(UNITED STATES) — On February 20, 2026, DHS/USCIS unveiled a proposed rule that would dramatically curb asylum-based employment authorization, including a longer waiting period, an automatic pause on initial EADs during high backlogs, and strict discretion and biometrics requirements.
DHS and USCIS titled the proposal “Employment Authorization Reform for Asylum Applicants.” it targets when asylum applicants can get employment authorization documents (EADs)—the work permits many people rely on to legally support themselves while their asylum cases are pending.
Work authorization for asylum seekers has long served as a bridge. Asylum cases can take time, and many applicants need lawful jobs to pay rent, buy food, and hire help for their cases. DHS argues the current rules have also created incentives for filings made mainly to obtain work permits.
Procedurally, nothing changes overnight. The proposal was published for public comment, which is a required step before any final rule could take effect.
| Event | Date | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| DHS/USCIS announcement of proposed rule | February 20, 2026 | Launch of the proposal and policy framing for asylum-based EAD changes |
| Federal Register publication | February 23, 2026 | Starts the formal rulemaking docket and opens the public comment period |
| Executive Order 14159 issued | January 20, 2025 | Cited as a policy driver behind “restore integrity” goals |
| Public comment deadline (60 days after publication) | April 24, 2026 | Last day the public can submit comments before DHS/USCIS reviews and drafts a final rule |
Section 1: Overview of the proposed rule
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem signed the proposed regulation. DHS framed it as a response to fraud concerns and processing pressures.
A DHS spokesperson said on February 20, 2026: “For too long, a fraudulent asylum claim has been an easy path to working in the United States… Aliens are not entitled to work while we process their asylum applications.”
That quote points to the core shift. The proposal treats asylum-based work permits less like a routine step after filing and more like a benefit that can be delayed, paused, or denied.
Section 2: Key provisions and changes
Three mechanical changes sit at the center of the proposal: a longer waiting period, a processing-time “pause” that can stop initial EAD filings, and tighter eligibility rules tied to manner of entry. Layered on top are a stronger discretion statement, automatic termination after denial, and a biometrics requirement for both initial and renewal work permits.
| Provision | Current Framework | Proposed Rule Change | Potential Impacts |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiting period to apply for an initial EAD | 180 days from asylum filing date (subject to existing eligibility rules) | 365 days from asylum filing date | Longer period without lawful work for many applicants |
| “Pause” on accepting initial asylum-based EAD applications | No automatic systemwide pause tied to average asylum processing | USCIS would pause acceptance of initial EAD applications when average affirmative asylum processing exceeds 180 days | Initial EAD filings could be blocked for long stretches during high backlogs |
| Backlog context and pause duration | Backlogs affect timing but do not automatically stop EAD intake | DHS cites 1.4 million pending asylum claims and estimates 14 to 173 years to reduce the backlog enough to resume EAD processing under the metric | A pause could function like an extended suspension for many first-time EAD applicants |
| Entry without inspection bar | Entry manner can affect other immigration options; asylum EAD eligibility has not broadly hinged on a new “illegal entry bar” concept like this | Most people who entered illegally would be barred from asylum-based EADs, with a limited exception tied to reporting fear within 48 hours | Many asylum seekers could lose access to work permits even if their asylum claims proceed |
| Discretionary adjudication | USCIS already adjudicates EADs, but asylum EADs are commonly treated as available if requirements are met | Rule states EADs are not entitlements and are granted at USCIS discretion; officers could deny even when technical criteria are met | Less predictability for applicants and employers; higher stakes for documentation |
| Automatic termination after asylum denial | Some applicants may keep work authorization during certain post-denial periods under existing practices | EADs would automatically terminate immediately or shortly after an asylum denial | Loss of work authorization; employers may need to re-verify work authorization status |
| Biometrics for initial and renewal EADs | Biometrics practices vary by category and cycle | Mandatory biometrics submission for both initial and renewal asylum EAD applicants | Appointment delays and rescheduling issues could interrupt work authorization continuity |
Two details matter for how the waiting period works. First, the proposal ties the clock to the asylum filing date. Second, the “pause” concept is separate from the clock. Even if someone reaches 365 days, USCIS could stop accepting initial EAD applications if the average affirmative asylum processing time exceeds 180 days.
The illegal entry bar adds another gate. Under the proposal, many people who entered without inspection would be ineligible for asylum-based work permits. A narrow exception would apply for those who reported fear of persecution to authorities within 48 hours of entry. In practice, that creates a fast-reporting framework that may be hard to meet for people who are disoriented, afraid, or lack access to legal guidance.
