of 5.88 hours for category (c)(18) and (c)(11) alien workers and an estimated time burden of 5.38 hours for category (c)(14) alien workers.

Back to Citation

158. Biometrics submission is estimated to require 1.17 hours per alien.

Back to Citation

159. See 8 CFR 274a.12(a)(1); USCIS, “Policy Manual,” Volume 10, Employment Authorization, Part A, Employment Authorization Policies and Procedures, Chapter 4, Adjudication, FN 8, https://www.uscis.gov/​policy-manual/​volume-10-part-a-chapter-4#footnote-8 (last updated Apr. 2, 2025).

Back to Citation

160. See Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 579 U.S. 211, 221-22 (2016) (“Agencies are free to change their existing policies as long as they provide a reasoned explanation for the change. . . . But the agency must at least display awareness that it is changing position and show that there are good reasons for the new policy. In explaining its changed position, an agency must also be cognizant that longstanding policies may have engendered serious reliance interests that must be taken into account.”).

Back to Citation

161. 591 U.S. 1 (2020).

Back to Citation

162. Id. at 31.

Back to Citation

163. Id.

Back to Citation

164. Id.

Back to Citation

165. See section 241(b) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1231(b), for information on the countries to which arriving and other aliens may be removed.

Back to Citation

166. As discussed in the preamble, the proposed changes under 8 CFR 274a.13(a) will require all aliens applying for employment authorization under § 274a.12(c) to submit biometrics at an ASC. DHS is concurrently proposing to amend its regulations concerning the submissions and use of biometrics by an NPRM. The overlapping policy objectives between the biometrics rule and this proposed rule were considered when developing the populations and costs associated with submitting biometrics under this proposed rule. As such, this rule will only consider the impacts of biometrics submission for those aliens that apply for employment authorization under § 274a.12(c).

Back to Citation

167. “DHS Announces Historic Travel Assistance and Stipend for Voluntary Self-Deportation” (release date May 5, 2025), https://www.dhs.gov/​news/​2025/​05/​05/​dhs-announces-historic-travel-assistance-and-stipend-voluntary-self-deportation, (last viewed Nov. 26, 2025).

Back to Citation

168. It is important to note that costs can vary significantly based on individual circumstances, such as the method of removal, the alien's location, detention costs, transportation expenses, legal proceedings, and other logistical considerations.

Back to Citation

169. For a complete summary of regulatory changes and additional guidance in this proposed rule, please see Section IV, “Discussion of Proposed Rule.”

Back to Citation

170. All other categories include: (c)(1)-(10), (c)(12), (c)(16), (c)(17), (c)(19)-(22), (c)(24)-(26), (c)(33)-(36), and (c)(40).

Back to Citation

171. We note that DHS does not know the portion of overall impacts of this rule that are transfers or costs and assume that, if companies can find replacement labor for the positions the (c)(11), (c)(14), or (c)(18) alien worker would have filled, removing employment authorization from these aliens would result in primarily distributional effects in the form of transfers from aliens to others that are currently in the U.S. labor force (or workers induced to return to the labor market). Please see Section V.A.5. “Costs to Employers” for more information.

Back to Citation

172. This scenario assumes that all the labor substitutes for the positions the aliens would have filled were previously unemployed. If a labor substitute was previously employed, then there could be a potential tax loss stemming from the position that was vacated.

Back to Citation

173. See Edo, A. (2019). The Impact of Immigration on the Labor Market. Journal of Economic Surveys, Vol. 33(3), pp. 922-948.

Back to Citation

174. Example calculations at 7 percent: The median for compensation (transfer) of $0 and $2,877,152,531 = $1,443,576,266. The median for taxes (transfer) of $0 and $304,644,371 = $152,322,185. The median for biometrics (cost) of $3,440,598 and $8,425,002 = $5,932,800. The median for forms (cost) of $934,778 and $2,622,217 = $1,778,497. The median for lost productivity (cost) of $0 and $2,887,152,531 = $1,443,576,266. The median for total costs of $4,375,376 and $2,898,199,750 = 1,451,287,563.

Back to Citation

175. OMB, “Circular A-4” (Sept. 17, 2003).

Back to Citation

176. See E.O. 14159, Protecting the American People Against Invasion, secs. 2, 4, and 16(c), 90 FR 8443 (Jan. 29, 2025).

Back to Citation

177. INA sec. 241(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(1). The 90-day period is extended if the alien fails or refuses to make timely application in good faith for travel or other documents necessary to the alien's departure or conspires or acts to prevent removal.

Back to Citation

178. INA sec. 241(a)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(2).

Back to Citation

179. 533 U.S. 678 (2001).

Back to Citation

180. Id.

Back to Citation

181. INA sec. 241(a)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(2). See Section III.C. When releasing an alien who has been ordered removed on OSUP, ICE is not necessarily determining that all applicable foreign countries are refusing to accept the alien. ICE's efforts to effectuate removal are always ongoing, and even after an alien is temporarily released on OSUP, ICE may take the alien back into custody and remove the alien from the United States.

Back to Citation

182. Supporting evidence includes, but is not limited to, pay stubs, an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) transcript for the most recent tax year, Form W-2 series or Form 1099 series for the most recent tax year, evidence of the value of the alien's assets such as the appraised value of a home, utility bills, credit card statements, bank statements, and evidence of claimed income, including alimony, child support, and dividends.

Back to Citation

183. The recently promulgated fee rule updated the fee for Form I-765 to $470 for online filing and $520 for paper filing. See 89 FR 6194 (Jan. 31, 2024) (Fee Rule).

Back to Citation

184. Please see the “List of Subject and Regulatory Amendments” section under 274a.13.

Back to Citation

185. The recently promulgated fee rule updated the fee for Form I-765 to $470 for online filing and $520 for paper filing. See 89 FR 6194 (Jan. 31, 2024) (Fee Rule).

Back to Citation

186. See Section 100003(b)(1) of One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Immigration and Law Enforcement Matters, Part I, Title X of Public Law 119-21, 139 Stat. 72 (July 4, 2025); 8 U.S.C. 1803(b)(1) (defining the validity period for initial employment authorization of parolees to a period of 1 year or for the duration of the alien's parole, whichever is shorter).

Back to Citation

187. All EAD categories that would be affected by these proposed changes include: (c)(1)-(12), (c)(14), (c)(16)-(18), (c)(26), (c)(33)-(36), and (c)(40).

Back to Citation

188. As noted elsewhere in this rule, there is concurrent rulemaking on (c)(8) EADs; as such, changes to the (c)(8) category will be in the Asylum EAD Reform Rule only.

Back to Citation

189. Calculation:

(((FY 2019 Initial Receipts 5,765 ÷ FY 2015 Initial Receipts 9,632) ‸ (1 ÷ 5))−1) = −0.098;

(((FY 2024 Initial Receipts 5,228 ÷ FY 2020 Initial Receipts 6,312) ‸ (1 ÷ 5))−1) = −0.037;

(((FY 2024 Initial Receipts 5,228 ÷ FY 2015 Initial Receipts 9,632) ‸ (1 ÷ 10))−1) = −0.059.

Back to Citation

190. Calculations:

(((FY 2019 Renewal Receipts 19,315 ÷ FY 2015 Renewal Receipts 22,816) ‸ (1 ÷ 5))−1) =-0.033;

(((FY 2024 Renewal Receipts 27,433 ÷ FY 2020 Renewal Receipts 22,715) ‸ (1 ÷ 5))−1) = 0.038;

(((FY 2024 Renewal Receipts 27,433 ÷ FY 2015 Renewal Receipts 22,816) ‸ (1 ÷ 10))−1) = 0.019.

