Visa Lawyer Blog

Articles Posted in Court Orders

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

kreatikar-globe-3411506_1280

On January 21, the Trump administration quietly froze immigrant visa processing for people from 75 countries — a move that instantly threw thousands of families, workers, and employers into uncertainty.

Just weeks later, civil rights organizations and affected U.S. citizens who were separated from their family members have filed a federal lawsuit seeking to overturn the visa ban.

The government has described the pause on immigrant visa issuance as a temporary measure tied to concerns about immigrants becoming a “public charge.” But the new lawsuit argues that the freeze applies broadly, without individualized review, and affects people who have already spent years navigating the legal immigration system — including spouses of U.S. citizens and highly skilled workers with approved petitions.

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

by

children-5606239_1280
Nearly 200 immigrants, including six from Massachusetts, have filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. government over a sudden pause in processing green cards, citizenship applications, and asylum petitions. The pause was announced by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) shortly after the Trump administration expanded travel restrictions to 39 countries—20 of them facing partial restrictions.

Why USCIS Paused Green Card Processing for Travel Ban Countries

USCIS has paused the processing of green card applications for individuals from countries subject to the travel ban to ensure that all applicants are thoroughly vetted before being allowed to enter or remain in the United States. The agency stated that the pause allows it to review and strengthen security screenings for people from the affected countries. According to the Department of Homeland Security, the temporary halt is intended to maximize the effectiveness of background checks and other vetting procedures, with the goal of protecting public safety while the agency implements the updated immigration restrictions.

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

by

ai-generated-8775233_1280On October 3, 2025, a coalition of labor unions, healthcare providers, academic institutions, and religious groups, filed a lawsuit urging a federal court to strike down the $100,000 fee imposed on new H-1B petitions by the Trump administration for workers outside the United States.

What the Lawsuit Says

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, argues that the fee which took effect September 21, violates both the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. Plaintiffs claim the President lacks authority to unilaterally impose a fee of this kind, especially one designed to raise revenue or direct government spending.

The Trump administration’s sudden rollout of the H-1B fee caused immediate disruptions:

  • Workers abroad scrambled to return to the United States, paying steep travel costs.
  • Others inside the U.S. canceled planned international travel.
  • Some even asked to deplane midflight upon hearing the news.

The fee is seen by critics as a threat to institutions that rely heavily on skilled foreign workers—such as universities, health systems, and religious groups—particularly in fields already facing staffing shortages.

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

people-4009327_1280On September 24, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a proposed rule that would change the current selection process for selecting H-1B visa petitions subject to the annual numerical limits established by the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Under the proposed rule, the current random lottery system would be replaced with a wage-based selection process that prioritizes the selection of H-1B workers offered higher salaries by sponsoring employers.

The goal is to better align the H-1B program with U.S. labor market needs by increasing the chances of selection for higher-paid, and presumably higher-skilled, foreign workers. This change aims to reduce the potential for abuse in the system, discourage mass low-wage registrations, and ensure that the most economically valuable positions are filled through the H-1B program.

What may change

Currently, the U.S. government selects H-1B visa petitions through a randomized lottery system due to the annual numerical cap on available visas. Employers first submit electronic registrations for each prospective H-1B worker during a designated registration period, typically held in March. Because the demand for H-1B visas consistently exceeds the supply, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) conducts a lottery to determine which petitions can proceed with applying for H-1B visas.

There are two separate caps under the H-1B program: the regular cap of 65,000 visas and an additional 20,000 visas reserved for individuals who hold advanced degrees from U.S. institutions (commonly referred to as the master’s cap). All registered beneficiaries, including those with U.S. advanced degrees, are first entered into the regular cap lottery. After 65,000 are selected, those with U.S. master’s degrees who were not chosen in the initial round are entered into a second lottery for one of the 20,000 advanced degree slots.

This current system does not prioritize applicants based on wage levels, qualifications, or skills. Selection is purely random as long as the minimum eligibility requirements are met.

However, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is proposing changes that would shift the selection process to favor higher-paid workers.

Continue reading