Visa Lawyer Blog

Articles Posted in Donald Trump

by

rtanvir-ukraine-7096789_1280Thousands of Ukrainian and Sudanese immigrants will retain their Temporary Protected Status (TPS) protections for now, despite their current designations being scheduled to expire on October 19, 2026.

On October 18, 2026, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) confirmed to CBS News that existing TPS beneficiaries from both countries will remain protected while the agency considers whether to formally extend or terminate their designations.

According to DHS, final decisions will “be made at the appropriate time.” Until then, affected beneficiaries will “retain protection.”

What Is Temporary Protected Status (TPS)?

TPS is a humanitarian immigration program that allows eligible nationals of designated countries experiencing armed conflict, natural disasters, or other extraordinary conditions to temporarily remain in the United States.

Individuals granted TPS generally receive protection from deportation and may obtain employment authorization. However, TPS does not automatically provide a pathway to permanent residency.

What Is Changing for Ukraine and Sudan?

In January 2025, DHS extended TPS for both Ukraine and Sudan for 18 months, from April 20, 2025, through October 19, 2026.

The extensions were based on continuing armed conflict and dangerous conditions preventing nationals from safely returning to their home countries.

According to CBS News, DHS has now confirmed that existing beneficiaries will retain their protections while the agency determines the future of the programs.

Continue reading

by

mohamed_hassan-exam-3588192_1280The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has proposed a major change to the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program for F-1 international students.

Under a proposed rule published on October 8, 2026, schools would be required to pay a $70,000 fee the first time an F-1 student is recommended for OPT. A $30,000 fee would apply to each subsequent OPT recommendation, including a STEM OPT extension.

For example, an F-1 student who completes 12 months of post-completion OPT and then receives a 24-month STEM OPT extension could generate $100,000 in total fees—$70,000 for the initial OPT period and another $30,000 for the STEM extension.

Who Would Pay the Fee?

Technically, the SEVP-certified school, not the student or employer, would be responsible for paying the fee before the school’s designated school official (DSO) could recommend the student for OPT.

However, DHS acknowledges that schools could pass some or all of that cost on to the F-1 student, other students, or employers.

The fee would be connected to the school’s OPT recommendation, not to a particular employer. Changing employers alone would therefore not trigger another fee.

Why Is DHS Proposing the Change?

DHS says the new fees are intended to reduce fraud and abuse in the OPT program, strengthen immigration enforcement and program integrity, and address concerns about the impact of OPT employment on U.S. workers.

Continue reading

by

 

sharijo-cv-4043315-scaledThe U.S. Department of State has resumed the issuance of Diversity Visas following a federal court order in Medani et al. v. Trump et al. According to the State Department, visa issuance has resumed as of August 28, 2026, ending the suspension that had been in place since December 2025.

The December 2025 suspension had temporarily stopped U.S. Embassies and Consulates from issuing Diversity Visas while the government reviewed screening and vetting procedures. The court order now requires the State Department to resume processing and issuing affected visas.

Why This Matters for DV-2026 Applicants

Timing is especially important for DV-2026 applicants because Diversity Visas generally must be issued by September 30, 2026. If a visa number is not issued by the end of the fiscal year, the opportunity may be lost.

Applicants with pending cases should continue monitoring their case status, attend any scheduled interviews, and respond quickly to requests from the U.S. Embassy or Consulate.

If you have a pending DV-2026 case and are concerned about the September 30 deadline, contact an immigration attorney as soon as possible to discuss how the court order and resumed visa issuance may affect your case.

Continue reading

by

kreatikar-globe-3411506_1280-1On 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.

Continue reading

by

ironhorse71-tourist-8183867_1280Recent developments in U.S. immigration law and immigration enforcement have changed the risks associated with both international and domestic travel for certain noncitizens.

This does not mean that all travel is unsafe or that every person with a pending immigration case should avoid traveling.

However, beginning August 13, 2026, your immigration history, current status, prior periods of unlawful presence, and pending applications may significantly affect whether travel is advisable.

For this reason, individuals with unresolved immigration-status issues should carefully review their circumstances before making any travel plans on or after August 13th.

Major Change to International Travel With Advance Parole

One of the most significant recent developments involves Advance Parole.

Advance Parole is a travel document that may allow certain noncitizens—including some applicants with a pending Form I-485 Application to Adjust Status—to temporarily leave the United States and regain admission using advance parole after temporary foreign travel.

For years, many applicants relied on the rule established in Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly, 25 I&N Dec. 771 (BIA 2012), which generally held that temporary international travel under Advance Parole was not considered a “departure” for purposes of the unlawful-presence bar addressed in that case.

That rule has now changed.

On August 13, 2026, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) issued its precedential decision in Matter of Delcarmen-Lara, 29 I&N Dec. 830 (BIA 2026). The BIA expressly overruled Arrabally and Yerrabelly and held that leaving the United States pursuant to Advance Parole can constitute a “departure” under INA § 212(a)(9)(B).