Back to Citation

191. Table V.6 Calculations:

FY 2015 through FY2019: Average Initial Receipts = (9,632 + 8,667 + 6,236 + 4,421 + 5,765) ÷ 5 = 6,944; Average Initial Approvals = (8,745 + 7,506 + 5,274 + 3,433 + 4,064)) ÷ 5 = 5,804; Initial Approval Rate = 5,804 ÷ 6,944 = 0.836; Average Renewal Receipts = (22,816 + 26,107 + 26,351 + 20,646 + 19,315) ÷ 5 = 23,047; Average Renewal Approvals = (21,241 + 24,474 + 21,274 + 20,171 + 21,344) ÷ 5 = 21,701; Renewal Approval Rate = 21,701 ÷ 23,047 = 0.942.

FY 2020 through FY 2024: Average Initial Receipts = (6,312 + 8,758 + 10,435 + 6,093 + 5,228) ÷ 5 = 7,365; Average Initial Approvals = (4,278 + 3,210 + 7,717 + 4,109 + 4,420) ÷ 5 = 4,747; Initial Approval Rate = 4,747 ÷ 7,365 = 0.645; Average Renewal Receipts = (22,715 + 23,450 + 21,200 + 27,840 + 27,433) ÷ 5 = 24,528; Average Renewal Approvals = (18,983 + 17,220 + 26,759 + 24,448 + 27,796) ÷ 5 = 23,041; Renewal Approval Rate = 23,041 ÷ 24,528 = 0.940.

FY 2015 through FY 2024: Average Initial Receipts = (9,632 + 8,667 + 6,236 + 4,421 + 5,765 + 6,312 + 8,758 + 10,435 + 6,093 + 5,228) ÷ 10 = 7,155; Average Initial Approvals = (8,745 + 7,506 + 5,274 + 3,433 + 4,064 + 4,278 + 3,210 + 7,717 + 4,109 + 4,420) ÷ 10 = 5,276; Initial Approval Rate = 5,276 ÷ 7,155 = 0.737; Average Renewal Receipts = (22,816 + 26,107 + 26,351 + 20,646 + 19,315 + 22,715 + 23,450 + 21,200 + 27,840 + 27,433) ÷ 10 = 23,787; Average Renewal Approvals = (21,241 + 24,474 + 21,274 + 20,171 + 21,344 + 18,983 + 17,220 + 26,759 + 24,448 + 27,796) ÷ 10 = 22,371; Renewal Approval Rate = 22,371 ÷ 23,787 = 0.940.

Back to Citation

192. Calculation: 6,944 (FY 2025 estimated initial receipts) × −0.0037 (5-year annual growth rate FY 2020 to FY 2024) + 6,944 (FY 2025 estimated initial receipts) = 6,687 estimated FY 2026 initial receipts.

Back to Citation

193. Calculation: 22,816 (FY 2015 renewal receipts) + 26,107 (FY 2016 renewal receipts) + 26,351 (FY 2017 renewal receipts) + 20,646 (FY 2018 renewal receipts) + 19,315 (FY 2019 renewal receipts) ÷ 5 = 23,047 estimated FY 2025 renewal receipts.

Back to Citation

194. Calculation: 23,047 (FY 2025 estimated renewal receipts) × −0.033 (10-year annual growth rate FY 2015 to FY 2019) + 23,047 (FY 2025 estimated renewal receipts) = 22,286 estimated FY 2026 renewal receipts.

Back to Citation

195. See 8 CFR 208.17, 1208.17, 208.24, and 1208.24.

Back to Citation

196. This analysis assumes that all aliens who are granted CAT deferral of removal would enter the labor market.

Back to Citation

197. The population of aliens who have been granted deferral of removal under the regulations implementing CAT serves as a reasonable lower bound estimate because aliens under OSUP who cannot obtain travel documents are more likely to be removed if their country of origin eventually issues the necessary documents, because they lack the legal protection from removal that the regulations implementing CAT deferral of removal provides. In contrast, aliens granted deferral of removal under the regulations implementing CAT cannot be removed to the country where they face torture, regardless of document availability, unless their protection is legally terminated.

Back to Citation

198. Calculations:

Aliens Released from ICE Custody, Unable to Obtain Travel Documents from Table V.8: (FY 2015 through FY 2024) ÷ FY 2015 = (369−120) ÷ 369 = 0.675.

Cases Granted CAT Deferral of Removal from Table V.9: (FY 2015 through FY 2024) ÷ FY 2015 = (−245−121) ÷ 121 = 1.025.

Back to Citation

199. Calculations: For example, for FY 2025 (167 estimated lower bound ÷ 5,805 projected number of initial approvals) = 0.029. For FY 2025 (489 estimated upper bound ÷ 5,805 projected number of initial approvals) = 0.084.

Back to Citation

200. Because of the uncertainty regarding eligibility, DHS is unable to estimate a range for renewal populations that would be impacted by this provision and attempting to do so would be speculative. Please see Section V.A.3.d for more information.

Back to Citation

201. Calculations:

(((FY 2019 Initial Receipts 18,908 ÷ FY 2015 Initial Receipts 35,538) ^ (1 ÷ 5))−1) = −0.119;

(((FY 2024 Initial Receipts 148,398 ÷ FY 2020 Initial Receipts 14,302) ^ (1 ÷ 5))−1) = 0.597;

(((FY 2024 Initial Receipts 148,398 ÷ FY 2015 Initial Receipts 35,538) ^ (1 ÷ 10))−1) = 0.154.

Back to Citation

202. Calculations:

(((FY 2019 Renewal Receipts 3,357 ÷ FY 2015 Renewal Receipts 11,303) ^ (1 ÷ 5))−1) = −0.216;

(((FY 2024 Renewal Receipts 4,756 ÷ FY 2020 Renewal Receipts 3,730) ^ (1 ÷ 5))−1) = 0.05;

(((FY 2024 Renewal Receipts 4,756 ÷ FY 2015 Renewal Receipts 11,303) ^ (1 ÷ 10))−1) = −0.083.

Back to Citation

203. See E.O. 14159, Protecting the American People Against Invasion, secs. 2, 4, and 16(c), 90 FR 8443 (Jan. 29, 2025).

Back to Citation

204. USCIS, “DHS Support of the Enforcement of Labor and Employment Laws,” https://www.uscis.gov/​working-in-the-united-states/​information-for-employers-and-employees/​dhs-support-of-the-enforcement-of-labor-and-employment-laws (last updated Jan. 24, 2025).

Back to Citation

205. Table V.13 Calculations:

FY 2015 through FY2019: Average Initial Receipts = (35,538 + 33,158 + 38,779 + 29,442 + 18,908) ÷ 5 = 31,165; Average Initial Approvals = (22,177 + 6,454 + 9,574 + 8,581 + 13,711) ÷ 5 = 12,099; Initial Approval Rate = 12,099 ÷ 31,165 = 0.388; Average Renewal Receipts = (11,303 + 6,861 + 10,173 + 4,101 + 3,357) ÷ 5 = 7,159; Average Renewal Approvals = (9,073 + 5,841 + 4,503 + 2,944 + 3,719) ÷ 5 = 5,216; Renewal Approval Rate = 5,216 ÷ 7,159 = 0.729.

FY 2020 through FY 2024: Average Initial Receipts = (14,302 + 25,770 + 63,785 + 84,790 + 148,398) ÷ 5 = 67,409; Average Initial Approvals = (14,564 + 25,337 + 53,295 + 74,594 + 155,468) ÷ 5 = 64,652; Initial Approval Rate = 64,652 ÷ 67,409 = 0.959; Average Renewal Receipts = (3,730 + 3,668 + 4,376 + 3,757 + 4,756) ÷ 5 = 4,057; Average Renewal Approvals = (2,731 + 3,063 + 3,847 + 2,794 + 4,100) ÷ 5 = 3,307; Renewal Approval Rate = 3,307 ÷ 4,057 = 0.815.

