Ring Journey

Patriots, I just left my comments on this new proposed rule! Please leave your comments too, in favor of this proposed rule! Americans must write in favor of this rule! Please read comments left by others also so you can understand that the Trump admin is closing this loophole allowed by the Biden admin 4 days before Trump took charge of the country! regulations.gov/document/USC… I strongly support the Department of Homeland Security’s proposed rule to remove 8 CFR 214.1(c)(5), eliminating mandatory deference to prior approvals when USCIS adjudicates extensions of nonimmigrant worker petitions. I urge DHS to finalize the rule as proposed. 1. Upholding the Statutory Burden of Proof Under Section 291 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361, petitioners bear the burden of proving eligibility for immigration benefits. Prior approval should not replace the requirement to demonstrate continued eligibility. Each petition should be evaluated based on the current evidence and applicable law. 2. Ensuring Independent Adjudication Employment conditions, job duties, compensation, and business operations can change, and earlier decisions may contain errors. USCIS must retain the authority to independently review current evidence, identify inconsistencies, and determine eligibility without being bound by prior approvals. 3. Strengthening Program Integrity Mandatory deference will allow erroneous approvals to influence future decisions and undermine efforts to detect fraud or noncompliance. DHS-reported data indicate higher rates of detected fraud and/or noncompliance at H-1B and L-1A sites visited during FY 2022–FY 2025 than during FY 2018–FY 2020. While these figures do not establish that deference caused the difference, they highlight the importance of effective oversight and thorough compliance reviews. 4. Protecting American Workers and Compliant Employers Consistent, evidence-based adjudication helps ensure employers meet legal requirements and accurately represent job duties, employment conditions, and worker qualifications. Applying the same eligibility standards to initial petitions and extensions promotes fairness, protects U.S. workers, and supports employers that comply with the law. This rule does not prohibit lawful employment; it ensures continued eligibility is demonstrated. 5. Balancing Efficiency and Accountability Removing mandatory deference may increase Requests for Evidence (RFEs), processing times, and uncertainty. However, efficiency should not outweigh legal compliance and program integrity. USCIS should apply consistent standards, issue targeted RFEs when necessary, and process petitions promptly while preserving its authority to verify eligibility. Conclusion I strongly urge DHS to remove 8 CFR 214.1(c)(5) as proposed, without retaining mandatory deference or replacing it with discretionary deference. Prior approvals may provide useful context, but they should never substitute for proof of continued eligibility. Finalizing this rule would reinforce the statutory burden of proof, strengthen USCIS oversight, improve accountability, help detect fraud and noncompliance, protect American workers, and promote public confidence in the immigration system.