Discretion is also explicit. The proposal emphasizes that EADs “are not an entitlement.” Meeting baseline criteria may not be enough, because USCIS could deny a work permit as a matter of discretion.
Biometrics requirements apply to initial and renewal filings. Biometrics typically include fingerprints and a photo. Real-world friction is common: missed notices, limited appointment slots, and rescheduling delays. Any delay can matter if someone’s work authorization is about to expire.
Section 3: Context, rationale, and policy framing
January 20, 2025 is a key anchor in the proposal’s policy direction. DHS cites Executive Order 14159, “Protecting the American People Against Invasion,” as part of the broader push to “restore integrity” to the asylum and work authorization process.
DHS’s stated rationale centers on three ideas:
- Fraud deterrence. The agency argues some applicants file “meritless” asylum claims mainly to get work permits.
- Backlog pressure. With 1.4 million pending asylum claims, DHS frames the current system as overloaded.
- Severing the link between filing and work authorization. The proposed mechanics—longer waits, a processing-time pause, and more discretion—aim to reduce the short-term incentive to file for work authorization.
Goals and mechanics are not the same thing. A goal like “reduce incentives” is broad. A rule that sets a 365 days wait, plus a pause trigger tied to 180 days average processing, is a specific operational lever.
Section 4: Impacts on affected individuals
A longer no-work period can translate into immediate household instability. Many asylum seekers have limited savings and restricted access to benefits. Under the proposal, lawful work could be unavailable for at least 365 days, and potentially far longer if the intake pause becomes routine during high backlogs.
Economic pressure can produce secondary harms. When legal work options shrink, some people may be pushed toward informal jobs. That can raise risks of exploitation, trafficking, and wage theft. Those outcomes are not guaranteed, but they are common concerns raised when lawful work channels narrow.
Case preparation can also suffer. Asylum cases often require records from abroad, translations, country-condition research, and sometimes medical or psychological evaluations. Limited income may reduce access to counsel and slow evidence gathering. That can affect how well an applicant can present their claim, even if the underlying fear is real.
Community systems may feel spillover effects. Shelters, mutual-aid networks, and local nonprofits can face higher demand when people cannot legally work. Some applicants may also look harder at alternative forms of relief, where available, to stabilize status and employment options.
Section 5: Official sources and procedural status
Federal rulemaking follows a set path. The proposal is now in the Federal Register rulemaking docket, which is where the official text, summaries, and instructions for public input appear. USCIS also posts announcements and updates through its newsroom at USCIS Newsroom.
Public comments are not a poll. They are part of an administrative process. Agencies typically review submissions, group them by issue, and decide whether to revise the rule’s language, scope, or implementation approach before issuing a final rule.
No proposed rule is immediately enforceable. Enforceability usually begins only after DHS/USCIS publishes a final rule with an effective date, followed by implementation guidance that tells officers and the public how the new system will run.
Callout 1 [warning]: ⚠️ Public comment period is active for 60 days after Federal Register publication; final details can change based on comments
Section 6: Next steps for readers and stakeholders
April 24, 2026 is the date to circle. That is the public comment deadline based on the 60 days window after the February 23, 2026 publication.
Asylum applicants and advocates can prepare without assuming the proposal will become final as written. Document organization helps in many cases. Keep copies of filings, receipt notices, address updates, and any biometrics notices. Plan for continuity if a work permit expires, since renewals would also require biometrics under the proposal.
Employers may want to review internal I-9 re-verification practices. Automatic termination after an asylum denial could create sudden changes in an employee’s work authorization. Companies typically need a process that avoids over-documenting while staying compliant.
Attorneys, service providers, and coalitions can submit comments that are specific and operational. Clear examples of how the 365 days wait, the 180 days processing-time pause, and the 48 hours fear-reporting exception might function in real intake settings can carry weight in rulemaking.
Callout 2 [action]: ✅ If you are an asylum applicant or advocate, monitor USCIS Newsroom and Federal Register docket for updates and implement documentation planning now
The biggest practical takeaway is simple: the proposed rule would make asylum-based work permits harder to get, easier to lose after a denial, and more dependent on both biometrics and USCIS discretion—so comments and preparation before April 24, 2026 may matter.
The article discusses proposed regulatory changes and is not final; readers should consult the Federal Register and USCIS for definitive rules
This coverage should maintain qualified language and avoid offering legal advice