FY 2015 through FY 2024: Average Initial Receipts = (35,538 + 33,158 + 38,779 + 29,442 + 18,908 + 14,302 + 25,770 + 63,785 + 84,790 + 148,398) ÷ 10 = 49,287; Average Initial Approvals = (22,177 + 6,454 + 9,574 + 8,581 + 13,711 + 14,564 + 25,337 + 53,295 + 74,594 + 155,468) ÷ 10 = 38,376; Initial Approval Rate = 38,376 ÷ 49,287 = 0.779; Average Renewal Receipts = (11,303 + 6,861 + 10,173 + 4,101 + 3,357 + 3,730 + 3,668 + 4,376 + 3,757 + 4,756) ÷ 10 = 5,608; Average Renewal Approvals = (9,073 + 5,841 + 4,503 + 2,944 + 3,719 + 2,731 + 3,063 + 3,847 + 2,794 + 4,100) ÷ 10 = 4,262; Renewal Approval Rate = 4,262 ÷ 5,608 = 0.760.

Back to Citation

206. Calculation: 31,165 (FY 2025 estimated initial receipts) × −0.119 (5-year annual growth rate FY 2015 to FY 2019) + 31,165 (FY 2025 estimated initial receipts) = 27,456 estimated FY 2026 initial receipts.

Back to Citation

207. Calculation: 11,303 (FY 2015 renewal receipts) + 6,861 (FY 2016 renewal receipts) + 10,173 (FY 2017 renewal receipts) + 4,101 (FY 2018 renewal receipts) + 3,357 (FY 2019 renewal receipts) ÷ 5 = 7,159 estimated FY 2025 renewal receipts.

Back to Citation

208. Calculation: 7,159 (FY 2025 estimated renewal receipts) × −0.083 (10-year annual growth rate FY 2015 through FY 2024) + 7,159 (FY 2025 estimated renewal receipts) = 6,565 estimated FY 2026 renewal receipts.

Back to Citation

209. Because of the uncertainty regarding eligibility, DHS is unable to estimate a range for renewal populations that would be impacted by this provision and attempting to do so would be speculative. Please see Section V.A.3.d for more information.

Back to Citation

210. Calculation:

(((FY 2019 Initial Receipts 14,592 ÷ FY 2015 Initial Receipts 52,709) ^ (1 ÷ 5))−1) = −0.227;

(((FY 2024 Initial Receipts 748,544 ÷ FY 2020 Initial Receipts 7,099) ^ (1 ÷ 5))−1) = 1.539;

(((FY 2024 Initial Receipts 748,544 ÷ FY 2015 Initial Receipts 52,709) ^ (1 ÷ 10))−1) = 0.304.

Back to Citation

211. Calculations:

(((FY 2019 Renewal Receipts 3,382 ÷ FY 2015 Renewal Receipts 5,133) ^ (1 ÷ 5))−1) = −0.080;

(((FY 2024 Renewal Receipts 43,586 ÷ FY 2020 Renewal Receipts 2,619) ^ (1 ÷ 5))−1) = 0.755;

(((FY 2024 Renewal Receipts 43,586 ÷ FY 2015 Renewal Receipts 5,133) ^ (1 ÷ 10))−1) = 0.239.

Back to Citation

212. See E.O. 14159, Protecting the American People Against Invasion, secs. 2, 4, and 16(c), 90 FR 8443 (Jan. 29, 2025).

Back to Citation

213. See Section 100003(b)(1) of One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Immigration and Law Enforcement Matters, Part I, Title X of Public Law 119-21, 139 Stat. 72 (July 4, 2025); 8 U.S.C. 1803(b)(1) (defining the validity period for initial employment authorization of parolees to a period of 1 year or for the duration of the alien's parole, whichever is shorter).

Back to Citation

214. Table V.18 Calculations:

FY 2015 through FY 2019: Average Initial Receipts = (52,709 + 77,038 + 50,388 + 10,871 + 14,592) ÷ 5 = 41,120; Average Initial Approvals = (48,060 + 74,526 + 55,558 + 14,194 + 4,341) ÷ 5 = 39,336; Initial Approval Rate = 39,336 ÷ 41,120 = 0.957; Average Renewal Receipts = (5,133 + 4,402 + 4,809 + 4,310 + 3,382) ÷ 5 = 4,407; Average Renewal Approvals = (3,741 + 3,409 + 2,760 + 3,331 +1,332) ÷ 5 = 2,915; Renewal Approval Rate = 2,915 ÷ 4,407 = 0.661.

FY 2020 through FY 2024: Average Initial Receipts = (7,099 + 69,397 + 98,249 + 392,398 + 748,544) ÷ 5 = 263,137; Average Initial Approvals = (12,541 + 31,876 + 72,265 + 299,987 + 753,357) ÷ 5 = 234,005; Initial Approval Rate = 234,005 ÷ 263,137 = 0.889; Average Renewal Receipts = (2,619 + 2,088 + 1,862 + 20,325 + 43,586) ÷ 5 = 14,096; Average Renewal Approvals = (1,464 + 856 + 1,151 + 15,237 + 36,718) ÷ 5 = 11,085; Renewal Approval Rate = 11,085 ÷ 14,085 = 0.786.

FY 2015 through FY 2024: Average Initial Receipts = (52,709 + 77,038 + 50,388 + 10,871 + 14,592 + 7,099 + 69,397 + 98,249 + 392,398 + 748,544) ÷ 10 = 152,129; Average Initial Approvals = (48,060 + 74,526 + 55,558 + 14,194 + 4,341 + 12,541 + 31,876 + 72,265 + 299,987 + 753,357) ÷ 10 = 136,671; Initial Approval Rate = 136,671 ÷ 152,129 = 0.898; Average Renewal Receipts = (5,133 + 4,402 + 4,809 + 4,310 + 3,382 + 2,619 + 2,088 + 1,862 + 20,325 + 43,586) ÷ 10 = 9,252; Average Renewal Approvals = (3,741 + 3,409 + 2,760 + 3,331 +1,332 + 1,464 + 856 + 1,151 + 15,237 + 36,718) ÷ 10 = 7,000; Renewal Approval Rate = 7,000 ÷ 9,252 = 0.757.

Back to Citation

215. Calculation: 41,120 (FY 2025 estimated initial receipts) × −0.227 (5-year annual growth rate FY 2015 to FY 2019) + 41,120 (FY 2025 estimated initial receipts) = 31,786 estimated FY 2026 initial receipts.

Back to Citation

216. Calculation: 5,133 (FY 2015 renewal receipts) + 4,402 (FY 2016 renewal receipts) + 4,809 (FY 2017 renewal receipts) + 4,310 (FY 2018 renewal receipts) + 3,382 (FY 2019 renewal receipts) ÷ 5 = 4,407 estimated FY 2025 renewal receipts.

Back to Citation

217. Calculation: 4,407 (FY 2025 estimated renewal receipts) × −0.080 (5-year annual growth rate FY 2015 to FY 2019) + 4,407 (FY 2025 estimated renewal receipts) = 4,054 estimated FY 2026 renewal receipts.

Back to Citation

218. DHS recognizes that this range is relatively tight but these percents are based on actuals and is more likely to accurately portray a range of approvals under this rule.

Back to Citation

219. Because of the uncertainty regarding eligibility, DHS is unable to estimate a range for renewal populations that would be impacted by this provision and attempting to do so would be speculative. Please see Section V.A.3.d for more information.

Back to Citation

220. Currently, there are approximately 1,392,898 employers participating in E-Verify at over 2.4 million hiring sites. Employers enroll in E-Verify by reporting their company details, to include the company's name, parent organization, physical verification location, mailing address, employer identification number and total number of employees. See E-Verify History and Milestones, https://www.e-verify.gov/​about-e-verify/​history-and-milestones (last accessed July 8, 2025). For more information regarding how to confirm if an employer is in good standing in the E-Verify system, please refer back to Section IV.A.3 (E-Verify).

