U.S. immigration policy is shifting again, and this latest development is critical for anyone considering asylum or relying on an asylum-based work permit (EAD).
On February 23, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) introduced a proposed rule titled “Employment Authorization Reform for Asylum Applicants.” If finalized, it would make renewals more challenging and severely limit access to asylum-based work permits (Form I-765, category (c)(8)).
This is not final law yet, but it represents a major proposed change that could move forward quickly.
DHS states the goal is to deter meritless asylum filings, reduce fraud, and redirect resources toward the asylum backlog. Critics warn the rule could dramatically extend EAD wait times (potentially for years) and impact the workforce.
As immigration attorneys at Oguz Law, we are closely monitoring these developments because they could substantially affect asylum EAD timelines, eligibility, and screening nationwide.
Key Provisions of the Proposed Rule
1) Longer Waiting Period Before You Can Apply for an Asylum Work Permit: 365 Days
The proposal would essentially double the waiting period that many applicants prepare for by requiring asylum seekers to wait 365 days before being entitled to apply for an asylum-based work permit.
DHS argues that extending the delay lessens the motivation to submit weak claims in order to get work authorization.
2) New Trigger That Could Pause Acceptance/Processing of New Initial Asylum EADs Until the Backlog Improves
This is one of the most high-impact elements:
The proposed rule would stop accepting/processing new initial asylum work permit applications during periods when the average processing time for affirmative asylum claims exceeds 180 days. Defensive cases would not be subject to that specific 180-day processing-time trigger.
DHS’s own projections (referenced by multiple summaries of the proposal) indicate it could take years (and in some estimates, far longer) to reach that 180-day benchmark under current backlog conditions.
ASAP (Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project) highlights the government estimate that it could take up to 173 years before initial EAD applications would be accepted again, depending on backlog conditions.
3) Biometrics for Every Work Permit and Renewal
The rule also proposes new biometrics requirements, meaning asylum EAD applicants may be required to attend fingerprint appointments for both initial and renewal applications, even if biometrics were completed before.
4) New Discretionary Authority: USCIS Could Deny Work Permits Case-by-Case
Currently, many asylum applicants view EAD eligibility as more predictable once the required time has passed.
Under the proposed rule, DHS would give USCIS broader discretion to approve or deny asylum work permits on a case-by-case basis and the proposal describes multiple grounds that could lead to denial.
This is a major shift because it makes outcomes less automatic and more dependent on USCIS discretion, screening results, and eligibility findings.
5) New Bars That Could Affect Both Initial EADs and Renewals
The proposed rule also introduces additional denial criteria including, in summary form:
- Entry conditions: limits for certain entries outside a lawful port of entry (with narrow exceptions), including a concept tied to encountering government officials within a short period after entry (as summarized by ASAP).
- One-year asylum filing deadline: under the new framework, applicants who file beyond one year (without exception) may not be eligible for EAD.
- Criminal-related bars: expanded categories of crimes that may prevent someone from obtaining or renewing an EAD are known as criminal-related bars.
A key legal debate flagged by critics is whether conditioning EAD eligibility on certain entry mechanics could conflict with asylum law principles that allow individuals to seek asylum regardless of manner of entry even though the proposal does not eliminate the right to seek asylum itself.
What Happens to Existing Work Permits?
One point that matters practically: the proposal indicates it should not invalidate existing valid work permits immediately. In other words, if you already have an EAD, it generally remains valid until its expiration (subject to the final rule’s exact implementation).
Timeline: When Could This Become Final?
According to ASAP’s summary, the public comment period runs from February 23 to April 24, 2026, and the earliest a final rule could appear would be after April 24, 2026 (though final rules often take longer).
What Should Asylum Applicants Do Now?
This depends on your exact status, filing date, and eligibility but based on how the proposal is described by multiple sources, timing may become more important than ever.
ASAP’s general guidance is: if you are eligible to apply now, consider applying as soon as possible because filings submitted before a final rule may be less likely to be affected.
From a legal strategy perspective, this is the moment to:
- confirm your EAD category (this proposal targets asylum EADs, typically (c)(8))
- review any timing risks (150/180-day clocks, one-year asylum filing deadline issues, renewal timing)
- prepare for biometrics and screening to be a routine part of both initial and renewal filings
Will This Rule Be Challenged in Court?
Very possibly.
Reuters reports the proposal is expected to face legal challenges. And historically, changes to asylum work authorization rules have been litigated.
So even if a final rule is published, implementation may be shaped by lawsuits, injunctions, and court rulings.
Oguz Law Perspective
If this proposal becomes final in anything close to its current form, it could represent one of the most consequential shifts to asylum work authorization in years not only due to the 365-day waiting period, but because of the pause mechanism tied to the affirmative asylum backlog and the expansion of USCIS discretion and eligibility bars.
If you are:
- considering asylum,
- waiting to apply for an asylum-based EAD (Form I-765),
- or preparing an EAD renewal,
We strongly recommend getting a case-specific legal review, because small factual differences (entry history, timeline, renewal windows, exceptions) may determine eligibility under the proposed framework.
Oguz Law is here to help you evaluate your options and build a strategy based on your facts.
