Visa Lawyer Blog

Articles Posted in Immigration Crackdown

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

by

lawyer-3819044_1280The growing presence of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials at immigration courthouses nationwide has prompted several states to enact laws preventing ICE from arresting or detaining individuals attending their immigration hearings.

One such law passed by the state of New York is the “Protect Our Courts Act,” which shields individuals from being arrested by federal immigration authorities like ICE while traveling to, attending, or leaving court proceedings. This law is designed to guarantee that people can access the justice system without fearing immigration-related repercussions. It forbids arrests in these situations unless a judicial warrant or court order is shown to court personnel.

On June 12th the Justice Department sued the state of New York challenging the constitutionality of the Act under the supremacy clause. The government argues that it unlawfully obstructs federal immigration enforcement operations.

The Trump administration is seeking to invalidate these laws to facilitate detention and removal. According to the government, arrests at courthouses helps prevent individuals from evading authorities and decreases safety risks because of the security offered by courthouses.

In response to the lawsuit, the New York Civil Liberties Union issued a statement defending the state law adding, “This latest attempt by the Trump administration to meddle in our laws would push immigrant communities further into the shadows, throw due process out the window, and weaken trust in our justice system — making everyone less safe. It sends a dangerous message: that ICE can and should operate wherever it wants, regardless of the human cost.”

Continue reading

by

investigation-9604083_1280On June 4, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that the agency will expand its efforts to crackdown on visa overstays, due to a recent terrorist attack in Boulder Colorado. The attack was perpetrated by an Egyptian national who had been in the United States unlawfully since overstaying his visa in 2022.

What this Means

  • Swift policy action: Under Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem’s directive, federal partners are now reviewing immigration files more aggressively, identifying visa overstays, and initiating enforcement actions
Continue reading

by

passport-8621284_1280

Harvard Travel Ban Blocked by Federal Judge

Earlier this month President Trump had signed an Executive Order suspending the entry of all nonimmigrants and exchange visitors attending Harvard University, for a period of 6 months starting June 4th (the effective date of the proclamation).

Those affected by the executive order were F, J, and M visa holders outside of the United States as of the date of the proclamation. The suspension did not apply to nonimmigrants entering the United States to attend other universities.

Shortly after the executive order was issued, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction, temporarily halting its enforcement until the court can rule on the merits of the case.

Following the court’s actions, the State Department ordered embassies and consulates around the world to resume visa processing for Harvard University students and exchange visitors.

As a result, Harvard students can breathe easier. While the preliminary injunction remains in effect, consulates are barred from denying visas to Harvard students and exchange visitors, and visa holders attending Harvard cannot be refused entry to the United States.

For more information, please click here.

Continue reading

by

danilo-rios-bj5y_XuSm58-unsplash-scaledThe Trump administration is not letting up on its campaign to target international students applying for visas at U.S. Embassies and Consulates, beginning with Harvard University students.

On Friday May 30, 2025, the Secretary of State Marco Rubio sent an internal cable to U.S. Embassies and Consulates worldwide requiring them to “immediately begin additional vetting” for all applicants seeking a visa to travel to Harvard University “for any purpose.”

While the internal cable is not publicly available, its contents have been reviewed by several prominent media outlets including Politico and CNN.

According to their reports, the cable indicates that the State Department has adopted a new policy requiring Consulates and Embassies to review the social media accounts of all nonimmigrant visa applicants seeking to attend Harvard University, including prospective students, current students, faculty members, contractors, guest speakers, and even tourists visiting the university. This initiative, directed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio through a diplomatic cable, is set to begin immediately and serves as a pilot program that is expected to expand to other U.S. schools, colleges, and universities.

The policy specifically targets the identification of antisemitic content and antisemitic viewpoints published on online social media platforms. The cable notes, “the enhanced vetting measures described in this guidance aim at ensuring that consular officers can appropriately identify such visa applicants with histories of antisemitic harassment and violence, and to duly consider the visa eligibility under U.S. immigration law.” Notably, the cable does not specify what specifically would indicate “inadmissible antisemitism” nor does it define online activities that would render an individual ineligible for a visa.

Consular officers are instructed to conduct comprehensive screenings of applicant’s social media accounts, including those set to private. The cable notes that consular officers should determine, either in pre-screening or an interview, if the applicant is seeking to travel to Harvard, and such applicants should be refused a visa “pending review of their online presence.”

Continue reading