Back to Citation

221. All EAD categories that would be affected by these proposed changes include: (c)(1)-(12), (c)(14), (c)(16)-(22), (c)(24)-(c)(26), (c)(33)-(c)(36), and (c)(40).

Back to Citation

222. See DOL, “Minimum Wage,” https://www.dol.gov/​general/​topic/​wages/​minimumwage (last visited Feb. 4, 2025).

Back to Citation

223. See DOL, “State Minimum Wage Laws,” https://www.dol.gov/​agencies/​whd/​minimum-wage/​state (last visited Feb. 4, 2025).

Back to Citation

224. See BLS, “May 2023 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates,” “United States,” “All Occupations” (SOC #00-0000), https://www.bls.gov/​oes/​2023/​May/​oes_​nat.htm#00-0000 (last updated Apr. 3, 2024). The 10th, 25th, 75th and 90th percentile wages are available in the downloadable XLS file link.

Back to Citation

225. See BLS, “May 2023 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates,” “United States,” “All Occupations” (SOC #00-0000), https://www.bls.gov/​oes/​2023/​May/​oes_​nat.htm#00-0000 (last visited Jan. 31, 2025). The average wage of $31.48 for all occupations is found under occupation code 00-0000.

Back to Citation

226. See BLS, Economic News Release, “Employer Costs for Employee Compensation—September 2024,” Table 1. Employer costs for employer compensation by ownership, p. 4, https://www.bls.gov/​news.release/​archives/​ecec_​12172024.pdf.

Back to Citation

227. The benefits-to-wage multiplier is calculated as follows: (Total Employee Compensation per hour) ÷ (Wages and Salaries per hour) = $46.84 ÷ $32.25 = 1.45 (rounded). See BLS, Economic News Release, “Employer Costs for Employee Compensation—September 2024,” Table 1. Employer costs for employer compensation by ownership, p. 4, https://www.bls.gov/​news.release/​archives/​ecec_​12172024.pdf.

Back to Citation

228. The calculation of the benefits-weighted average for all occupations hourly wage estimate: $31.48 per hour × 1.45 benefits-to-wage multiplier = $45.65 (rounded) per hour.

Back to Citation

229. The calculation of the benefits-weighted 10th percentile hourly wage estimate: $13.97 per hour × 1.45 benefits-to-wage multiplier = $20.26 (rounded) per hour.

Back to Citation

230. BLS, Economic News Release, “The Employment Situation—December 2024,” https://www.bls.gov/​news.release/​archives/​empsit_​01102025.pdf.

Back to Citation

231. BLS, Economic News Release, “The Employment Situation—December 2024,” https://www.bls.gov/​news.release/​archives/​empsit_​01102025.pdf.

Back to Citation

232. Calculations examples:

Table V.21(A), Column A (FY 2025) = 167 × 0.959 = 160;

Table V.21(A), Column C (FY 2025) = 489 × 0.959 = 469;

Table V.21(A), Column E (FY 2025) = 5,805 × 0.959 = 5,567;

Table V.21(C), Column A (FY 2025) = 630 × 0.959 = 604;

Table V.21(C), Column C (FY 2025) = 1,824 × 0.959 = 1,749;

Table V.21(C), Column E (FY 2025) = 21,710 × 0.959 = 20,820.

Back to Citation

233. Calculations: $1,538,830,800 (10-year total initial upper bound costs) + $5,854,858,128 (10-year total renewal upper bound costs) = $7,393,688,928 (minimum 10-year total lower bound costs); $3,718,957,600 (10-year total initial upper bound costs) + $14,151,421,600 (10-year total renewal upper bound costs) = $17,870,378,200 (maximum 10-year total upper bound costs).

Back to Citation

234. An important assumption relied upon in this analysis is that each holder of an approved EAD has entered the labor force and is working (when the rule becomes effective). DHS relies on this assumption on the grounds that aliens would not have expended the direct filing and time-related opportunity costs of applying for an EAD if they did not intend to recoup an economic benefit from doing so. In reality, some EAD holders may not be employed for any number of reasons—including normal labor market frictions—that have nothing to do with this rule. In addition, some aliens may seek an EAD for purposes of paper documentation and may not intend to work.

Back to Citation

235. Currently, biometrics collection generally refers to the collection of fingerprints, photographs, and signatures. See USCIS, “Preparing for your Biometric Services Appointment,” https://www.uscis.gov/​forms/​forms-information/​preparing-your-biometric-services-appointment (last updated July 6, 2023).

Back to Citation

236. USCIS was previously authorized to collect an $85 biometric services fee. However, the recently promulgated fee rule incorporated the biometric services costs into the underlying immigration benefit request fees for which biometric services are applicable and maintained a separate $30 biometric services fee for other certain benefit requests. See 89 FR 6194 (Jan. 31, 2024) (Fee Rule). Thus, the populations of aliens applying for I-765 in this analysis are not required to pay a separate biometric services fee.

Back to Citation

237. The cost to screen for criminal history is covered by the Form I-765 filing fee which incorporates the biometric services costs.

Back to Citation

238. See “Employment Authorization for Certain H-4 Dependent Spouses; Final rule,” 80 FR 10284 (25 Feb. 2015); and “Provisional and Unlawful Presence Waivers of Inadmissibility for Certain Immediate Relatives; Final Rule,” 78 FR 536, 572 (Jan. 3, 2013).

Back to Citation

239. GSA, “Privately owned vehicle (POV) mileage reimbursement rates,” https://www.gsa.gov/​travel/​plan-book/​transportation-airfare-rates-pov-rates/​privately-owned-vehicle-pov-mileage-reimbursement-rates (last updated Dec. 30, 2024).

Back to Citation

240. Source for biometric time burden estimate: Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Supporting Statement for USCIS Form I-485 Instructions (OMB control number 1615-0023). The PRA Supporting Statement can be found at page 19 of the form instructions, https://www.uscis.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​document/​forms/​i-485instr.pdf (last updated Jan. 20, 2025).

Back to Citation

241. Calculations: 3.67 (total time in hours to submit biometrics) × $20.26 (prevailing wage for 1 hour of work) = $74.35; 3.67 (total time in hours to submit biometrics) × $45.65 (average wage for 1 hour of work) = $167.54.

Back to Citation

242. Calculations: $35 (cost of travel) + $74.35 (time-related costs at lower bound wage) = $109.35; $35 (cost of travel) + $167.54 (time-related costs at upper bound wage) = $202.54.

Back to Citation

243. Calculations: $182,610 (10-year total initial lower bound costs) + $737,019 (10-year total renewal lower bound costs) = $919,629 (minimum 10-year total lower bound costs); $990,420 (10-year total initial upper bound costs) + $4,006,039 (10-year total renewal upper bound costs) = $4,996,459 (maximum 10-year total upper bound costs).

Back to Citation

244. Supporting evidence includes, but is not limited to, pay stubs, an IRS transcript for the most recent tax year, Form W-2 series or Form 1099 series for the most recent tax year, evidence of the value of the alien's assets such as the appraised value of a home, utility bills, credit card statements, bank statements, and evidence of claimed income including alimony, child support, and dividends.

Back to Citation

245. See PRA Supporting Statement for USCIS Form I-765 Instructions (OMB control number 1615-0040). The PRA Supporting Statement can be found at page 25 of the form instructions, https://www.uscis.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​document/​forms/​i-765instr.pdf (last updated Aug. 28, 2024).

246. The additional 30 minutes is an average estimate across all respondents completing Form I-765 to review additional language in the instructions and gather required supporting documentation.

Back to Citation

247. Calculations: 0.5 (burden hours) × $20.26 (effective minimum hourly wage for 1 hour of work) = $10.13 (rounded). 0.5 (burden hours) × $45.65 (average wage for all occupations for 1 hour of work) = $22.83 (rounded).

