Articles Posted in Court Hearings

November 3, 2026

New Federal Lawsuit Seeks to Reopen Diversity Visa Green Card Lottery for 2027 and 2028

On November 1, 2026, a new federal lawsuit, Ivannikov v. Rubio (Case No. 2:26-cv-12783), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, challenging the Trump administration’s failure to open registration for the Diversity Visa (DV) Lottery Program.

The lawsuit was filed by Ivan Ivannikov, a Russian national residing in Los Angeles, against Secretary of State Marco Rubio. It seeks to compel the U.S. Department of State to open registration for both the DV-2027 and DV-2028 lottery programs.

The complaint alleges that the government’s failure to administer the program constitutes unlawful agency delay and violates the Administrative Procedure Act. It asks the court to require registration periods of at least 30 days for both programs and to process applications from individuals subsequently selected.

Background: Previous Court Ruling Temporarily Blocked

The new lawsuit follows an October 14, 2026, preliminary injunction ordering the State Department to reopen DV-2027 registration by November 1, 2026.

However, on October 29, 2026, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily blocked that order while the government’s appeal proceeds, citing legal deficiencies concerning the plaintiff’s ability to bring the earlier lawsuit.

Unlike the previous lawsuit, which was filed by an immigration law firm, the new case is brought by an individual who claims he is personally eligible to participate in the lottery.

November 3, 2026

Federal Judge Orders ICE and Border Patrol to Stop Racial Profiling in Southern California

by Jacob Sapochnick

On October 23, 2026, U.S. District Judge Frimpong issued a preliminary injunction ordering U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Border Patrol agents to stop detaining individuals solely based on their perceived Latino ethnicity or working-class appearance.

The ruling, issued in Vasquez Perdomo v. Mullin, follows extensive evidence presented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other civil rights advocates, including body-camera footage, internal communications, and testimony from individuals detained during immigration enforcement operations, including U.S. citizens.

The injunction applies to seven Southern California counties: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo.

Under the order, immigration agents must have individualized reasonable suspicion supported by specific facts before conducting an investigative detention. An individual’s ethnicity or appearance alone cannot justify a stop. The injunction includes exceptions for ports of entry, checkpoints, and their functional equivalents.

The decision follows an earlier injunction that the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily blocked in 2025. The Department of Homeland Security has denied allegations of racial profiling, and the federal government has appealed the latest ruling.

October 8, 2026

Federal Judge Blocks $100,000 H-1B Fee

by Jacob Sapochnick

A federal judge in California has blocked the Trump administration from enforcing policies that required certain employers to pay a $100,000 fee when filing new H-1B petitions.

On September 30, 2026, U.S. District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. granted a preliminary injunction in Global Nurse Force v. Trump, N.D. Cal., No. 4:25-cv-08454, preventing federal agencies from enforcing or implementing the policies used to carry out the $100,000 H-1B payment requirement.

What Was the $100,000 H-1B Fee?

August 23, 2026

BREAKING: Federal Judge Strikes Down 75-Country Immigrant Visa Ban

by Jacob Sapochnick

On August 21, 2026, a federal judge struck down the Trump administration policy that blocked immigrant visa issuance for nationals of 75 countries, allowing the green card process to resume for thousands of family- and employment-based green card applicants.

The policy, which took effect in January 2026, directed U.S. consulates to pause immigrant visa issuance for nationals of 75 countries identified by the State Department as presenting a higher risk of relying on public benefits.

These countries included:

Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burma, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Colombia, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, The Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyz Republic, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Pakistan, Republic of the Congo, Russia, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, and Yemen.

Although applicants could continue submitting documents and attending interviews, many could not actually receive their immigrant visas solely because of their nationality.

July 6, 2026

Supreme Court Rejects Attempt to Restrict Birthright Citizenship

by Jacob Sapochnick

On June 30, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected President Trump’s attempt to restrict birthright citizenship, ruling that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present in the country are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The 6-3 decision, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, marks a major ruling on the meaning of American citizenship and the limits of executive power in immigration policy.

The case, Trump v. Barbara, centered on Executive Order 14160, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.”

The order sought to deny automatic U.S. citizenship to certain children born in the United States if neither parent was a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. Specifically, it targeted children born to mothers who were either unlawfully present or lawfully present on a temporary basis, such as on a student, work, or tourist visa, when the father was not a U.S. citizen or green card holder.

The Supreme Court held that the executive order violated the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That clause provides that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States and of the state where they reside. The Court concluded that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present are still “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore are citizens at birth.

June 25, 2026

Families Await Supreme Court Decision in Birthright Citizenship Case

by Jacob Sapochnick

Families across the United States are anxiously waiting for the Supreme Court to decide the future of President Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order.

The order seeks to deny automatic U.S. citizenship to certain children born in the United States if their parents do not have permanent legal status.

For many immigrant families, the case is not just about politics or legal theory. It is about whether their children will be recognized as Americans from the moment they are born.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling by the end of June or early July, as the Court finishes its current term.

Until then, the executive order remains blocked by court orders, meaning children affected by the policy are still protected for now. But the uncertainty has left many families fearful about what could happen next.

At the heart of the case is the Fourteenth Amendment, which has long been understood to guarantee citizenship to most children born on U.S. soil. Trump’s order challenges that understanding by targeting children born to undocumented parents or parents in the U.S. on temporary visas, such as student, work, or tourist visas.

June 15, 2026

Federal Court Temporarily Reinstates USCIS Authority to Collect $100,000 H-1B Fee Pending Appeal

by Jacob Sapochnick

In 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).

May 26, 2026

DOJ Closes San Francisco Immigration Court Early, Leaving Thousands of Cases Uncertain

by Jacob Sapochnick

The U.S. Department of Justice has officially closed the San Francisco Immigration Court months earlier than expected, transferring its operations to the Concord Immigration Court.

The sudden closure has caused uncertainty for thousands of immigrants whose cases were pending in San Francisco.

Immigration courts handle deportation proceedings, asylum claims, and other immigration-related hearings.

May 22, 2026

BREAKING: Trump Administration Tells Foreigners to Apply for Green Cards in Home Countries

by Jacob Sapochnick

In 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.

April 27, 2026

New DOJ Ruling Puts DACA Recipients at Greater Risk

by Jacob Sapochnick

For 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.

USCIS Adopts NEW National Interest Waiver Eligibility Standard in Matter of Dhanasar

On December 27, 2016 in Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016) the USCIS Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) handed down a groundbreaking decision which has changed the analytical framework for determining eligibility of national interest waivers. This new decision will affect foreign nationals who are pursuing a green card based on employment in […]

Tourist Visa Applicants: Common Pitfalls to Avoid During the Application Process

Do’s and Don’ts If you are considering applying for a temporary visitor visa to travel to the United States for purposes of leisure or to receive temporary medical treatment, there are several things you should be aware of. First, you should understand what you can do while on a temporary visitor visa and what […]

Happy Labor Day!

From our family to yours, Happy Labor Day!

Staff Spotlight: Associate Attorney Nadia Galash, Esq.

It is a pleasure for our law office to introduce associate attorney Nadia Galash to our readers Bio: Nadia Galash has been a California licensed attorney since 2009 and has been practicing immigration law since 2011. Nadia Galash specializes in adjustment of status/permanent resident processing; citizenship; deportation and removal proceedings before Immigration Court; law and motion […]