Visa Lawyer Blog

Articles Posted in Court Decisions

by

katie-moum-7XGtYefMXiQ-unsplash-scaledGood news for green card applicants impacted by the 39-country ban.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has confirmed that it has resumed processing immigration applications for nationals from 39 countries after a federal court ordered the agency to halt policies that had frozen adjudications for months.

However, the government has already filed an appeal, meaning the future of these cases remains uncertain.

The case, Dorcas v. USCIS, challenged several USCIS policies that had suspended the processing of green card applications, work permits, naturalization applications, and certain asylum cases for individuals from designated countries. A federal judge ruled that these policies were unlawful and ordered USCIS to resume normal processing.

Importantly, the court’s decision requires USCIS to process applications, not automatically approve them. Applicants must still meet all eligibility requirements under existing immigration laws. Additionally, separate travel restrictions and other immigration policies remain in effect.

Continue reading

by

succo-hammer-1675156_1280In another rapid development surrounding the controversial $100,000 H-1B consular processing fee, a federal court has temporarily allowed U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to continue collecting the fee while the government’s appeal moves forward.

Employers and foreign workers should prepare for continued uncertainty as the litigation unfolds.

What Happened?

On June 8, 2026, a federal district court in Massachusetts struck down USCIS’s implementation of the $100,000 H-1B fee, finding significant legal issues with the policy. However, just four days later, on June 12, 2026, the same court temporarily paused its ruling after the government filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

As a result, USCIS currently retains the authority to continue collecting the $100,000 fee for qualifying H-1B petitions involving consular notification while the appellate court reviews the case.

The government must formally request a stay from the First Circuit by June 18, 2026, for the temporary reinstatement to remain in effect.

The appeal is pending in State of California, et al. v. Mullin, et al., No. 26-1699 (1st Cir. June 12, 2026).

Continue reading

by

the-now-time-KXUKLB-_Sb0-unsplash-1-scaledOn Friday, June 5, a federal judge struck down several Trump administration immigration policies that targeted asylum seekers and halted the processing of immigration benefit applications for individuals from 39 countries, finding that the administration had exceeded its legal authority.

Last year, the administration paused asylum case processing and suspended immigration benefit applications for affected individuals subject to the travel ban for an undetermined period of time, leaving millions of immigrants across the United States facing uncertainty about their legal status.

In a lengthy 135-page court opinion, Chief U.S. District Judge John McConnell found that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) acted unlawfully by implementing broad restrictions without authorization from Congress or established regulations. The court concluded that the policy unfairly targeted applicants based on their country of origin and violated federal immigration and administrative law.

The opinion comes after several plaintiff organizations including Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island and Refugee Dream Center filed a lawsuit in federal court arguing that thousands of individuals were prevented from obtaining lawful immigration benefits despite meeting eligibility requirements. The ruling reinforces the principle that immigration agencies must follow existing law and cannot create sweeping restrictions without proper legal authority.

Continue reading

by

markus-spiske-RX-BevgxSXs-unsplash-scaledIn a policy memorandum released today, just ahead of the Memorial Day holiday, the Trump administration announced that temporary visa holders seeking green cards should leave the United States and complete their immigration process through consular processing in their home countries.

But is adjustment of status completely off the table? No. While the government has made clear that individuals intending to immigrate to the United States are generally expected to pursue immigrant visas abroad, adjustment of status remains a discretionary pathway to a green card.

When deciding whether to exercise discretion to grant adjustment of status in the United States, USCIS officers will apply a “totality of the circumstances” analysis, weighing both favorable and unfavorable factors before reaching a decision.

Overview

For decades, Adjustment of Status has been one of the most reliable pathways to apply for a green card for immigrants already living in the U.S., who entered the country lawfully. This process has involved filing the I-485, remaining in the country while the green card case is pending, waiting for an interview, and receiving a final approval.

The ability to apply for adjustment of status has not been taken away with today’s announcement, however, the sense of security that applicants once had has been blurred.

The Policy Memorandum

In its policy memorandum, the government stressed that individuals admitted to the United States on temporary visas (tourist, student, work visas, etc.) are generally expected to leave the country rather than pursue Adjustment of Status from inside the U.S.

Instead, those wishing to remain in the U.S. permanently are expected to apply for an immigrant visa from abroad. But today’s announcement does not prevent those who qualify from seeking adjustment of status, although applicants should exercise greater caution and understand that certain factors may negatively affect their chances of approval.

Continue reading

by

joseph-chan-Q-730ajUcQ-unsplash-1-scaledFor years, DACA gave hundreds of thousands of young immigrants a fragile kind of security: permission to work, build lives, and avoid deportation — at least temporarily.

That security just got weaker.

