Visa Lawyer Blog

Articles Posted in Immigration Enforcement

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-cash-3242592The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Justice (DOJ) have finalized a rule making it easier and faster for the government to impose civil monetary penalties for certain immigration violations.

The rule applies to noncitizens who:

  • Willfully fail or refuse to leave the United States after a final removal order
  • Fail to depart within the time permitted under a voluntary departure order or
  • Are apprehended while unlawfully entering or attempting to enter the United States.

The rule does not create entirely new penalties. Instead, it changes the procedures DHS uses to impose existing fines.

How Much Are the Fines?

Current penalties can include:

  • $100 to $500 for unlawful entry or attempted entry;
  • Approximately $1,992 to $9,970 for failure to comply with voluntary departure; and
  • Up to $998 per day for willfully failing to depart after a final removal order.

Because some penalties accrue daily, the total amount can grow to hundreds of thousands of dollars or even exceed $1 million in long-running cases.

Continue reading

by

mohamed_hassan-visa-3653493-scaledMajor changes to the public charge policy took effect on September 18, 2026, changing how USCIS evaluates individuals applying for permanent residence in the United States.

The new policy gives immigration officers more discretion to consider government benefits and an individual’s circumstances when deciding whether someone is likely to become a public charge.

What Is Public Charge?

“Public charge” is a ground of inadmissibility used to determine whether a green card applicant is likely to rely on government assistance for support.

A public charge finding can affect whether an applicant is allowed to obtain permanent residence or enter the United States.

What Changed on September 18, 2026?

The federal government rescinded the 2022 DHS public charge rule and replaced the way USCIS evaluates green card applications with new agency guidance.

The change became effective September 18, 2026.

Under the new policy:

  • USCIS may consider a broader range of government-funded benefits.
  • Immigration officers have greater discretion when reviewing an applicant’s circumstances.
  • Means-tested benefits which are programs generally available based on income or financial need may now be considered.
  • The government may also consider a wider range of financial circumstances to evaluate whether an applicant is likely to become a public charge.

Receiving a public benefit does not automatically mean that someone will be denied a green card on public charge grounds. The determination depends on the person’s particular immigration case and circumstances.

Continue reading

by

roszie-termination-7386583_1280DHS has officially published a proposed rule that would eliminate the 60-day grace period currently available to certain nonimmigrant workers after their employment ends.

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published in the Federal Register on September 11, 2026. The proposal would affect workers in E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, O-1, and TN status, as well as their dependent family members.

Old Rule

Under current rules, eligible workers may receive a grace period of up to 60 days after their employment ends, or until the expiration of their authorized stay, whichever is shorter. This period can give workers time to find a new employer, change immigration status, or make arrangements to leave the United States.

New Proposal

DHS is proposing to eliminate this protection. If the rule is finalized as written, affected workers would generally be considered out of status beginning the day after their qualifying employment ends unless they have another lawful basis to remain in the United States.

DHS states that the change would more closely tie a worker’s immigration status to the employment that supports that status and reduce the administrative burden associated with determining whether the grace period applies.

Importantly, this is only a proposed rule. The current 60-day grace period remains in effect at this time.

The public comment period is open through November 10, 2026. After reviewing public comments, DHS may modify the proposal and issue a final rule.

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

artsybeekids-capitol-5660507-scaledThe U.S. Senate has approved legislation providing approximately $70 billion in additional funding for immigration enforcement, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Border Patrol. The measure passed by a 52-47 vote and now moves to the House of Representatives.

The bill significantly expands the administration’s immigration enforcement capabilities and provides substantial resources for detention, deportation, and border security operations through the remainder of President Trump’s term.

A major point of controversy was the bill’s inclusion of a $1.8 billion settlement fund connected to President Trump’s lawsuit over the disclosure of his tax records. Efforts to eliminate or restrict the fund failed, and the Senate ultimately passed the legislation without placing limits on how the money may be distributed.

The legislation marks one of the largest investments in federal immigration enforcement in recent years and reflects the administration’s continued focus on expanding immigration enforcement nationwide.

Continue reading

by

the-now-time-KXUKLB-_Sb0-unsplash-1-scaledOn Friday, June 5, a federal judge struck down several Trump administration immigration policies that targeted asylum seekers and halted the processing of immigration benefit applications for individuals from 39 countries, finding that the administration had exceeded its legal authority.

Last year, the administration paused asylum case processing and suspended immigration benefit applications for affected individuals subject to the travel ban for an undetermined period of time, leaving millions of immigrants across the United States facing uncertainty about their legal status.

In a lengthy 135-page court opinion, Chief U.S. District Judge John McConnell found that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) acted unlawfully by implementing broad restrictions without authorization from Congress or established regulations. The court concluded that the policy unfairly targeted applicants based on their country of origin and violated federal immigration and administrative law.

The opinion comes after several plaintiff organizations including Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island and Refugee Dream Center filed a lawsuit in federal court arguing that thousands of individuals were prevented from obtaining lawful immigration benefits despite meeting eligibility requirements. The ruling reinforces the principle that immigration agencies must follow existing law and cannot create sweeping restrictions without proper legal authority.

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

mohamed_hassan-graduation-7077409_1280
The White House is reviewing a proposed federal rule (RIN: 1653-AA95) that could change how international students maintain legal status in the United States. The proposal, submitted by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), would replace the long-standing “duration of status” framework with fixed-term limits for student visas.

If finalized, the rule would affect students on F-1 visas, as well as some exchange visitors and foreign media. Under the current system, international students can remain in the U.S. for as long as they are enrolled full-time and comply with visa requirements.

The proposed change would instead impose a four-year stay limit before students would need to apply for a renewal of their status.

Continue reading

by

d4rkwzd-recruitment-6838250_1280The Trump administration has introduced a new visa screening policy at consulate interviews that could make it harder for people with potential asylum claims to enter the United States.

According to the Washington Post, consular officers are now directed to ask nonimmigrant visa applicants whether they have been persecuted in their home country, or fear harm if they return.

That question may sound harmless, but the consequences are significant. If an applicant says they have suffered harm/mistreatment in their country, or fear harm/mistreatment in returning home, their visa could be denied. If they say they do not fear returning to their home country and later apply for asylum in the United States, the government may use that earlier answer against them. This creates a serious dilemma for people who may genuinely need protection in the future.

The policy appears designed to screen potential asylum claims before an applicant ever reaches U.S. soil. Under U.S. asylum law, a person generally must be physically present in the United States or arrive at a U.S. border to request asylum. By using the visa process to flag and deny applicants who may later seek protection, the government could stop some individuals from ever getting the chance to present their asylum claims.

This change could especially affect people from countries facing political violence, religious persecution, war, government abuse, or targeted discrimination. Students, tourists, workers, and business visitors may all face difficult questions if they have legitimate reasons to travel to the U.S. on temporary visas but also fear returning home.

Continue reading