Visa Lawyer Blog

Articles Posted in Immigration Enforcement

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

raul-najera-TAqspfWom04-unsplash-scaledOn Friday August 15th, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) released a new policy memorandum (PM-602-0188) increasing the scrutiny of applications for U.S. citizenship, as part of the Trump administration’s latest efforts to tighten eligibility for naturalization.

Specifically, USCIS has directed immigration officers to evaluate additional factors when assessing whether applicants demonstrate “good moral character,” a key requirement for naturalization, alongside passing English and civics tests.

The requirement of “good moral character” is typically met when applicants have no criminal history or have not engaged in conduct that would disqualify them from U.S. citizenship, such as committing violent crimes or aggravated felonies.

Friday’s policy memorandum however expands this determination stating that the “good moral character” assessment must involve more than a “cursory mechanical review focused on the absence of wrongdoing.” The expanded policy will now require “a holistic assessment of an alien’s behavior, adherence to societal norms, and positive contributions that affirmatively demonstrate good moral character.”

This directive mandates greater scrutiny of factors that could show a lack of “good moral character,” which go beyond the crimes and disqualifying conduct previously taken into consideration by USCIS.

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

dollar-2931882_1280On Tuesday, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will issue a Federal Register notice enforcing new fees for certain immigration benefit requests postmarked on or after July 22, 2025. Benefit requests submitted to the agency without the proper fees will be rejected.

These new fees are part of the H.R. 1 Reconciliation Bill. A portion of these new fees will be deposited into a U.S. Treasury account that primarily funds the operations of USCIS.

Please be aware that the Federal Register Notice does not include all the new fees mandated by the new bill. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will issue a future announcement regarding the implementation of fees that have not been addressed in Tuesday’s notice.

What are the new fees?

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