Why Companies Choose Verify I-9 — and What to Compare Before You Sign
Read the article
On April 29, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security published an interim final rule (Federal Register doc 2026-08333) titled "USCIS Immigration Fees and Related Procedures Required by H.R.1 Reconciliation Bill." The press coverage focused on fees: a $100 Annual Asylum Fee, a $24 Form I-94 fee at the land border, a higher ESTA fee. The fees are real, but they are not the most important thing in the rule.
Buried inside the 21-page rule are three changes that touch every employer with foreign-national workers. Two of them rewrite long-standing employment authorization mechanics. One creates a termination pathway that is invisible to the employers who carry the legal exposure for it. All three take effect May 29, 2026.
The largest practical change in the rule is the new mechanism for terminating Employment Authorization Documents issued under 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(8) — the category covering applicants with a pending Form I-589, Application for Asylum.
Under new 8 CFR 208.7(b)(1), a (c)(8) EAD will terminate immediately if USCIS rejects the underlying asylum application. The most common new trigger for that rejection: failure to pay the new $100 Annual Asylum Fee within 30 days of USCIS notice. The rule states the consequence directly:
"Upon rejection of the asylum application by USCIS, any existing employment authorization pursuant to 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(8) will terminate immediately per new 8 CFR 208.7(b)(1)."
The mechanics: an asylum applicant whose Form I-589 has been pending for more than one year owes the Annual Asylum Fee for each calendar year the application remains under review. USCIS issues a notice. The applicant has 30 days to pay. If the fee is not paid, the application is rejected. The rejection terminates the EAD on the rejection date — not on the printed expiration date stamped on the card.
For employers, this means a (c)(8) EAD card in an existing employee's I-9 file may no longer reflect a valid work authorization. The card looks the same. Section 2 of Form I-9 still shows the printed expiration date. The internal calendar reminder set 18 months ago is still pointed at that printed date. None of those signals will tell the employer that the underlying authorization has been revoked.
The compliance infrastructure built for Form I-9 and E-Verify was designed around document expiration dates and at-hire verification. The Annual Asylum Fee termination pathway operates outside both.
| Detection mechanism | Catches AAF-driven termination? |
|---|---|
| Form I-9 reverification reminder (printed EAD expiration date) | No. Termination occurs before the printed expiration date by definition. |
| E-Verify (case run at hire) | No. Cases close after initial verification. There is no continuous monitoring of the existing workforce. |
| E-Verify Status Change Notification | Unclear. The system covers limited post-hire events; USCIS has issued no public guidance that AAF-driven terminations will be flagged. |
| Direct USCIS notification to employer | No. AAF notices are sent to the asylum applicant only. No employer-facing channel exists. |
| Employee self-disclosure | Voluntary. The only practical detection mechanism, and entirely dependent on the employee. |
For new hires, the picture is marginally better but still uncertain. If an applicant whose AAF-driven termination has already occurred presents a still physically valid-looking EAD for a new job, E-Verify will query USCIS DHS systems against the document number and A-number. If USCIS keeps internal records current and if E-Verify queries the AAF-status flag, the case should return a Tentative Nonconfirmation. Both conditions depend on USCIS implementation that is not specified in the rule and has not been publicly announced. Historically, E-Verify backend updates have lagged USCIS administrative actions when a new statutory regime introduces a new termination pathway — particularly during the period before USCIS issues operational guidance to the program.
"The compliance infrastructure was built around document expiration dates and the moment of hire," says Patricia, Director of Compliance at i9 Intelligence. "An invisible mid-employment termination breaks every assumption that infrastructure is built on. Employers can do everything right under the existing rules and still end up employing someone whose work authorization quietly ended weeks ago."
Section 274A(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act prohibits the continued employment of an alien knowing that the alien is or has become unauthorized for employment. "Knowing" includes constructive knowledge — circumstances that should have put the employer on notice. The standard is well established and is the basis for most employer sanctions cases brought by ICE Homeland Security Investigations.
The new Annual Asylum Fee termination pathway creates a category of unauthorized employment that the employer has no practical way to discover. The system that documents the trigger event (USCIS) has no obligation to notify the employer. The system that exists to detect work authorization status (E-Verify) is not built to query the trigger flag. The system that handles reverification (Form I-9 reminder cycles) operates on a date that no longer reflects underlying authorization.
The constructive-knowledge standard does not bend to the absence of detection tooling. Employers who continue to employ an asylum-pending worker after the (c)(8) EAD has been administratively terminated remain exposed to the same enforcement action they would face if they had ignored an expired document. The difference is that with an expired document, the system tells them. With an AAF-driven termination, no system does.
Knowing what you have on file is the foundation of every other compliance decision. If your current I-9 binder includes employees on (c)(8) asylum-pending EADs, that population is now exposed to a termination pathway that did not exist 30 days ago. Request a compliance audit to review your I-9 files against the new rules, or schedule a free compliance call to walk through the changes with our team.
