Introduction
Recent updates from the legal community and emerging client cases have sparked widespread concern among H-1B visa holders across the United States. Multiple reports suggest that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has begun initiating removal proceedings—even for individuals who remain within their legally allowable 60-day grace period following job termination. These developments have raised fears of abrupt status loss and potential deportation among non-immigrant professionals, particularly in the tech and services sectors.
This article clarifies the legal framework surrounding the 60-day grace period, examines the accuracy and implications of recent developments, and offers practical legal strategies for those affected. As a legal support provider for non-immigrant professionals, Immigration Fleet outlines what every H-1B worker needs to know to protect their status during this uncertain time.
What Is the 60-Day Grace Period?
Under current U.S. immigration law, non-immigrant workers in classifications such as H-1B, L-1, O-1, and others are eligible for a discretionary grace period of up to 60 consecutive days following the end of their employment—or until the expiration of their current I-94, whichever comes first. This provision is governed by 8 CFR 214.1(l)(2), which allows affected individuals to remain in the U.S. in a period of authorized stay, even if they are no longer actively employed.
During this grace period, workers may legally pursue several options: secure a new job and have the new employer file an H-1B transfer petition; apply for a change of non-immigrant status (e.g., to F-1, B-2, or H-4); request a Compelling Circumstances Employment Authorization Document (EAD); or prepare for a timely departure from the United States.
While the grace period is not automatically granted and is subject to DHS discretion, it has long functioned as an essential safeguard, providing individuals time to transition without being penalized for unlawful presence. The regulation also explicitly states that DHS may shorten or eliminate the grace period, although historically, this discretion has not been widely exercised.
A timely and nonfrivolous petition or application filed during the grace period—such as a change of employer or change of status—allows the non-immigrant to remain in a period of authorized stay and, in many cases, continue working once USCIS receives the filing.
Important Update: USCIS Has Archived Its Guidance on the Grace Period
It is important to note that USCIS has now archived its previously published webpage titled “Options for Non-immigrant Workers Following Termination of Employment”, which provided detailed guidance about the 60-day grace period. The page has been labelled as “Archived Content” with a disclaimer stating that the information is out of date, although some portions may still be useful. This development adds to the confusion and uncertainty for H-1B workers attempting to understand their rights and options after employment termination.
The archived page had outlined several potential actions available to non-immigrant workers following a layoff or termination, including:
- Filing an application for a change of non-immigrant status;
- Filing for an adjustment of status;
- Submitting an application for a Compelling Circumstances Employment Authorization Document (EAD); or
- Being the beneficiary of a nonfrivolous petition to change employer.
According to the archived guidance, if any of these actions were initiated within the grace period, the non-immigrant could remain in a period of authorized stay even beyond the 60-day window. However, the archiving of this page—without a new official policy replacing it—has left both legal practitioners and visa holders without clear, authoritative guidance from USCIS on whether or how this policy is still being interpreted or applied.
This archiving, coupled with the issuance of Notices to Appear (NTAs) even during the grace period, may indicate a change in how DHS and USCIS are choosing to interpret or enforce the regulatory protections historically associated with the grace period. Without a replacement page or updated policy guidance, the situation remains in flux and underscores the importance of proactive legal counsel and timely filings to ensure continued lawful presence.
Emerging Concerns: DHS Now Issuing NTAs During Grace Period
As of mid-2025, attorneys across the U.S. immigration community have begun reporting that DHS and USCIS are issuing Notices to Appear (NTAs) in immigration court to H-1B visa holders who are still within their grace period or have filed a timely change of status.
This marks a significant and troubling departure from previous practice. Until recently, the 60-day grace period—implemented in 2016—was understood to provide a protected period during which H-1B workers could remain in the country without being considered unlawfully present. However, recent cases indicate that DHS may now be treating an employer’s withdrawal of the H-1B petition as an immediate revocation of lawful status. As a result, individuals are being served NTAs and placed into removal proceedings, even when they have complied with all regulatory requirements.
Why This Matters
The issuance of NTAs during the grace period represents a possible shift in how USCIS interprets “authorized stay” and lawful presence. In several recent cases—including one handled by our firm—individuals who were laid off and filed timely change of status applications (e.g., from H-1B to B2) were nonetheless placed into removal proceedings.
These NTAs assert that the individual is “present in the United States without admission or parole,” despite being in a regulatorily recognized period of authorized stay. This position is concerning and, if it continues, could undermine the core function of the 60-day grace period. Furthermore, it raises the risk of long-term immigration consequences such as inadmissibility bars, especially if unlawful presence is misapplied.
Has the Law Changed?
Despite the headlines and concerning anecdotal evidence, there has been no official change to the regulation or any formal policy announcement by USCIS or DHS revoking or modifying the grace period provision. However, the agency has archived its public guidance page on grace period protections and marked the information as outdated, adding further ambiguity. The archived page can be viewed here.
This lack of clarity from USCIS has fuelled confusion, especially among individuals attempting to make lawful transitions during job loss. It remains unclear whether this represents a policy shift, administrative error, or a new interpretation that seeks to limit the protective scope of the grace period.
Legal Standing During the Grace Period
Legally speaking, H-1B visa holders who are within the 60-day grace period and have filed a timely, nonfrivolous petition or application are still considered to be in the United States lawfully. They are not accruing unlawful presence and are entitled to remain in the U.S. while awaiting a decision on their case.
Deportation or removal proceedings should not be initiated solely on the basis of unemployment within the grace period. If such proceedings are initiated under these circumstances, they may be legally challengeable in immigration court, particularly when the individual has complied with all requirements under existing regulations.
How Immigration Fleet Supports H-1B Workers
Immigration Fleet provides personalized legal support for non-immigrant professionals, including those facing job loss or visa transition. We offer assistance with:
- H-1B transfers and change-of-status filings
- Case evaluations and strategic planning
- Representation in immigration court when NTAs are issued
- Guidance on preserving lawful presence and avoiding enforcement risks
Our team is actively tracking the DHS’s shifting posture on the grace period and is equipped to defend clients facing unexpected removal actions despite regulatory compliance.
Conclusion: A Legal Safety Net Under Pressure
While the 60-day grace period remains in effect under federal regulation, recent USCIS actions suggest a troubling willingness to undermine or narrowly interpret these protections. Whether this represents a formal policy shift or a misapplication of discretion remains to be seen.
Until more clarity is provided, H-1B workers should act quickly, file early, and seek legal expert counsel to ensure they are not caught off guard by sudden enforcement actions. The grace period, long viewed as a lifeline, now appears to be under administrative pressure—making timely and informed action more critical than ever.