Back to Citation

248. See PRA Supporting Statement for USCIS Form I-765 instructions (OMB control number 1615-0040). The PRA Supporting Statement can be found at page 25 of the form instructions, https://www.uscis.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​document/​forms/​i-765instr.pdf (last updated Aug. 28, 2024).

Back to Citation

249. Calculations: 1.0 hour (time to file I-765WS) × $20.26 (effective minimum hourly wage for 1 hour of work) = $20.26; 1.0 hour (time to file I-765WS) × $45.65 (average wage for all occupations for 1 hour of work) = $45.65.

Back to Citation

250. Calculations 1.5 hours (0.5 additional I-765 burden hours + 1.0 hour to file I-765WS) × $20.26 = $30.39; Calculations 1.5 hours (0.5 additional I-765 burden hours + 1.0 hour to file I-765WS) × $45.65 = $68.48.

Back to Citation

251. Calculations: $50,750 (10-year total initial lower bound costs) + $204,829 (10-year total renewal lower bound costs) = $255,579 (minimum 10-year total lower bound costs); $334,870 (10-year total initial upper bound costs) + $1,354,465 (10-year total renewal upper bound costs) = $1,689,335 (maximum 10-year total upper bound costs).

Back to Citation

252. Robert Frank, “61% of Americans paid no federal income taxes in 2020, Tax Policy Center says,” CNBC (Aug. 18, 2021), https://www.cnbc.com/​2021/​08/​18/​61percent-of-americans-paid-no-federal-income-taxes-in-2020-tax-policy-center-says.html (last updated Aug. 20, 2021), and for varying State income tax rates, see Tonya Moreno, “Your Guide to State Income Tax Rates,” The Balance, https://www.thebalance.com/​state-income-tax-rates-3193320 (last updated Jan. 23, 2023).

Back to Citation

253. The various employment taxes are discussed in more detail, see IRS, “Understanding Employment Taxes,” https://www.irs.gov/​businesses/​small-businesses-self-employed/​understanding-employment-taxes (last updated Jan. 7, 2025). See IRS “Publication 15,” “(Circular E), Employer's Tax Guide” (Dec. 17, 2024), https://www.irs.gov/​pub/​irs-pdf/​p15.pdf, for specific information on employment tax rates. Relevant calculation: (6.2 percent Social Security + 1.45 percent Medicare) × 2 employee and employer losses = 15.3 percent total estimated public tax impact.

Back to Citation

254. Employers are subject to Federal and State unemployment taxes on wages paid to employees. Employers must meet certain conditions to determine whether or not they must pay the Federal unemployment tax. The current Federal unemployment tax is 6.0 percent and applies to the first $7,000 paid to each employee as wages during the year, https://www.irs.gov/​taxtopics/​tc759#:~:text=​If%20you%20won't%20be,rate%20after%20credit%20is%200.6%25. (last updated Jan. 7, 2025). State unemployment tax rates vary. Due to the unique circumstances for each employer, it would be difficult to assess any Federal and State unemployment tax losses.

Back to Citation

255. We divide by the 1.45 benefits multiplier to account for the fact that employment taxes are calculated based upon wages paid, not including fringe benefits.

Back to Citation

256. Calculations (data from Table V.21): $1,538,830,800 (10-year total initial upper bound costs) + $5,854,858,128 (10-year total renewal upper bound costs) = $7,393,688,928 (minimum 10-year total lower bound costs); $3,718,957,600 (10-year total initial upper bound costs) + $14,151,421,600 (10-year total renewal upper bound costs) = $17,870,379,200 (maximum 10-year total upper bound costs).

Back to Citation

257. Calculations: $162,373,181 (10-year total initial lower bound costs) + $617,788,477 (10-year total renewal lower bound costs) = $780,161,658 (minimum 10-year total lower bound costs); $392,414,148 (10-year total initial upper bound costs) + $1,493,218,968 (10-year total renewal upper bound costs) = $1,885,633,116 (maximum 10-year total upper bound costs).

Back to Citation

258. Calculations: $7,393,688,928 (lost labor earnings costs) + $919,629 (biometrics costs) + $255,579 (time burden to complete forms costs) = $8,175,025,794 minimum undiscounted 10-year total; $17,870,379,200 (lost labor earnings costs) + $4,996,459 (biometrics costs) + $1689,335 (time burden to complete forms costs) = $19,762,698,110 maximum undiscounted 10-year total.

Back to Citation

259. BLS, Economic News Release, “The Employment Situation—December 2024,” https://www.bls.gov/​news.release/​archives/​empsit_​01102025.pdf.

Back to Citation

260. Calculations examples:

Table V.26(A), Column A (FY 2025) = 12,092 × 0.959 = 11,596;

Table V.26(A), Column C (FY 2025) = 24,278 × 0.959 = 23,283;

Table V.26(A), Column E (FY 2025) = 29,887 × 0.959 = 28,662;

Table V.26(C), Column A (FY 2025) = 5,219 × 0.959 = 5,005;

Table V.26(C), Column C (FY 2025) = 5,441 × 0.959 = 5,218;

Table V.26(C), Column E (FY 2025) = 5,835 × 0.959 = 5,596.

Back to Citation

261. Calculations: $1,173,704,112 (10-year total initial upper bound costs) + $95,492,448 (10-year total renewal upper bound costs) = $1,269,196,560 (minimum 10-year total lower bound costs); $8,389,541,600 (10-year total initial upper bound costs) + $335,940,000 (10-year total renewal upper bound costs) = $8,725,481,600 (maximum 10-year total upper bound costs).

Back to Citation

262. An important assumption relied upon in this analysis is that each holder of an approved EAD has entered the labor force and is working (when the rule becomes effective). DHS relies on this assumption on the grounds that aliens would not have expended the direct filing and time-related opportunity costs of applying for an EAD if they did not intend to recoup an economic benefit from doing so. In reality, some EAD holders may not be employed for any number of reasons—including normal labor market frictions—that have nothing to do with this rule. In addition, some aliens may seek an EAD for purposes of paper documentation and may not intend to work.

Back to Citation

263. USCIS was previously authorized to collect an $85 biometric services fee. However, the recently promulgated fee rule incorporated the biometric services costs into the underlying immigration benefit request fees for which biometric services are applicable and maintained a separate $30 biometric services fee for other certain benefit requests. See 89 FR 6194 (Jan. 31, 2024) (Fee Rule). Thus, the populations of aliens applying for I-765 in this analysis are not required to pay a separate biometric services fee.

Back to Citation

264. The cost to screen for criminal history is covered by the Form I-765 filing fee which incorporates the biometric services costs.

Back to Citation

265. Using the projected lower and upper bound approvals under this rule serves as a reasonable proxy for the projected number of biometric receipts under this rule proposes to codify the requirement to submit biometrics.

Back to Citation

266. Calculations: $7,981,785 (10-year total initial lower bound costs) + $3,985,152 (10-year total renewal lower bound costs) = $11,966,937 (minimum 10-year total lower bound costs); $29,682,035 (10-year total initial upper bound costs) + $7,695,101 (10-year total renewal upper bound costs) = $37,377,136 (maximum 10-year total upper bound costs).

Back to Citation

267. Supporting evidence includes, but is not limited to, pay stubs, an IRS transcript for the most recent tax year, Form W-2 series or Form 1099 series for the most recent tax year, evidence of the value of the alien's assets such as the appraised value of a home, utility bills, credit card statements, bank statements, and evidence of claimed income including alimony, child support, and dividends.

268. See PRA Supporting Statement for USCIS Form I-765 instructions (OMB control number 1615-0040). The PRA Supporting Statement can be found at page 25 of the form instructions https://www.uscis.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​document/​forms/​i-765instr.pdf (last updated Aug. 28, 2024).

