Visa Lawyer Blog

Articles Posted in Immigration Crackdown

by

ai-generated-9069946_1280The legal immigration landscape was shaken once again late Friday evening when the President issued a new proclamation barring new H-1B workers from entering the United States—unless their employers pay a $100,000 fee for each sponsored employee.

The proclamation took effect at 12:01 a.m. EDT on Sunday, September 21, and will remain in effect until a court order halts its implementation.

Emergency Litigation

A surge of emergency lawsuits is expected to be filed by impacted H-1B workers and their sponsoring employers, seeking a nationwide injunction to stop the implementation of the executive order. A court could issue an injunction as early as Monday. We will provide litigation updates as they develop in the coming days.

Highlights of the Executive Order

  • Effective today September 21, 2025, certain H-1B workers will be denied entry into the United States unless their employer pays a $100,000 fee on their behalf, according to the proclamation signed by President Trump late Friday.
  • Application: The ban on entry and the associated fee requirement applies only to any new H-1B visa petitions submitted after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on September 21, 2025. This includes the 2026 lottery, and any other H-1B petitions submitted after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on September 21, 2025.
  • The proclamation does not apply to:
    • any previously issued H-1B visas, or any petitions submitted prior to 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on Sept. 21, 2025.
    • does not change any payments or fees required to be submitted in connection with any H-1B renewals. The fee is a one-time fee on submission of a new H-1B petition.
    • does not prevent any holder of a current H-1B visa from traveling in and out of the United States.
  • Misuse of B Visas: The proclamation warns that individuals with approved H-1B petitions should not misuse B visas to enter the U.S. for jobs that start before October 1, 2026.
  • National Interest Exemptions: The proclamation grants the Department of Homeland Security authority to issue exemptions for individuals, specific employers, or workers in designated industries—if the agency determines that the H-1B employment serves the national interest and poses no threat to U.S. security or public welfare.
  • Termination: Absent a court order, this restriction will remain in effect for 12 months but may be extended based on recommendations from federal immigration agencies. An extension would continue the ban for individuals approved under the FY 2027 H-1B cap.
  • Changes to the Prevailing Wage: Besides restricting H-1B entry, the proclamation directs the Department of Labor to revise prevailing wage levels and prioritize H-1B approvals to high-skilled, high-paid H-1B workers.

In the hours after the proclamation was issued, chaos unfolded as H-1B visa holders, advised by their employers and legal counsel, abandoned flights and canceled international travel due to uncertainty about how the proclamation would be enforced at the U.S. border.

Adding to the uncertainty was the absence of clear guidance from immigration authorities, including the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP), about how the proclamation is to be enforced against current H-1B visa holders and approved beneficiaries.

Continue reading

by

prison-370112_1280Introducing sweeping changes, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has expanded its role by gaining law enforcement powers previously limited to agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

Under a new final rule published today, USCIS will now recruit 1,811-classified special agents—fully empowered officers with authority—to investigate, arrest, and prosecute individuals violating U.S. immigration laws.

What’s Changed?

  • Law Enforcement Authority: The newly designated USCIS special agents are authorized to carry firearms, execute search and arrest warrants, make arrests, and use force—including in pursuit and potentially lethal situations—under standard federal law enforcement protocols.
  • Operational Autonomy: Previously, USCIS investigations—especially those involving criminal violations—were referred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
  • Enforcement Agency: Now, USCIS itself can manage law enforcement investigations from start to finish, including investigating civil and criminal violations within the jurisdiction of USCIS and ordering expedited removal when warranted.

Continue reading

by

update-1672349_1280On September 3, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced the termination of the 2021 designation of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) previously granted to Venezuelans by President Biden.

The government’s actions mean that the 2021 designation for Venezuela TPS and any associated TPS-related protection and documentation for beneficiaries will expire on September 10, 2025. The termination becomes effective 60 days after publication of the Federal Register notice.

Venezuelans have long been targeted by the Trump administration due to organized crime from violent Venezuelan gangs such as the Tren de Aragua.

