On October 22, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security published a proposed regulation that would eliminate the longstanding policy of giving “deference” to prior adjudications of Form I-129 non-immigrant worker petitions. Under current 8 CFR 214.2, officers generally approve an extension request filed by the same employer for the same worker if material facts have not changed since the original approval. The new proposal instructs adjudicators to apply a fresh, full evidentiary review each time, regardless of prior grants. In practice, the change would affect H-1B, L-1, O-1, TN and other work visa holders who extend status in three-year cycles. Employers would need to relitigate key eligibility elements—specialty occupation, control, wage level, prior qualifying employment—at every extension. More Requests for Evidence (RFEs) and Notices of Intent to Deny (NOIDs) are expected, along with longer processing times. The regulation cites fraud-prevention and program-integrity goals, arguing that prior approvals have too often relied on information later found to be inaccurate. For multinational companies, the impact could be significant. HR teams will need to budget additional legal spend per extension, ensure that job descriptions and organizational charts are thoroughly documented, and account for increased uncertainty when forecasting staffing for U.S. projects. Foreign nationals may face new travel restrictions if petitions remain pending close to status-expiration dates. Premium-processing upgrades could become almost mandatory to avoid assignment disruptions. The public comment period is only 30 days—an unusually short window for a rule that upends 20 years of USCIS practice—suggesting the administration’s intent to finalize before year-end. Stakeholders, including the American Immigration Lawyers Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, are expected to submit detailed objections citing economic competitiveness. Unless the final rule is delayed or enjoined, employers should audit all I-129 extension pipelines and gather updated evidence well in advance. While the proposal ostensibly targets abuse, critics argue it duplicates existing anti-fraud tools such as site visits and revocation authority and will mostly burden compliant firms. Mobility leaders should watch for the final rule text and prepare communications for affected employees, particularly those with looming renewal deadlines in early 2027.
