Visa Lawyer Blog

Articles Posted in American Politics

by

washington-dc-4457050_1280

In the wake of a deadly shooting of two National Guard members in Washington, D.C., U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has been instructed to pause all asylum decisions until further notice.

Asylum officers at USCIS, a branch of the Department of Homeland Security, have been told to refrain from approving, denying or closing affirmative asylum applications received by the agency.

The directive comes after authorities reported that the perpetrator of the shooting was an Afghan national who had previously been granted asylum.

Officials have framed the pause as a measure to “reassess immigration and vetting procedures” in light of public safety concerns. This decision will create delays for thousands of asylum seekers who are already navigating a complex and uncertain system.

In-person appointments for applicants seeking updates on their cases are also canceled until further notice.

According to internal guidance, officers may continue conducting asylum interviews and reviewing cases up to the point of issuing a decision. “Once you’ve reached decision entry, stop and hold,” the directive stated.

On November 28th USCIS Director Joseph Edlow confirmed the news on X.

Continue reading

by

arrow-1238788_1280The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has introduced a new $1,000 immigration parole fee for most individuals granted parole into the country, effective October 16, 2025.

Announced by DHS and USCIS under the H.R. 1 legislation, the fee applies at the time parole is granted, even if the application was filed before the rule took effect. Only a few narrow exceptions are available such as for those applying for green cards returning after temporary travel abroad and those facing medical emergencies.

Officials say the policy aims to curb “rampant abuse” of the parole system and ensure the government recovers administrative costs. It also comes alongside broader fee increases for other immigration benefits, including work permits for parolees and asylum seekers.

This marks a major shift in how parole is handled, making the process more restrictive and costly.

Applicants will now face higher financial barriers, and exceptions will be tightly limited, signaling a tougher stance on parole admissions going forward.

Starting October 16, 2025, if your parole or re-parole request is approved and requires the immigration parole fee, you will receive a notice with payment instructions and a deadline.

The fee must be paid in full and on time before your request can be approved. Parole will not be granted if the payment is not completed as instructed by USCIS.

Continue reading

by

us-1978465_1280Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a troubling decision that could strip legal status from hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans currently living in the United States under Temporary Protected Status (TPS).

On Friday, the Court granted the Trump administration’s request to halt a lower court ruling that found the administration’s cancellation of TPS protections for Venezuelans unlawful. The unsigned order from the Court effectively allows the government to proceed, for now, with its plans to revoke temporary protections that had shielded Venezuelan nationals from deportation and granted them employment authorization.

TPS was created in 1990 as a humanitarian safeguard for individuals whose home countries are experiencing extraordinary crises such as armed conflict, environmental disasters, or other temporary but severe disruptions. Venezuela was designated for TPS in 2021 under President Biden, in response to the country’s severe economic collapse, widespread human rights abuses, and political instability.

Since then, approximately 300,000 Venezuelans have relied on that protection to live and work legally in the U.S., building lives, paying taxes, and raising families.

Trump Administration Moves to Strip Venezuela’s TPS Designation

But the political tides have shifted. When the Trump administration returned to office, it appointed Kristi Noem as Secretary of Homeland Security. Earlier this year, Noem moved to revoke Venezuela’s TPS designation, arguing that conditions in the country had improved and that continuing the program was no longer in the national interest. That decision sparked immediate legal challenges. A coalition of Venezuelan TPS recipients and advocacy groups sued, claiming the administration’s actions were arbitrary, rushed, and in violation of federal law.

Continue reading

by
36952236081_5179c7d2d3_z

Source: Flickr Creative Commons Attribution mollyktadams

Recent court documents submitted by the government in the case, State of Texas v. United States of America (1:18-cv-00068), reveal that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may soon resume processing initial DACA applications for individuals living outside of Texas.

Since 2021, new DACA requests had been halted due to a court order which was later applied only to the state of Texas.

Under the proposed plan, USCIS would process initial applications for applicants residing outside of Texas. For those living in Texas, the government would only grant deferred action, without employment authorization or recognition of lawful presence. Moving to Texas could jeopardize a DACA recipient’s work authorization.

The government’s plan still requires court approval, and USCIS has not yet shared any timeline or implementation details if it moves forward.

