Visa Lawyer Blog

Articles Posted in Court Hearings

by

ralphs_fotos-banner-3585161-scaledOn 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.

Continue reading

by

markthomas-us-supreme-court-building-2225765-scaledFamilies 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.

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

vilkasss-ai-generated-9817359-scaledThe 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.

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

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

cityscape-5351686_1280A federal judge has issued a court order requiring that immigrants detained at a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) processing center in downtown Los Angeles be granted access to their attorneys in a timely manner.

The ruling comes after lawyers reported that detainees were frequently denied phone access, had in-person meetings canceled, and faced pressure to sign legal documents without private counsel.

The B‑18 facility, originally designed as a short-term holding space, lacks basic amenities such as beds, showers, and adequate medical services. Advocates say ICE has effectively turned it into a long-term detention site, restricting detainees’ ability to communicate with the outside world.

Continue reading

by

bike-7071098_1280
On November 12, 2025, a federal court ruling in the case Moody et al. v. Mayorkas et al. granted relief to new investors in the EB-5 program by halting the increased application fees introduced by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on April 1, 2024.

What fees were increased?

Here’s a quick breakdown of the fee changes that were challenged:

Continue reading