MM5 Comment Submitted by AJ cho

I write to oppose the proposed rule "Clarification of Discretionary Employment Authorization for Certain Aliens," DHS Docket No. USCIS-2026-0067, published at 91 FR 34352 on June 5, 2026. I urge DHS to withdraw this rule in its entirety. This rule targets people the United States government brought here. The Afghan allies affected by this proposed rule did not arrive uninvited. They were evacuated to the United States by the U.S. government after the fall of Kabul in 2021, brought here on humanitarian parole, and told to follow the legal process and wait while their cases were resolved. They filed the paperwork. They paid the fees. They submitted to biometrics. They attended interviews. They did everything the government asked. Years later, they are still waiting in a backlog the government created. This proposed rule would eliminate their right to work while they wait. It imposes a broad discretionary standard that USCIS can use to deny work permit applications and renewals with limited appeal. It requires E-Verify-participating employers for all renewals, cutting off workers employed by small businesses and community organizations that do not use the system. It automatically terminates work authorization when parole processing is delayed delays caused by the government's own backlog, not by anything the applicant did wrong. It caps work permits at one year, guaranteeing constant re-exposure to denial. For Afghan allies with no safety net and no country to return to, losing the right to work does not mean hardship. It means poverty. For some, it will mean death. This rule flies in the face of a federal court ruling issued the same week. On June 5, 2026, Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. of the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island issued a ruling in Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS, No. 26-cv-132-JJM-PAS, declaring every one of USCIS's challenged benefit-restriction policies unlawful and vacating them in full. The court found that USCIS had violated the very immigration laws Congress charged it with administering, acted without regard for the reliance interests of applicants it was required to consider, and justified its actions with pretextual national security concerns that masked anti-immigrant sentiments the agency is legally forbidden from letting influence its decision-making. In the court's words, USCIS had neither "followed the law" nor "done things the right way." This proposed rule pursues the same objective by a different mechanism. Where the policies the Dorcas court vacated used administrative holds, this rule uses regulatory text. The effect is the same: strip Afghan parolees and other humanitarian beneficiaries of the immigration benefits they were promised when the United States brought them here. The Dorcas court found that approach contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious. This proposed rule does not cure those defects. It replicates them in a new form. This rule disregards the reliance interests the court found legally required. Afghan allies built their lives in the United States on the basis of the work authorization the government issued them. They signed leases, enrolled their children in school, took jobs, and made the investments in stability the government told them to make when it brought them here. The Dorcas court held that USCIS must account for those reliance interests before acting. This rule does not account for them. DHS's own cost-benefit analysis acknowledges that the rule will transfer up to $2.9 billion in annual wages away from affected workers and concedes that those costs will fall on workers' families, community organizations, and nonprofits. That is not a benefit analysis. That is a harm acknowledgment. The government cannot direct people to follow a process and then weaponize that process against them. Congress expressed the sense that immigration benefit applications should be completed within 180 days of filing. 8 U.S.C. 1571(b). These applications have been pending for years. The automatic termination provision in this proposed rule would allow work authorization to lapse because USCIS failed to process applications on the timeline Congress intended and then hold that lapse against the applicant. That is precisely the kind of arbitrary agency action the Administrative Procedure Act prohibits and the Dorcas court condemned. I urge DHS to withdraw this rule. This rule is contrary to law, arbitrary and capricious, and inconsistent with the commitments the United States made to Afghan allies when it brought them here. It does not fix the legal defects a federal court identified in the administration's prior approach to this population. It repeats them. The government told these people to do things the right way. They did. DHS should do the same.