Back to Citation

269. The additional 30 minutes is an average estimate across all respondents completing Form I-765 to review additional language in the instructions and gather required supporting documentation.

Back to Citation

270. Calculations: 0.5 (burden hours) × $20.26 (effective minimum hourly wage for 1 hour of work) = $10.13 (rounded). 0.5 (burden hours) × $45.65 (average wage for all occupations for 1 hour of work) = $22.83 (rounded).

Back to Citation

271. See PRA Supporting Statement for USCIS Form I-765 instructions (OMB control number 1615-0040). The PRA Supporting Statement can be found at page 25 of the form instructions https://www.uscis.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​document/​forms/​i-765instr.pdf (last updated Aug. 28, 2024).

Back to Citation

272. Calculations: 0.5 (burden hours) × $20.26 (effective minimum hourly wage for 1 hour of work) = $10.13 (rounded). 0.5 (burden hours) × $45.65 (average wage for all occupations for 1 hour of work) = $22.83 (rounded).

273. Calculations 1.0 hour (0.5 additional I-765 burden hours + 0.5 hours to file I-765WS) × $20.26 = $20.26; Calculations 1.0 hour (0.5 additional I-765 burden hours + 0.5 hours to file I-765WS) × $45.65 = $45.65.

Back to Citation

274. We divide by the 1.45 benefits multiplier to account for the fact that employment taxes are calculated based upon wages paid, not including fringe benefits.

The benefits-to-wage multiplier is calculated as follows: (Total Employee Compensation per hour) ÷ (Wages and Salaries per hour) = $46.84 ÷ $32.25 = 1.45 (rounded). See BLS, Economic News Release, “Employer Costs for Employee Compensation—September 2024,” Table 1. Employer costs for employer compensation by ownership, p. 4, https://www.bls.gov/​news.release/​archives/​ecec_​12172024.pdf.

Back to Citation

275. Calculations (data from Table V.26): $1,173,704,112 (10-year total initial upper bound costs) + $95,492,448 (10-year total renewal upper bound costs) = $1,269,196,560 (minimum 10-year total lower bound costs); $8,389,541,600 (10-year total initial upper bound costs) + $335,940,000 (10-year total renewal upper bound costs) = $8,725,481,600 (maximum 10-year total upper bound costs).

Back to Citation

276. Calculations: $123,846,019 (10-year total initial lower bound costs) + $10,076,099 (10-year total renewal lower bound costs) = $133,922,118 (minimum 10-year total lower bound costs); $885,241,286 (10-year total initial upper bound costs) + $35,447,463 (10-year total renewal upper bound costs) = $920,688,749 (maximum 10-year total upper bound costs).

Back to Citation

277. Calculations: $1,269,196,560 (lost labor earnings costs) + $11,966,937 (biometrics costs) + $2,217,193 (time burden to complete forms costs) = $1,283,380,690 minimum undiscounted 10-year total; $8,725,481,600 (lost labor earnings costs) + $37,377,136 (biometrics costs) + $8,424,345 (time burden to complete forms costs) = $8,771,283,081 maximum undiscounted 10-year total.

Back to Citation

278. BLS, Economic News Release, “The Employment Situation—December 2024,” https://www.bls.gov/​news.release/​archives/​empsit_​01102025.pdf.

Back to Citation

279. Calculations examples:

Table V.31(A), Column A (FY 2025) = 36,556 × 0.959 = 35,057;

Table V.31(A), Column C (FY 2025) = 36,926 × 0.959 = 35,412;

Table V.31(A), Column E (FY 2025) = 39,352 × 0.959 = 37,739;

Table V.31(C), Column A (FY 2025) = 2,913 × 0.959 = 2,794;

Table V.31(C), Column C (FY 2025) = 3,336 × 0.959 = 3,199;

Table V.31(C), Column E (FY 2025) = 3,464 × 0.959 = 3,322.

Back to Citation

280. Calculations: $342,319,824 (10-year total initial upper bound costs) + $31,264,560 (10-year total renewal upper bound costs) = $373,584,384 (minimum 10-year total lower bound costs); $888,999,040 (10-year total initial upper bound costs) + $303,852,640 (10-year total renewal upper bound costs) = $1,192,851,680 (maximum 10-year total upper bound costs).

Back to Citation

281. An important assumption relied upon in this analysis is that each holder of an approved EAD has entered the labor force and is working (when the rule becomes effective). DHS relies on this assumption on the grounds that aliens would not have expended the direct filing and time-related opportunity costs of applying for an EAD if they did not intend to recoup an economic benefit from doing so. In reality, some EAD holders may not be employed for any number of reasons—including normal labor market frictions—that have nothing to do with this rule. In addition, some aliens may seek an EAD for purposes of paper documentation and may not intend to work.

Back to Citation

282. USCIS was previously authorized to collect an $85 biometric services fee. However, the recently promulgated fee rule incorporated the biometric services costs into the underlying immigration benefit request fees for which biometric services are applicable and maintained a separate $30 biometric services fee for other certain benefit requests. See 89 FR 6194 (Jan. 31, 2024) (Fee Rule). Thus, the populations of aliens applying for I-765 in this analysis are not required to pay a separate biometric services fee.

Back to Citation

283. The cost to screen for criminal history is covered by the Form I-765 filing fee which incorporates the biometric services costs.

Back to Citation

284. Using the projected lower and upper bound approvals under this rule serves as a reasonable proxy for the projected number of biometric receipts under this rule proposes to codify the requirement to submit biometrics.

Back to Citation

285. Calculations: $16,268,437 (10-year total initial lower bound costs) + $2,252,172 (10-year total renewal lower bound costs) = $18,520,609 (minimum 10-year total lower bound costs); $30,437,711 (10-year total initial upper bound costs) + $4,777,108 (10-year total renewal upper bound costs) = $35,214,819 (maximum 10-year total upper bound costs).

Back to Citation

286. Supporting evidence includes, but is not limited to, pay stubs, an IRS transcript for the most recent tax year, Form W-2 series or Form 1099 series for the most recent tax year, evidence of the value of the alien's assets such as the appraised value of a home, utility bills, credit card statements, bank statements, and evidence of claimed income including alimony, child support, and dividends.

287. See PRA Supporting Statement for USCIS Form I-765 instructions (OMB control number 1615-0040). The PRA Supporting Statement can be found at page 25 of the form instructions https://www.uscis.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​document/​forms/​i-765instr.pdf (last updated Aug. 28, 2024).>

288. The additional 30 minutes is an average estimate across all respondents completing Form I-765 to review additional language in the instructions and gather required supporting documentation.

Back to Citation

289. Calculations: 0.5 (burden hours) × $20.26 (effective minimum hourly wage for 1 hour of work) = $10.13 (rounded). 0.5 (burden hours) × $45.65 (average wage for all occupations for 1 hour of work) = $22.83 (rounded).

Back to Citation

290. See PRA Supporting Statement for USCIS Form I-765 instructions (OMB control number 1615-0040). The PRA Supporting Statement can be found at page 25 of the form instructions https://www.uscis.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​document/​forms/​i-765instr.pdf (last updated Aug. 28, 2024).

Back to Citation

291. Calculations: 1.0 hour (time to file I-765WS) × $20.26 (effective minimum hourly compensation for 1 hour of work) = $20.26; 1.0 hour (time to file I-765WS) × $45.65 (average compensation for all occupations for 1 hour of work) = $45.65.

Back to Citation

292. Calculations: 0.25 hour (time to file I-131) × $20.26 (effective minimum hourly compensation for 1 hour of work) = $5.07; 0.25 hour (time to file I-131) × $45.65 (average compensation for all occupations for 1 hour of work) = $11.41.

