Visa Lawyer Blog

Articles Posted in Lawsuits

by

hiring-1977803_1280On October 29, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced an interim final rule that will end the automatic extension of employment authorization documents (EADs) for most renewal applicants effective October 30, 2025.

In this post, we’ll unpack what’s changing, who it affects, the rationale behind the change, and what individuals and employers should do to prepare.

What was the previous policy?

Historically, noncitizens who held valid EADs (Form I-766) and timely filed a renewal application (Form I-765) before their current EAD expired often automatically received continued employment authorization while the renewal was pending. This “automatic extension” policy served as a buffer to prevent employment gaps.

These policies helped many workers avoid a lapse in authorization while waiting for processing of their renewal application.

What is changing now?

Starting October 30, 2025, the automatic extension of work authorization for most renewal applicants will end.

What to know

  • If you file your I-765 renewal on or after October 30, 2025, you will not receive an automatic extension of your EAD for most categories.
  • The rule affects many categories of renewal applicants, including (but not necessarily limited to) those applying under asylum, adjustment of status, H-4 dependent spouses (EAD category C26), etc.
  • Automatic extensions that were already granted (for renewal applications filed before the cut-off) remain valid.
  • Some limited exceptions remain, notably for certain categories such as those tied to TPS (Temporary Protected Status) where automatic extension may still be provided by law or Federal Register notice.

In short, you will not be authorized to keep working simply because you filed a renewal — you must wait for the new EAD to be approved by USCIS.

Continue reading

by

ai-generated-8775233_1280On October 3, 2025, a coalition of labor unions, healthcare providers, academic institutions, and religious groups, filed a lawsuit urging a federal court to strike down the $100,000 fee imposed on new H-1B petitions by the Trump administration for workers outside the United States.

What the Lawsuit Says

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, argues that the fee which took effect September 21, violates both the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. Plaintiffs claim the President lacks authority to unilaterally impose a fee of this kind, especially one designed to raise revenue or direct government spending.

The Trump administration’s sudden rollout of the H-1B fee caused immediate disruptions:

  • Workers abroad scrambled to return to the United States, paying steep travel costs.
  • Others inside the U.S. canceled planned international travel.
  • Some even asked to deplane midflight upon hearing the news.

The fee is seen by critics as a threat to institutions that rely heavily on skilled foreign workers—such as universities, health systems, and religious groups—particularly in fields already facing staffing shortages.

Continue reading

by

us-1978465_1280Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a troubling decision that could strip legal status from hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans currently living in the United States under Temporary Protected Status (TPS).

On Friday, the Court granted the Trump administration’s request to halt a lower court ruling that found the administration’s cancellation of TPS protections for Venezuelans unlawful. The unsigned order from the Court effectively allows the government to proceed, for now, with its plans to revoke temporary protections that had shielded Venezuelan nationals from deportation and granted them employment authorization.

TPS was created in 1990 as a humanitarian safeguard for individuals whose home countries are experiencing extraordinary crises such as armed conflict, environmental disasters, or other temporary but severe disruptions. Venezuela was designated for TPS in 2021 under President Biden, in response to the country’s severe economic collapse, widespread human rights abuses, and political instability.

Since then, approximately 300,000 Venezuelans have relied on that protection to live and work legally in the U.S., building lives, paying taxes, and raising families.

Trump Administration Moves to Strip Venezuela’s TPS Designation

But the political tides have shifted. When the Trump administration returned to office, it appointed Kristi Noem as Secretary of Homeland Security. Earlier this year, Noem moved to revoke Venezuela’s TPS designation, arguing that conditions in the country had improved and that continuing the program was no longer in the national interest. That decision sparked immediate legal challenges. A coalition of Venezuelan TPS recipients and advocacy groups sued, claiming the administration’s actions were arbitrary, rushed, and in violation of federal law.

Continue reading

by

people-4009327_1280On September 24, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a proposed rule that would change the current selection process for selecting H-1B visa petitions subject to the annual numerical limits established by the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Under the proposed rule, the current random lottery system would be replaced with a wage-based selection process that prioritizes the selection of H-1B workers offered higher salaries by sponsoring employers.

The goal is to better align the H-1B program with U.S. labor market needs by increasing the chances of selection for higher-paid, and presumably higher-skilled, foreign workers. This change aims to reduce the potential for abuse in the system, discourage mass low-wage registrations, and ensure that the most economically valuable positions are filled through the H-1B program.

What may change

Currently, the U.S. government selects H-1B visa petitions through a randomized lottery system due to the annual numerical cap on available visas. Employers first submit electronic registrations for each prospective H-1B worker during a designated registration period, typically held in March. Because the demand for H-1B visas consistently exceeds the supply, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) conducts a lottery to determine which petitions can proceed with applying for H-1B visas.