DACA Refresher

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) is a program that allows individuals who were brought to the United States as children to remain in the United States temporarily and apply for work permits. While it does not grant legal status, it offers protection from deportation.

Those eligible for DACA include individuals who entered the country as children before their 16th birthday, were under 31 years old as of June 15, 2012, and have not been convicted of a felony, a significant misdemeanor, or three misdemeanors.

Continue reading

by

imageOn Friday evening, President Donald J. Trump signed an executive order establishing a new pathway to permanent residency called “The Gold Card.” This program creates a fast-track green card option for wealthy individuals who make significant “gifts” to the U.S. government through the Department of Commerce.

Highlights

Although clear guidance on the application process has not yet been provided, the executive order outlines several key features:

  • Unrestricted Gift requirement:

To qualify for an immigrant visa through the Gold Card program, applicants must provide an unrestricted gift (without conditions or limitations) to the Department of Commerce in the following amounts.

  • $1 million for individuals donating on their own behalf.
  • $2 million if the gift comes from a corporation or entity on behalf of an individual
  • Visa benefits: The gift can be used as evidence of eligibility under two employment-based categories:
    • Exceptional business ability and national benefit (8 U.S.C. §1153(b)(2)(A) and
    • National Interest Waiver (8 U.S.C. §1153(b)(2)(B))
      • Could be expanded to the EB-5 immigrant investor program under 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5).
  • Oversight and agencies involved: The Departments of Commerce, State, and Homeland Security are tasked with implementing the program, including setting up application, processing, status adjustment, and screening for public safety / national security.
  • Use of the funds: The money raised will go into a separate Department of Commerce fund, held with the Treasury, intended to promote commerce and American industry.
  • Timeline: The order gives the relevant secretaries 90 days to lay out implementation plans (application process, when gifts may start being submitted, fees, etc.)

Potential Legal Challenges

The Gold Card Executive Order, aimed at streamlining the visa process for wealthy donors may face several legal challenges. Plaintiffs could argue that it oversteps executive authority by altering immigration policy without congressional approval, potentially violating the Immigration and Nationality Act. Additionally, if the order is seen as favoring certain nationalities or industries, it may prompt lawsuits alleging discrimination or unequal treatment under the law. Legal battles may also arise from states or interest groups concerned about labor market impacts or federal overreach, leading to judicial review that could delay or block its implementation.

Continue reading

by
26493199526_8a6efa5192_z

Flickr Creative Commons Attribution Jeroen Akkermans

In the last months, the U.S. Department of State released two significant policy updates that impact both immigrant and nonimmigrant visa applicants. These updates focus on a core change: applicants will now be required to have their visa interviews in their place of residence or country of nationality.

This change has significant consequences for third-country nationals who have traditionally applied for U.S. visas outside their country of nationality, particularly those renewing H-1B, E, O, and L visas, as well as immigrant visa applicants outside the United States.

Immigrant Visa Applicants Must Apply in their Country of Residence

On August 28, 2025, the State Department announced that, starting November 1, 2025, immigrant visa applicants must attend their interviews at a U.S. consulate or embassy located in their country of residence, or in their country of nationality, with limited exceptions. The update applies across all immigrant visa categories, including Diversity Visas.

There are exceptions to this rule, though they are limited. Exceptions may be granted in rare cases involving humanitarian or medical emergencies, or in circumstances involving specific foreign policy considerations. Applicants residing in countries where routine U.S. visa services have been suspended or paused will need to process their case at a designated consular post, which is typically assigned by the State Department to handle cases from those particular regions.

Existing appointments for immigrant visa interviews scheduled prior to November 1st will not be cancelled or rescheduled.

Same Policy Applies to Nonimmigrant Visa Applicants

A similar change was later announced on September 6, 2025, for nonimmigrant visa applicants. Effective immediately, nonimmigrant visa applicants must also apply for their visa in their country of residence or nationality. This means that individuals cannot simply choose a different country’s embassy based on convenience or shorter wait times unless they reside there or are citizens of that country. This applies to all third country nationals who previously traveled to embassies or consulates in Mexico or Canada to renew their nonimmigrant visas.