This is an important change because departure from the United States can trigger serious immigration consequences for individuals who previously accumulated unlawful presence.

Continue reading

by

mohamed_hassan-programming-9199585_1280The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is moving forward with a new proposal that could eliminate the 60-day grace period currently available to certain employment-based nonimmigrant workers after their employment ends.

On August 6, 2026, DHS submitted a proposed rule titled “Eliminating the Discretionary 60-day Grace Period” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. The proposal has not yet taken effect, and the full text has not yet been released.

What Is the Current 60-Day Grace Period?

Under current regulations, certain nonimmigrant workers whose employment ends before their authorized stay expires may receive a grace period of up to 60 consecutive days, or until the expiration of their authorized stay, whichever comes first.

The protection currently applies to workers in the following classifications:

  • E-1
  • E-2
  • E-3
  • H-1B
  • H-1B1
  • L-1
  • O-1
  • TN

Their dependent family members are also covered by the provision.

The 60-day grace period gives workers valuable time after losing or leaving a job to find another employer, seek a change or extension of immigration status, or prepare to leave the United States. Workers generally cannot continue working during the grace period unless they have another independent basis for employment authorization.

Continue reading

by

tilixia-summer-money-8023328-scaledThe Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has announced that it is rescinding the public charge regulation that has been in place since December 2022.

The change will take effect on September 18, 2026. Until then, the current 2022 rule remains in effect.

What Is the Public Charge Rule?

The public charge rule allows immigration officers to consider whether certain applicants are likely to become financially dependent on the government in the future.

The rule generally applies to:

  • Certain people applying for a green card from inside the United States;
  • Certain people applying for an immigrant visa at a U.S. embassy or consulate; and
  • Some nonimmigrants in limited circumstances.

A public charge finding may result in the denial of an immigration application.

What Is Changing?

DHS is removing the detailed public charge standards established by the 2022 rule.

The government is not replacing the 2022 rule with another detailed regulation. Instead, USCIS will rely on:

  • The Immigration and Nationality Act;
  • New USCIS policy guidance;
  • The applicant’s individual circumstances; and
  • The immigration officer’s discretion.

This means USCIS officers may have more flexibility when deciding whether an applicant is likely to become a public charge.

Continue reading

by

ai-generated-8051223_1280The Department of Homeland Security has proposed sweeping new regulations that could significantly reshape the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program.

Published on July 2, 2026, the proposed rule seeks to formally implement many of the changes Congress enacted through the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022 while introducing stricter compliance, enforcement, fraud-prevention, and national-security requirements.

Importantly, this is only a proposed rule. It is not yet final, and the proposed changes have not automatically taken effect. DHS is accepting public comments through August 31, 2026, before deciding whether to issue a final regulation.

What Is the EB-5 Investor Visa Program?

The EB-5 program offers qualifying foreign investors a pathway to lawful permanent residence by investing capital in a U.S. business that creates at least 10 full-time jobs for qualifying U.S. workers.

The current minimum investment is generally:

  • $1,050,000 for a standard EB-5 investment; or
  • $800,000 for an investment in a targeted employment area or qualifying infrastructure project.

Targeted employment areas include certain rural locations and areas experiencing high unemployment. Investors may invest directly in their own commercial enterprise or through a USCIS-designated regional center.

New Investment Amount for High-Employment Areas

One of the most significant provisions would establish a separate investment amount for projects located in areas with particularly low unemployment.

DHS proposes requiring an investment of $1.4 million for projects principally doing business in a defined “high-employment area.” Under the proposal, this would generally include certain metropolitan areas where unemployment is significantly below the national average.

The standard, targeted-area, infrastructure, and high-employment investment amounts would be adjusted for inflation beginning January 1, 2027, and every five years afterward.

Continue reading

by

brittani-burns-98uYQ-KupiE-unsplash-scaled

Key Takeaways

  • The Supreme Court terminated Haiti and Syria’s TPS status on June 25th
  • Approximately, 350,000 individuals will lose their work authorization and be subject to removal
  • Affected individuals must seek alternative legal status immediately to avoid removal proceedings once the transition period ends.

On July 1, 2026, DHS and USCIS set a temporary expiration date of July 10, 2026 for work permits held by Temporary Protected Status beneficiaries from seven countries (Haiti, Syria, Burma, Yemen, Ethiopia, South Sudan, and Somalia), after a Supreme Court ruling cleared the way for the government to end those protections.

On June 25th the Supreme Court ruled that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) can move forward with ending TPS for certain countries specifically Haiti and Syria even while other smaller legal battles about those terminations continue in lower courts.

Although the deadline for some countries could still be extended while lower court cases continue, DHS has described any continued relief as temporary.

Continue reading

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