Therefore, it comes as no surprise that President Trump has called to dismantle TPS protections for Venezuelan nationals.

What this means

  • 2021 Venezuela TPS Designation: TPS will remain valid for current beneficiaries until September 10, 2025. The termination of the 2021 designation cannot take effect until 60 days after the termination notice is published in the Federal Register.

All TPS protection and associated work authorization will expire on the dates indicated above.

Continue reading

by

marek-studzinski-9U9I-eVx9nI-unsplash-scaled

A new UC Berkeley IGS poll shows that a strong majority of California voters disapprove of the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement tactics. Nearly 70% of respondents said they are unhappy with how immigration is being handled in the state — and many reported emotional responses to images of raids, describing them as unfair and upsetting.

The poll reveals a sharp political divide. Ninety-five percent of Democrats expressed disapproval with Trump’s immigration enforcement, while 79% of Republicans voiced support. Emotional reactions followed suit: most Democrats said they felt anger or sadness when shown footage of enforcement actions, while most Republicans felt hopeful or satisfied.

Specific policy questions revealed more tension. An overwhelming majority of Democrats support requiring immigration agents to wear visible ID and oppose raids in places like schools and hospitals. Republicans were more divided, with only about half supporting agent identification and a slight majority favoring enforcement in public spaces.

The issue of birthright citizenship also proved polarizing. 67% of Republicans said they support ending automatic citizenship for children born to undocumented parents, while 92% of Democrats opposed such a move.

Continue reading

by

usa-8643859_1280On August 21, 2025, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the State Department is temporarily pausing the issuance of work visas for foreign nationals seeking employment as commercial truck drivers in the U.S.

“Increasing numbers of foreign drivers behind the wheels of large tractor-trailers on America’s roads are putting lives at risk and threatening the jobs of American truckers,” Rubio stated in a post on X.

The likely reason behind this drastic move is a deadly highway crash that occurred in the state of Florida, involving a commercial truck driver who made an illegal U-turn killing at least three people.

Federal authorities claim that the driver entered the United States illegally, did not speak English, and held a limited-term commercial driver’s license from the state of California. According to the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), the federal government confirmed the driver’s legal presence in the United States when it approved his commercial driver’s license in 2024.

Earlier this year, President Trump signed an executive order directing the enforcement of a rule requiring commercial drivers in the U.S. to meet English proficiency standards, with violators subject to being taken out of service. Based on an internal investigation conducted by the U.S. Department of Transportation, the driver failed to establish English proficiency “providing correct responses to just two of 12 verbal questions and only accurately identifying one of four highway traffic signs.”

Continue reading

by

statue-9782657_1280On Tuesday, August 19th, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued updated policy guidance clarifying that immigration officers will assess a range of factors when determining whether to grant a favorable exercise of discretion in the green card process—signaling a tougher stance that may create additional hurdles for applicants seeking approval.

Even where a person has met all eligibility requirements for a green card, officers are required to conduct a discretionary analysis to determine whether an application should be approved. This exercise of discretion involves weighing positive factors against negative ones and considering the totality of the circumstances of each applicant’s case.

Among these factors, immigration officers will need to consider the “[legality of] past requests for parole,” “any involvement in anti-American or terrorist organizations,” and “evidence of antisemitic activity,” which are counted as negative factors weighing against a favorable exercise of discretion.

This guidance is also meant to provide clearer guidance to immigration officers on the “substantial negative discretionary weight” that should be given in cases where an individual has “endorsed, promoted, supported, or otherwise espoused the views of a terrorist organization or group.” This includes those supporting or promoting anti-American sentiments, antisemitic terrorism, terrorist groups with antisemitic agendas, or antisemitic beliefs.

Continue reading

by

the-now-time-KXUKLB-_Sb0-unsplash-scaledOn August 1st the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced new policies that could make immigrants applying for green cards through family-based petitions more vulnerable to deportation.

The changes appear in various updates to USCIS’ Policy Manual which states that immigration officials can begin removal proceedings for immigrants who lack legal status and apply to become permanent residents through family-based petitions.

