Litigation Threatens USCIS Decision to End Automatic EAD Extensions

Featured & Cover Litigation Threatens USCIS Decision to End Automatic EAD Extensions

The Department of Homeland Security’s recent decision to end automatic Employment Authorization Document extensions has sparked concerns among H-4 and Adjustment of Status visa holders, prompting potential legal challenges.

As October comes to a close, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has introduced a significant policy change that has left many work permit holders in a state of uncertainty. The new rule, which takes effect on October 30, 2025, will eliminate automatic extensions for Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) across several categories, including H-4 visa holders and those applying for Adjustment of Status (AOS).

Under the existing policy, applicants seeking EAD renewals benefit from an automatic 540-day extension, allowing them to continue working while their applications are processed by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). However, with the new rule set to take effect just 24 hours after its announcement, many individuals are now facing the prospect of job loss.

The abrupt nature of this policy change has raised concerns about the lack of notice provided to those affected. Immigration attorney James Hollis, a partner and head of sports, entertainment, and business immigration at McEntee Law Group, criticized the timing of the announcement, suggesting that it could leave applicants vulnerable. “USCIS realizes that this is a potential problem with major policy announcements,” Hollis stated. “So, when they make an announcement on the morning of October 29, 2025, that any cases received on or after October 30, 2025, will have a different policy, my assumption is that they’re trying to catch people out.”

Hollis emphasized that this lack of notice means applicants who were preparing to submit their applications based on the previous rule will now have to navigate the new regulations, potentially leading to significant disruptions in their employment status.

Despite the challenges posed by this new rule, there may be a glimmer of hope. Hollis indicated that litigation challenging the rule is a possibility, with immigration attorneys already strategizing their next steps. “I would also suspect that litigation on this issue will be considered,” he noted.

The implications of this policy change extend beyond individual applicants; it poses serious financial and professional challenges for thousands seeking to renew their work permits. Attorney Kripa Upadhyay, co-chair of the Immigration & Global Mobility Practice at Buchalter, highlighted the broader impact on the workforce. “The biggest repercussion is unnecessary disruption to the workforce at a time when inflation is already high,” she said.

Upadhyay also pointed out the professional constraints that may arise from this policy shift. “Employees will be forced to face job loss once the current EAD expires and before the new one is issued. USCIS does not allow for premium processing options for EADs, and normal processing times can range from 7 to 10 months, depending on the jurisdiction of the case,” she explained.

The sudden change in policy has left many applicants confused and ineligible for benefits they had anticipated under the previous rules. Hollis elaborated on the potential consequences: “If someone has been preparing an employment authorization document extension believing that they will have a 540-day automatic extension while the application is pending, but haven’t submitted the application by yesterday night, they will now not receive the automatic extension and may be left for a period without work authorization.”

This situation could lead to job loss, difficulties in renewing driver’s licenses, and other complications for those affected.

The ruling also imposes challenges on employers, who may need to terminate employees once their current EADs lapse if the new EAD has not yet arrived. Upadhyay remarked, “For employers, this is an unnecessary disruption and adds compliance needs, as they will need to terminate employees and then rehire them, adequately documenting all of this to avoid I-9 fines.”

For those who may soon require an extension but have not yet applied under the previous rule, immigration attorney Leandro Carvalho, a partner at Dell’Ome Law Firm, advises prompt action. “They will need to file for an EAD renewal as soon as possible. If the new EAD is not issued in time, depending on the circumstances, they can try to submit an expedite request to USCIS. In any case, they will not be able to work without a valid EAD,” he said.

As advocacy groups and immigration lawyers prepare for potential litigation, those affected by the policy change are left anxiously awaiting the outcome. The resolution of this issue could significantly influence how USCIS implements future policy changes and whether advance notice becomes a legal requirement.

Source: Original article

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More Related Stories

-+=