The University of Michigan has formally urged the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to withdraw a proposed rule change that would eliminate mandatory deference to previous approvals in employment-based immigration extension petitions. In comments submitted ahead of the 13 November public comment deadline, the university warned the proposal would significantly increase uncertainty for temporary workers seeking visa extensions across categories including H-1B, L-1, O-1, E-3, and TN.

What the Proposed Rule Would Change

Under the existing framework, US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is generally required to defer to its own prior approval when an extension petition involves the same employer, the same beneficiary, and the same underlying facts — a provision that applies to petitions filed on Form I-129. The DHS published its proposal to remove this deference requirement on 14 October, arguing it would strengthen legal scrutiny and better protect US workers.

Under the proposed change, officers would no longer be required to begin their review from a position of deference to a prior decision, though they would still be permitted to consider it where relevant. DHS also anticipates the rule change would generate more requests for additional evidence, placing a greater documentation burden on petitioners.

University of Michigan's Objections

The university, in its submitted comments, contended that removing the deference requirement was unnecessary because USCIS already possessed authority to revisit petitions that had been approved in error. Its core concern was that the change would allow officers to reach a different conclusion on an extension petition 'without specifically explaining why it was departing from its earlier determination' — a phrase drawn directly from the university's submission — thereby increasing both uncertainty and administrative burden on petitioners.

The university said it supported rigorous reviews of immigration applications but argued the existing framework struck an appropriate balance between thoroughness and consistency. This comes amid a broader tightening of US immigration scrutiny that has drawn growing concern from universities and technology employers who rely heavily on the temporary worker pipeline.

Scale of Impact

The potential reach of the rule change is considerable. DHS estimated that an average of 208,429 petitions per year were eligible for deference during fiscal years 2022–25, representing approximately 30 per cent of all Form I-129 petitions. Critics argue that subjecting this volume of largely routine extension requests to full re-adjudication without a deference baseline could overwhelm USCIS processing times and create cascading delays for employers and workers alike.

DHS Rationale

DHS has defended the proposal as a safeguard for the integrity of the immigration system. The department maintains that applicants for immigration benefits carry the burden of proving eligibility at every stage — including at extension — and that mandatory deference could allow earlier errors to persist uncorrected. Officials have argued the change aligns USCIS practice with the broader legal principle that prior government decisions do not bind future adjudications.

What Happens Next

Public comments on the proposal closed on 13 November. DHS will now review submissions before deciding whether to proceed with the rule as proposed, modify it, or withdraw it. Immigration attorneys and advocacy groups are reportedly monitoring the outcome closely, given the rule's implications for hundreds of thousands of skilled foreign workers employed across US universities, technology firms, and research institutions.