According to the Policy Manual, “if USCIS determines the alien beneficiary is removeable and amenable to removal from the United States, USCIS may issue a Notice to Appear (NTA) [in immigration court] placing the beneficiary in removal proceedings. Petitioners and alien beneficiaries should be aware that a family-based petition accords no immigration status nor does it bar removal.”

The new policy went into effect immediately and applies to pending requests for a green card, and those filed on or after August 1st.

While the practical impact of this policy is yet to be seen, it provides immigration officials with more discretion to initiate removal proceedings even where a green card application is pending with USCIS, for those who entered the U.S. illegally, overstayed a U.S. visa, or otherwise failed to maintain their legal status.

These policy changes underscore the importance of maintaining underlying legal status throughout the green card process. Those who lack legal status or who lost their status during the green card process may be most at risk.

Continue reading

by

judge-8779957_1280In a significant victory for civil rights and immigrant advocacy groups, a federal appeals court has upheld a lower court’s decision to temporarily block federal immigration agents from conducting immigration-related arrests in Los Angeles without reasonable suspicion.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued the ruling late Friday, marking a major legal development in the ongoing battle over immigration enforcement and constitutional protections.

At the heart of the case is the question of whether federal agents can detain individuals based solely on generalized characteristics such as race, ethnicity, or language. The appeals court was clear: they cannot.

A Firm Rejection of Racial Profiling

The three-judge panel ruled that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other federal agents cannot use factors like “apparent race, ethnicity, speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent, particular location, and type of work” as the basis for reasonable suspicion to stop an individual. Even taken together, the court stated, these characteristics form only a broad profile and fail to meet the legal standard required for a lawful stop.

“We agree with the district court that…these factors do not demonstrate reasonable suspicion for any particular stop,” the panel wrote, emphasizing the constitutional protections that apply to all individuals, regardless of immigration status.

Continue reading

by

motherhood-7114294_1280Last month, the Supreme Court ruled that lower courts cannot issue nationwide injunctions blocking the Trump administration’s executive order limiting birthright citizenship, except in class action lawsuits.

Prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling, at least three different lawsuits had secured nationwide injunctions protecting all individuals potentially affected by Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship. However, the Court’s ruling scaled back those protections, potentially leaving some children unprotected.

To safeguard all families across the country and address any gaps left by prior legal actions, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a class-action lawsuit, Barbara v. Donald J. Trump to stop the government’s enforcement of the order against all current or future babies born or after February 20, 2025, where:

(1) that child’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the child’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said child’s birth, or

(2) that child’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the child’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said child’s birth.

The U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante agreed with the plaintiffs and issued a class-wide preliminary injunction blocking Trump’s executive order from being enforced against any affected baby born in the United States after February 20th.

Continue reading

by
Gavin_Newsom_by_Gage_Skidmore

Attribution: Gage Skidmore

On Friday July 11, 2025, a federal judge ruled that the government’s ongoing immigration raids in Southern California and its denial of legal counsel to detained immigrants likely violates the Constitution.

In so ruling, the court issued two temporary restraining orders (TROs) barring the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other federal agencies from continuing these actions in the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo. (Pedro Vasquez Perdomo v. Kristi Noem (2:25-cv-05605)

The first TRO prohibits immigration agents from stopping individuals without reasonable suspicion and bars law enforcement from relying solely on the following factors—alone or in combination—to form reasonable suspicion for a stop including (1) apparent race or ethnicity (2) speaking Spanish or English with an accent (3) presence in a particular location like a bus stop, car wash, day laborer pick up site, or agricultural site, or (4) the type of work the person does.

The second TRO orders DHS to provide access to counsel on weekdays, weekends, and holidays for those who are detained in B-18, the basement of a federal building in downtown Los Angeles located at 300 North Los Angeles Street.

It further requires immigration officials to develop guidance on how agents and officers should determine whether “reasonable suspicion” exists when conducting stops and to implement training for officers involved in immigration operations.

In addition to immigration officers, the TROs apply to the FBI and Justice Department, who are named in the lawsuit and are involved in immigration enforcement actions.

Continue reading