There are two separate caps under the H-1B program: the regular cap of 65,000 visas and an additional 20,000 visas reserved for individuals who hold advanced degrees from U.S. institutions (commonly referred to as the master’s cap). All registered beneficiaries, including those with U.S. advanced degrees, are first entered into the regular cap lottery. After 65,000 are selected, those with U.S. master’s degrees who were not chosen in the initial round are entered into a second lottery for one of the 20,000 advanced degree slots.

This current system does not prioritize applicants based on wage levels, qualifications, or skills. Selection is purely random as long as the minimum eligibility requirements are met.

However, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is proposing changes that would shift the selection process to favor higher-paid workers.

Continue reading

by

imageOn Friday evening, President Donald J. Trump signed an executive order establishing a new pathway to permanent residency called “The Gold Card.” This program creates a fast-track green card option for wealthy individuals who make significant “gifts” to the U.S. government through the Department of Commerce.

Highlights

Although clear guidance on the application process has not yet been provided, the executive order outlines several key features:

  • Unrestricted Gift requirement:

To qualify for an immigrant visa through the Gold Card program, applicants must provide an unrestricted gift (without conditions or limitations) to the Department of Commerce in the following amounts.

  • $1 million for individuals donating on their own behalf.
  • $2 million if the gift comes from a corporation or entity on behalf of an individual
  • Visa benefits: The gift can be used as evidence of eligibility under two employment-based categories:
    • Exceptional business ability and national benefit (8 U.S.C. §1153(b)(2)(A) and
    • National Interest Waiver (8 U.S.C. §1153(b)(2)(B))
      • Could be expanded to the EB-5 immigrant investor program under 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5).
  • Oversight and agencies involved: The Departments of Commerce, State, and Homeland Security are tasked with implementing the program, including setting up application, processing, status adjustment, and screening for public safety / national security.
  • Use of the funds: The money raised will go into a separate Department of Commerce fund, held with the Treasury, intended to promote commerce and American industry.
  • Timeline: The order gives the relevant secretaries 90 days to lay out implementation plans (application process, when gifts may start being submitted, fees, etc.)

Potential Legal Challenges

The Gold Card Executive Order, aimed at streamlining the visa process for wealthy donors may face several legal challenges. Plaintiffs could argue that it oversteps executive authority by altering immigration policy without congressional approval, potentially violating the Immigration and Nationality Act. Additionally, if the order is seen as favoring certain nationalities or industries, it may prompt lawsuits alleging discrimination or unequal treatment under the law. Legal battles may also arise from states or interest groups concerned about labor market impacts or federal overreach, leading to judicial review that could delay or block its implementation.

Continue reading

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

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

prison-370112_1280A new lawsuit filed by a man detained in San Diego, California, is challenging the controversial practice of courthouse arrests by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) taking place in recent months. The case could offer critical insight into the government’s approach in making these arrests. (A.M. v. Larose (3:25-cv-01412))

The man identified in court filings as A.M. is seeking asylum in the United States after being subjected to torture in his home country from his human rights advocacy. On June 3, he arrived for what he believed would be a routine immigration court hearing but was shocked to find that the judge had dismissed his case and ICE agents were waiting outside, ready to arrest him and take him to Otay Mesa’s Detention Facility to eventually be deported.

Unfortunately, A.M.’s case is not unique. In recent months, the Trump administration has enforced a controversial policy in immigration courts to expedite deportations by instructing judges to swiftly dismiss cases, subjecting individuals to expedited removal without giving them a meaningful opportunity to contest the government’s claims or consult attorneys.

This approach, detailed in a May 30 directive from the Executive Office for Immigration Review, encourages judges to grant oral motions to dismiss without the standard 10-day response period, effectively eliminating opportunities for individuals to contest their cases. Once dismissed, individuals are immediately eligible for expedited removal, making it possible for ICE officers to arrest them.

Continue reading

by

sarah-kranz-pKqAaTUi0wg-unsplash-scaledIn a significant ruling handed down on Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court limited the power of federal judges to impose nationwide injunctions against President Trump’s executive order aimed at denying birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. to noncitizens.

While the justices did not rule on the legality of the President’s executive order, this decision is an extraordinary victory for the Trump administration, because it hinders lower courts from intervening in potentially illegal actions by the government.

Historically, lower courts have issued nationwide preliminary injunctions early in litigation to block government conduct that could cause irreparable harm to plaintiffs pending judicial review.

The court’s decision to restrain judges from providing such relief is a remarkable departure from historic precedent and ventures into dangerous territory. It further indicates that the balance of power on the Supreme Court has clearly shifted in Trump’s favor, with six conservative justices backing his position.

What it Means

The ruling means that lower courts cannot stop the enforcement of the executive order on a nationwide basis for affected individuals. The executive order can only be suspended against individuals who have filed lawsuits against the government (either as individual plaintiffs or in class actions) or where a state has issued a state-wide injunction.

It will take time before the Supreme Court ultimately rules on the constitutionality of the executive order, with some legal experts suggesting the process could stretch on for years.

It is also uncertain whether this decision could restrict future nationwide blocks on controversial laws, particularly in other immigration and civil rights cases against the government.

Continue reading