The US Department of Homeland Security wants to remove the rule that normally gives weight to earlier immigration approvals. Public comments on its October 14 proposal close on November 13.
Daylight Post found that the change would reach beyond cases where a job or worker’s circumstances have changed. Comparing the proposal with current guidance shows that officials can already revisit an approval when important errors, new facts or fraud indicators emerge.
What an H-1B extension does
H-1B is a temporary US work category used mainly for jobs requiring specialist knowledge and a directly related degree or equivalent qualifications. An employer sponsors the worker by filing a petition: a formal request for immigration approval.
Permission lasts for a limited period. H-1B workers can generally be admitted for up to three years, with extensions usually taking the total to six years. Some cases qualify for longer. A continuing job therefore does not remove the need for another immigration decision.
US Citizenship and Immigration Services, or USCIS, is the government agency that decides these petitions. An extension asks it to approve continued eligibility. Employers still have to provide evidence; an earlier approval does not guarantee the next one.
The existing rule has exceptions
The current approach is called deference. In ordinary language, an officer normally accepts an earlier finding of eligibility when the employer, worker and underlying facts remain the same.
USCIS guidance already says officers should depart from that finding if there was an important error, a significant change, or new information that undermines eligibility. An officer must explain the reason, let the applicant or employer respond to new information, and obtain supervisory approval before a final decision that departs from the earlier approval.
The department says the change would protect US workers. The proposal is not in force.
What the evidence does and does not measure
It cites fraud and rule breaches at workplaces visited by officials. Those inspections do not represent all extension applications.
The 2024 rule that put deference into the regulations described consistency and efficiency as reasons for the policy, while retaining exceptions. The present proposal would change that balance. It would not remove the employer’s existing duty to prove eligibility, which applies under either approach.