Back to Citation

293. Calculations: 1.75 hours (0.5 additional I-765 burden hours + 1.0 hour to file I-765WS + 0.25 hour to file I-131) × $20.26 = $35.46; 1.75 hours (0.5 additional I-765 burden hours + 1.0 hour to file I-765WS + 0.25 hour to file I-131) × $45.65 = $79.89.

Back to Citation

294. Calculations: $5,275,527 (10-year total initial lower bound costs) + $730,335 (10-year total renewal lower bound costs) = $6,005,862 (minimum 10-year total lower bound costs); $12,005,869 (10-year total initial upper bound costs) + $1,884,284 (10-year total renewal upper bound costs) = $13,890,153 (maximum 10-year total upper bound costs).

Back to Citation

295. We divide by the 1.45 benefits multiplier to account for the fact that employment taxes are calculated based upon wages paid, not including fringe benefits.

Back to Citation

296. Calculations (data from Table V.31): $342,319,824 (10-year total initial upper bound costs) + $31,264,560 (10-year total renewal upper bound costs) = $373,584,384 (minimum 10-year total lower bound costs); $888,999,040 (10-year total initial upper bound costs) + $303,852,640 (10-year total renewal upper bound costs) = $1,192,851,680 (maximum 10-year total upper bound costs).

Back to Citation

297. Calculations: $36,120,643 (10-year total initial lower bound costs) + $3,298,949 (10-year total renewal lower bound costs) = $39,419,592 (minimum 10-year total lower bound costs); $93,804,726 (10-year total initial upper bound costs) + $32,061,694 (10-year total renewal upper bound costs) = $125,866,420 (maximum 10-year total upper bound costs).

Back to Citation

298. Calculations: $373,584,384 (lost labor earnings costs) + $18,520,609 (biometrics costs) + $6,005,862 (time burden to complete forms costs) = $398,110,855 minimum undiscounted 10-year total; $1,192,851,680 (lost labor earnings costs) + $35,214,819 (biometrics costs) + $13,890,153 (time burden to complete forms costs) = $1,241,956,652 maximum undiscounted 10-year total.

Back to Citation

299. Calculations: $9,036,469,872 (lost labor earnings costs) + $31,407,175 (biometrics costs) + $8,478,634 (time burden to complete forms costs) = $9,076,355,681 minimum undiscounted 10-year total; $27,788,712,480 (lost labor earnings costs) + $77,588,414 (biometrics costs) + $24,003,833 (time burden to complete forms costs) = $27,890,304,727 maximum undiscounted 10-year total.

Back to Citation

300. Transfer payments are monetary payments from one group to another that do not affect total resources available to society. See “OMB Regulatory Impact Analysis: A Primer” pages 7 and 8 for further discussion of transfer payments and distributional effects, https://www.reginfo.gov/​public/​jsp/​Utilities/​circular-a-4_​regulatory-impact-analysis-a-primer.pdf.

Back to Citation

301. See E-Verify, https://www.e-verify.gov/​.

Back to Citation

302. The recently promulgated fee rule updated the fee for Form I-765 to $470 for online filing and $520 for paper filing. See 89 FR 6194 (Jan. 31, 2024) (Fee Rule).

Back to Citation

303. Employers already participating in E-Verify likely already complete ongoing annual training because they voluntarily chose to enroll or because of rules or regulations beyond the scope of this proposed rule. DHS anticipates that such employers would continue to use E-Verify regardless of their decision to hire (c)(18), (c)(14), and/or (c)(11) workers or not.

Back to Citation

304. See E-Verify, “Questions and Answers,” https://www.e-verify.gov/​about-e-verify/​questions-and-answers?​tid=​All&​page=​0 (last updated Sept. 15, 2022).

Back to Citation

305. Certain States (for example Alabama, Arizona, Mississippi, and South Carolina) and certain Federal contracts subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation found at 48 CFR, Subpart 22.18 require the use of E-Verify.

Back to Citation

306. See E-Verify, “The Enrollment Process” (May 17, 2024), https://www.e-verify.gov/​employers/​enrolling-in-e-verify/​the-enrollment-process.

Back to Citation

307. An employer that discriminates in its use of E-Verify based on an individual's citizenship status or national origin may also violate the INA's anti-discrimination provision, at 8 U.S.C. 1324b.

Back to Citation

308. See E-Verify, “The E-Verify Memorandum of Understanding for Employers,” https://www.e-verify.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​everify/​memos/​MOUforEVerifyEmployer.pdf (last updated June 1, 2013).

Back to Citation

309. The USCIS Office of Policy and Strategy (OPS), PRA Compliance Branch estimates the average time burdens. See USCIS, “E-Verify Program” (OMB control number 1615-0092) (May 24, 2016), https://www.regulations.gov/​document?​D=​USCIS-2007-0023-0081. The PRA Supporting Statement can be found under Question 12.

Back to Citation

310. See USCIS, “E-Verify Program” (OMB control number 1615-0092) (May 24, 2016), https://www.regulations.gov/​document?​D=​USCIS-2007-0023-0081. The PRA Supporting Statement can be found under Question 12.

Back to Citation

311. E-Verify, “How to Process a Tentative Nonconfirmation (Mismatch),” https://www.e-verify.gov/​employees/​tentative-nonconfirmation-overview/​how-to-correct-a-tentative-nonconfirmation (last updated Sept. 15, 2022).

Back to Citation

312. See BLS, “May 2023 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates,” “United States,” “Human Resources Specialists” (SOC #13-1071), https://www.bls.gov/​oes/​2023/​May/​oes_​nat.htm#13-1071 (last updated Apr. 3, 2024).

Back to Citation

313. The benefits-to-wage multiplier is calculated as follows: (Total Employee Compensation per hour) ÷ (Wages and Salaries per hour) = $46.84 ÷ $32.25 = 1.45 (rounded). See BLS, Economic News Release, “Employer Costs for Employee Compensation—September 2024,” Table 1. Employer costs for employer compensation by ownership, p. 4, https://www.bls.gov/​news.release/​archives/​ecec_​12172024.pdf.

Back to Citation

314. Calculation: $36.57 average hourly wage rate for HR specialists × 1.46 benefits-to-wage multiplier = $53.03 hourly compensation.

Back to Citation

315. Calculation: 2.26 hours for the enrollment process × $53.03 total compensation wage rate for an HR specialist = $119.85.

Back to Citation

316. See USCIS, “E-Verify Program” (OMB control number 1615-0092) (May 24, 2016), https://www.regulations.gov/​document?​D=​USCIS-2007-0023-0081. The PRA Supporting Statement can be found under Question 12.

Back to Citation

317. Calculation: 0.129 hours to submit a query × $53.03 total compensation wage rate for an HR specialist = $6.84.

Back to Citation

318. Calculation: $119.85 opportunity cost for a new entity to enroll in E-Verify + $6.84 cost to submit a query into E-Verify = $126.69.

Back to Citation

319. Calculation: $53.03 1 hour of annual training + $6.84 cost to submit a query into E-Verify = $59.87. E-Verify has a Work Authorization Docs Expiring case alert that notifies employers that an employee's EAD or Arrival-Departure Record (Form I-94) document is expiring. The alert is a reminder for the employer to reverify the employee. See E-Verify, “Questions and Answers,” https://www.e-verify.gov/​about-e-verify/​questions-and-answers?​tid=​All&​page=​0 (last updated Sept. 15, 2022).

Back to Citation

320. For additional descriptions of the components of labor turnover costs, see Holly Bengfort, “Employee retention: The Real Cost of Losing an Employee,” PeopleKeep (Apr. 16, 2024), https://www.peoplekeep.com/​blog/​employee-retention-the-real-cost-of-losing-an-employee.

Back to Citation

321. See Heather Boushey & Sarah Jane Glynn, “There Are Significant Business Costs to Replacing Employees,” Center for American Progress (Nov. 16, 2012), https://www.americanprogress.org/​issues/​economy/​reports/​2012/​11/​16/​44464/​there-are-significant-business-costs-to-replacing-employees/​.