The second substantive change affects every employer with employees holding Temporary Protected Status. Under the prior rule, TPS-based EADs were issued for the duration of the country's TPS designation period — sometimes 18 months. Under new 8 CFR 244.5(d) and revised 8 CFR 244.12(a), TPS-based EADs are now capped at one year or the remaining duration of the TPS designation, whichever is shorter.
"Initial employment authorization provided under this section to an applicant afforded temporary treatment benefits based on a prima facie showing of eligibility will be valid for a period of 1 year or for the remaining duration of the country's designation of Temporary Protected Status, whichever is shorter." (New 8 CFR 244.5(d))
Practical effect: every TPS-based EAD issued on or after May 29, 2026 will trigger a Form I-9 reverification within 12 months. The new rule also imposes a renewal requirement during the TPS designation period. If the country's TPS designation has not terminated by the EAD's expiration, the worker must obtain a renewal — and the renewed EAD will again be capped at one year.
For an HR team employing TPS workers, this represents a step change in reverification volume. A workforce of 100 TPS holders that previously generated reverification cycles every 18 months will now generate them every 12 months, plus the renewal-application administrative load that did not exist before. The change applies prospectively — TPS EADs issued before May 29 retain their original validity period — but every renewal after that date drops to the new 12-month ceiling.
Beyond the AAF-driven termination, the rule establishes additional EAD termination triggers tied to the asylum adjudication chain:
None of these termination events change the printed expiration date on the physical EAD card. None generate notice to the employer. The reverification calendar set when the EAD was first issued continues to point at the printed expiration date.
The fee provisions of the rule are real but narrower than the press coverage suggests. Here is what employers actually owe and when.
| Fee | Amount | Triggered by | Who pays |
|---|---|---|---|
| USCIS Form I-94 fee | $24 (added to existing $560 Form I-102 filing fee) | Filing Form I-102 to replace or correct an existing I-94 | The alien (the applicant) |
| CBP land-border I-94 fee | $30 ($6 existing + $24 H.R.1) | Application for I-94 at a land border port of entry | The alien at port of entry. No fee at airports — CBP issues electronic I-94s automatically. |
| ESTA fee | $40 (replaces $21 existing) | Visa Waiver Program travel authorization | The traveler, paid online at ESTA.gov before travel |
| EVUS enrollment | $30 (new) | Chinese nationals on certain 10-year visas | The visa holder, paid online via EVUS website |
| Asylum application fee | $100 (in effect since July 2025) | Filing Form I-589, Application for Asylum | The asylum applicant. New under this rule: USCIS retains the fee even if the application is rejected. |
| Annual Asylum Fee | $100/year | Each calendar year an asylum application remains pending | The asylum applicant. Nonpayment within 30 days of notice triggers application rejection and (c)(8) EAD termination. |
Statutorily, every fee is the obligation of the alien — not the employer. As a matter of industry practice, sponsoring employers (H-1B, L-1, TN) typically cover all USCIS and CBP filing fees as part of the immigration package. For asylum applicants, who are typically not employer-sponsored, the fees fall to the individual.
The Administrative Procedure Act generally requires a notice-and-comment period before a substantive rule takes effect. DHS published this rule as an interim final rule, which takes effect immediately, with comments accepted only afterward. The agency's justification: the rule is "a procedural rule" exempt from notice-and-comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A).
That characterization is open to challenge. A rule that reduces the validity period of TPS work authorization by one third and creates a new termination pathway for asylum-pending EADs is doing more than codifying procedures. It is reshaping the substantive rights of employees and the operational obligations of employers. The rule's own severability section implicitly acknowledges this exposure, with DHS asserting in narrative that provisions can stand independently if any single provision is "stayed or held invalid" — language that anticipates litigation.
The 60-day comment period — closing June 29, 2026 — is the formal channel for affected parties to push back on the procedural-rule characterization or any specific provision.
The rule is effective in less than four weeks. There are concrete steps to take now.
DHS has invited public comment on all aspects of the rule through June 29, 2026. For HR practitioners, the most actionable comments are the ones that name specific operational gaps the rule does not address:
Comments submitted through regulations.gov become part of the rulemaking record and are considered by the agency before the rule is finalized. Specific operational facts from named employers carry substantially more weight than generic objections.
The rule is effective May 29, 2026. Comment period closes June 29, 2026. We will publish updated analysis as USCIS issues operational guidance, and as legal challenges to the procedural-rule characterization develop.
For questions about how the rule affects your I-9 files or your existing compliance program, our team can help. Schedule a compliance call or contact us directly.
Phone: (713) 668-6200 (Mon–Fri, 8 AM – 5 PM CT)
Email: support@i-9intelligence.com
Submit a ticket: i-9intelligence.com/submit-a-ticket