On April 24, 2026, the Justice Department’s Board of Immigration Appeals issued a new precedent decision saying that DACA status alone is not enough to end deportation proceedings. The case involved Catalina “Xóchitl” Santiago, a DACA recipient whose removal case had been terminated by an immigration judge because her DACA protection was still active. DHS appealed — and won.

Continue reading

by

tingey-injury-law-firm-nSpj-Z12lX0-unsplash-scaledThe Trump administration has fired additional U.S. immigration judges, including two who recently blocked deportation efforts involving pro-Palestinian university students, according to a Reuters report.

The dismissals are part of a broader wave of removals within the immigration court system, which has already seen more than 100 judges fired since January 2025. The move reflects an ongoing effort to reshape the immigration judiciary by replacing experienced judges with those more aligned with hard-line immigration enforcement.

Among those dismissed were judges Roopal Patel and Nina Froes, both of whom were appointed during the Biden administration and were still within their probationary periods. They had recently issued rulings halting deportation proceedings in high-profile student cases.

Continue reading

by

gdj-ethiopia-1758949_1280

A recent federal court decision has provided temporary relief for Ethiopian nationals in the United States who rely on Temporary Protected Status (TPS). The ruling marks a setback for the Trump administration’s efforts to roll back humanitarian immigration protections.

Key Developments

A federal judge in Massachusetts has postponed the termination of TPS for Ethiopians, finding that the government did not follow proper legal procedures when attempting to end the designation. The court emphasized that the decision did not adhere to the process required by Congress, raising concerns about how the termination was handled.

Under federal law, TPS is available to individuals whose home countries have experienced natural disasters, armed conflict, or other extraordinary events, providing eligible migrants with work authorization and temporary protection from deportation.

TPS was originally granted to Ethiopians in 2022 due to armed conflict and humanitarian conditions in the country. The designation allows eligible individuals to live and work in the United States without fear of deportation.

Who Is Affected

More than 5,000 Ethiopian nationals currently benefit from TPS protections. Without the court’s intervention, many could have lost their work authorization and faced potential removal.

What Happens Next

The ruling does not permanently preserve TPS for Ethiopians. Instead, it temporarily blocks the termination while legal proceedings continue. The government may still attempt to end the designation if it follows proper procedures or prevails in court.

Continue reading

by

wander-works-MAgz-27IO68-unsplash-scaledThe Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for hundreds of thousands of Haitians living in the United States. TPS is a humanitarian program that allows people from countries affected by disasters or conflict to live and work in the U.S. legally, without fear of deportation.

This move comes as part of a broader effort to scale back immigration protections. The Supreme Court has already allowed the administration to reduce TPS protections for Venezuelan migrants, while a similar request involving Syrian immigrants is still pending.

Haiti was first granted TPS in 2010 after a catastrophic earthquake, and the designation has been extended several times since. The administration set a termination date of February 3, 2026, arguing that conditions in Haiti have improved enough to allow the return of TPS holders.

Last December, five Haitian nationals challenged the decision, seeking to block the termination. A federal district court sided with them last month, finding that the decision to end protections may have been influenced in part by racial bias. The Justice Department appealed, but a divided three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., refused to halt the lower court’s ruling.

In an emergency filing with the Supreme Court, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that the lower courts had overstepped, interfering in “an area of wide Executive Branch latitude.”

Continue reading

by

owantana-donald-trump-2333743_1280The Trump administration’s “Gold Card” visa program, which lets ultra-wealthy immigrants obtain permanent U.S. residency in exchange for a $1 million gift, is now the target of a federal lawsuit challenging its legality.

The lawsuit filed by the American Association of University Professors argues that the program is unlawful, claiming it violates the Administrative Procedure Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and was implemented without statutory authority.

Instead of calling on Congress to establish a new visa category, President Trump unilaterally created the Gold Card program by executive order. The order instructs federal agencies to utilize visa numbers from the existing EB-1 “extraordinary ability” and EB-2 “exceptional ability” green card categories, which have been specifically reserved by Congress for highly skilled individuals at the top of their field.

Under the Gold Card program, a $1 million payment by an individual—or $2 million paid by a corporation on their behalf—is treated as proof that the applicant satisfies the EB-1 or EB-2 visa criteria.

Continue reading

by

judge-10029829_1280On January 28th a federal judge in Nebraska ruled that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) must approve an EB-1A petition that was previously denied, based on the court’s finding that the “final merits requirement,” was unlawfully adopted by USCIS.

What Happened in the EB-1A Case?

On January 28, 2026, a U.S. District Court judge in Nebraska issued a decision in Mukherji v. Miller in favor of an EB-1A applicant who challenged the denial of her I-140 petition. The case focused on USCIS’s practice of applying a “final merits determination,” an additional layer of review that goes beyond evaluating whether an applicant meets the regulatory criteria for the EB-1A classification.

Continue reading