Continue reading

by

prison-370112_1280Introducing sweeping changes, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has expanded its role by gaining law enforcement powers previously limited to agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

Under a new final rule published today, USCIS will now recruit 1,811-classified special agents—fully empowered officers with authority—to investigate, arrest, and prosecute individuals violating U.S. immigration laws.

What’s Changed?

  • Law Enforcement Authority: The newly designated USCIS special agents are authorized to carry firearms, execute search and arrest warrants, make arrests, and use force—including in pursuit and potentially lethal situations—under standard federal law enforcement protocols.
  • Operational Autonomy: Previously, USCIS investigations—especially those involving criminal violations—were referred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
  • Enforcement Agency: Now, USCIS itself can manage law enforcement investigations from start to finish, including investigating civil and criminal violations within the jurisdiction of USCIS and ordering expedited removal when warranted.

Continue reading

by

marek-studzinski-9U9I-eVx9nI-unsplash-scaled

A new UC Berkeley IGS poll shows that a strong majority of California voters disapprove of the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement tactics. Nearly 70% of respondents said they are unhappy with how immigration is being handled in the state — and many reported emotional responses to images of raids, describing them as unfair and upsetting.

The poll reveals a sharp political divide. Ninety-five percent of Democrats expressed disapproval with Trump’s immigration enforcement, while 79% of Republicans voiced support. Emotional reactions followed suit: most Democrats said they felt anger or sadness when shown footage of enforcement actions, while most Republicans felt hopeful or satisfied.

Specific policy questions revealed more tension. An overwhelming majority of Democrats support requiring immigration agents to wear visible ID and oppose raids in places like schools and hospitals. Republicans were more divided, with only about half supporting agent identification and a slight majority favoring enforcement in public spaces.

The issue of birthright citizenship also proved polarizing. 67% of Republicans said they support ending automatic citizenship for children born to undocumented parents, while 92% of Democrats opposed such a move.

Continue reading

by

the-now-time-KXUKLB-_Sb0-unsplash-scaledOn August 1st the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced new policies that could make immigrants applying for green cards through family-based petitions more vulnerable to deportation.

The changes appear in various updates to USCIS’ Policy Manual which states that immigration officials can begin removal proceedings for immigrants who lack legal status and apply to become permanent residents through family-based petitions.

According to the Policy Manual, “if USCIS determines the alien beneficiary is removeable and amenable to removal from the United States, USCIS may issue a Notice to Appear (NTA) [in immigration court] placing the beneficiary in removal proceedings. Petitioners and alien beneficiaries should be aware that a family-based petition accords no immigration status nor does it bar removal.”

The new policy went into effect immediately and applies to pending requests for a green card, and those filed on or after August 1st.

While the practical impact of this policy is yet to be seen, it provides immigration officials with more discretion to initiate removal proceedings even where a green card application is pending with USCIS, for those who entered the U.S. illegally, overstayed a U.S. visa, or otherwise failed to maintain their legal status.

These policy changes underscore the importance of maintaining underlying legal status throughout the green card process. Those who lack legal status or who lost their status during the green card process may be most at risk.

Continue reading

by

judge-8779957_1280In a significant victory for civil rights and immigrant advocacy groups, a federal appeals court has upheld a lower court’s decision to temporarily block federal immigration agents from conducting immigration-related arrests in Los Angeles without reasonable suspicion.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued the ruling late Friday, marking a major legal development in the ongoing battle over immigration enforcement and constitutional protections.

At the heart of the case is the question of whether federal agents can detain individuals based solely on generalized characteristics such as race, ethnicity, or language. The appeals court was clear: they cannot.

A Firm Rejection of Racial Profiling

The three-judge panel ruled that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other federal agents cannot use factors like “apparent race, ethnicity, speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent, particular location, and type of work” as the basis for reasonable suspicion to stop an individual. Even taken together, the court stated, these characteristics form only a broad profile and fail to meet the legal standard required for a lawful stop.

“We agree with the district court that…these factors do not demonstrate reasonable suspicion for any particular stop,” the panel wrote, emphasizing the constitutional protections that apply to all individuals, regardless of immigration status.

Continue reading