Back to Citation

322. See Shane McFeely and Ben Wigert, “This Fixable Problem Costs U.S. Businesses $1 Trillion,” Workplace (Mar. 13, 2019), https://www.gallup.com/​workplace/​247391/​fixable-problem-costs-businesses-trillion.aspx. See also Kate Heinz, “The True Costs of Employee Turnover,” Built In (July 17, 2024), https://builtin.com/​recruiting/​cost-of-turnover.

Back to Citation

323. See “The Real Cost of Employee Turnover in 2021,” Verstela (Nov. 4, 2020), https://www.verstela.com/​blog/​cost-of-employee-turnover/​. See also Louie Andre, “112 Employee Turnover Statistics: 2021 Causes, Cost & Prevention Data,” Finances Online, https://financesonline.com/​employee-turnover-statistics/​#cost (last updated Feb. 25, 2025).

324. See Kate Bahn and Carmen Sanchez Cumming, “Improving U.S. Labor Standards and the Quality of Jobs to Reduce the Costs of Employee Turnover to U.S. Companies,” Washington Center for Equitable Growth (Dec. 2020), https://equitablegrowth.org/​wp-content/​uploads/​2020/​12/​122120-turnover-costs-ib.pdf. The data are found in the report's methodological appendix.

Back to Citation

325. The slope coefficient for the regression of costs against salary is 5.2E-06. By multiplying this figure by 5,000 to obtain 0.026, it can be interpreted that a $5,000 increase in salary is associated with a 2.6 percentage point increase in labor turnover costs, on average, within the range of our data. The exact probability of committing a type I error ( p -value) for the slope coefficient is 0.027, such that we can reject the hypothesis that salary and turnover costs are not systemically related (or such that the correlation in the particular data is due to randomness) with more than 95 percent confidence.

Back to Citation

326. Calculations: $36,144 × 0.224 = $8,096; $81,440 × 0.224 = $18,243.

Back to Citation

327. All other categories include: (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4), (c)(5), (c)(6), (c)(7), (c)(8), (c)(9), (c)(10), (c)(12), (c)(16), (c)(17), (c)(19), (c)(20), (c)(21), (c)(22), (c)(24), (c)(25), (c)(26), (c)(33), (c)(34), (c)(35), (c)(36), and (c)(40).

Back to Citation

328. See ICE, “Removal,” https://www.ice.gov/​remove/​removal (last updated Mar. 6, 2025); ICE, “Enforcement and Removal Operations,” https://www.ice.gov/​about-ice/​ero (last updated Feb. 4, 2025).

Back to Citation

329. Supporting evidence includes, but is not limited to, pay stubs, an IRS transcript for the most recent tax year, Form W-2 series or Form 1099 series for the most recent tax year, evidence of the value of the alien's assets such as the appraised value of a home, utility bills, credit card statements, bank statements, and evidence of claimed income including alimony, child support, and dividends.

Back to Citation

330. Calculations:

4,136 (projected (c)(18) initial approvals FY 2034) + 16,052 (projected (c)(18) renewal approvals FY 2034) + 9,556 (projected (c)(14) initial approvals FY 2034) + 2,676 (projected (c)(14) renewal approvals FY 2034) + 3,878 (projected (c)(11) initial approvals FY 2034) + 1,635 (projected (c)(11) renewal approvals FY 2034) = 37,933 (minimum projected annual approvals);

5,805 (projected (c)(18) initial approvals FY 2025) + 21,710 (projected (c)(18) renewal approvals FY 2025) + 29,887 (projected (c)(14) initial approvals FY 2025) + 5,835 (projected (c)(14) renewal approvals FY 2025) + 39,352 (projected (c)(11) initial approvals FY 2025) + 3,464 (projected (c)(11) renewal approvals FY 2025) = 106,053 (maximum projected annual approvals).

Back to Citation

331. BLS, Economic News Release, “The Employment Situation—December 2024, Summary Table A, Household Data, seasonally adjusted, Civilian labor force,” https://www.bls.gov/​news.release/​archives/​empsit_​01102025.pdf.

Back to Citation

332. Calculation: 106,053 (maximum projected annual discretionary EAD alien worker approvals ÷ 168,547,000 (U.S. labor force) = 0.00063 (rounded).

Back to Citation

333. A small business is defined as any independently owned and operated business not dominant in its field of operation that qualifies as a small business per the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632.

Back to Citation

334. Public Law 104-208, div. C, at secs. 401-405.

Back to Citation

335. Open market EADs allow aliens to work in any occupation or industry. The alien is not required to work for a specific employer or in any specific industry or occupation, and the U.S. employer is not required to test the labor market to ensure that there are no American workers available and that the hiring of the category (c)(11), (c)(14), and (c)(18) alien will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions for similarly situated American workers.

Back to Citation

336. We do not attribute turnover costs from ineligibility in other years because we operate under the assumption that if an initial EAD is approved, then the renewal would also be approved under the proposed criteria of this rule. DHS recognizes that in some cases, a renewal filing could be denied even in the wake of an approved initial EAD in future years, but the number of instances this would occur is unknown. Estimation of these cases would be speculative at this time.

Back to Citation

337. Calculation: $119.85 opportunity cost for a new entity to enroll in E-Verify + $6.84 cost to submit a query into E-Verify = $126.69. Calculation: $53.03 1 hour of annual training + $6.84 cost to submit a query into E-Verify = $59.87.

Back to Citation

338. Calculation: $53.03 1 hour of annual training + $6.84 cost to submit a query into E-Verify = $59.87.

Back to Citation

339. Calculation: $36,144 × 22.4% = $8,096; $81,440 × 22.4% = $18,243. For more information on this calculation, please see the “Turnover Costs to Employers Who Currently Hire Discretionary EAD Holders” section.

Back to Citation

340. The term “Federal mandate” means a Federal intergovernmental mandate or a Federal private sector mandate. See 2 U.S.C. 1502(1), 658(5), (6).

Back to Citation

341. See BLS, “Historical Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U): U.S. city average, all items, by month,” https://www.bls.gov/​cpi/​tables/​supplemental-files/​historical-cpi-u-202412.pdf. Calculation of inflation: (1) Calculate the average monthly CPI-U for the reference year (1995) and the current year (2024); (2) Subtract reference year CPI-U from current year CPI-U; (3) Divide the difference of the reference year CPI-U and current year CPI-U by the reference year CPI-U; (4) Multiply by 100 = [(Average monthly CPI-U for 2024—Average monthly CPI-U for 1995) ÷ (Average monthly CPI-U for 1995)] × 100 = [(313.689−152.383) ÷ 152.383] = (161.306 ÷ 152.383) = 1.059 × 100 = 105.9 percent = 106 percent (rounded). Calculation of inflation-adjusted value: $100 million in 1995 dollars × 2.06 = $206 million in 2024 dollars.

Back to Citation

342. DHS further notes that the underlying basis for employment authorization of the relevant categories of this rule—namely a grant of parole, deferred action, or order of supervision—are also wholly discretionary and temporary in nature.

Back to Citation

343. The Instruction Manual contains DHS's procedures for implementing NEPA and was issued November 6, 2014, https://www.dhs.gov/​ocrso/​eed/​epb/​nepa. (last updated July 29, 2025)

Back to Citation

344. See 42 U.S.C. 4336(a)(2), 4336e(1).

Back to Citation

345. See Instruction Manual, Appendix A, Table 1.

Back to Citation

346. Instruction Manual at V.B(2)(a) through (c).

Back to Citation

BILLING CODE 9111-97-P

BILLING CODE 9111-97-C

[FR Doc. 2026-11285 Filed 6-4-26; 8:45 am]