The Trump administration is advancing a proposal to eliminate the 60-day grace period that allows H-1B visa holders and other foreign workers to remain in the United States after losing their jobs, a change that would upend layoff strategy for hundreds of thousands of visa holders and reshape how practitioners advise clients facing job loss. The Department of Homeland Security sent the proposal to the White House for regulatory review on Thursday, marking the first official step toward what could become a final rule.
What changed
Currently, many workers on employment-based visas can remain in the United States for up to 60 days after losing their jobs to find a new employer, seek a different immigration status, or make arrangements to leave the country. The proposal would eliminate that window, potentially putting workers at risk of losing legal status more quickly.
If ultimately approved, the change would remove a safeguard that has been in place since 2017. The grace period was introduced during the final days of the Obama administration and took effect in 2017 as part of an effort to provide flexibility for highly skilled foreign workers facing job losses.
The proposal is still undergoing review and has not yet been published in full. The existing 60-day grace period remains in effect while the rulemaking process moves forward. If approved for publication, the proposal would be published in the Federal Register and opened for public comment before any final decision is made.
Why it matters
Elimination of the 60-day grace period would compress the timeline available to laid-off H-1B holders to locate new sponsoring employers and file transfer petitions. Currently, practitioners routinely advise clients to use this window strategically—to negotiate with prospective new sponsors, coordinate petition filing, and arrange logistics. Without it, workers would face immediate out-of-status risk upon termination, leaving no margin for processing delays or job market friction.
For practitioners, this change would require rethinking client exit strategy at the moment of layoff notification. Rather than a measured 60-day search, the calculus would shift to emergency transfers or rapid visa status changes. Clients without imminent transfer opportunities or alternative visa pathways would face forced departure.
The broader impact extends to the tech and professional-services sectors, which rely heavily on H-1B labor and have sustained significant layoffs in 2026. Removal of the grace period would also tighten constraints on employers—many of whom use this window to negotiate employee transitions or internal reassignments.
Way forward
-
Review your current H-1B clients’ visa status and employment duration. If any hold approved I-140s or have pending green card applications, document priority dates and i-94 expiration dates now; changes to grace-period rules could shift filing urgency.
-
Develop layoff contingency memos for employer clients. Map out which workers hold cap-exempt status, which have approved I-140s (allowing H-1B portability), and which face immediate out-of-status risk if grace period is eliminated.
-
Monitor Federal Register for full proposal text. When published, the comment period will be your window to submit practitioner feedback on implementation, hardship, and transition provisions. Industry associations (AILA, ABA) typically coordinate comment campaigns.
-
Prepare alternative visa pathways for H-1B clients. Familiarize yourself with B-2 bridge visas, L-1 eligibility (if applicable), and self-sponsored green card routes (EB-1A, EB-2 NIW) as fallback options if grace period shrinks or disappears.
Disclaimer
This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Fola Form is a software and educational platform, not a law firm. Immigration law is complex and changes frequently; the contents of this article may become outdated without notice. Please consult a licensed immigration attorney in your jurisdiction to discuss your specific circumstances and verify current rules and procedures against official USCIS, DHS, and DOS guidance. The proposal described here is not yet final and remains subject to regulatory review and public comment.