Visa Lawyer Blog

Articles Posted in Lawsuits

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

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

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

united-states-8911597_1280After months of speculation and buildup, President Trump’s long-anticipated travel ban has finally arrived.

Issued by executive order on June 4th President Trump’s travel ban entitled “Restricting the Entry of Foreign Nationals to Protect the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats,” closely mirrors the leaked draft that first surfaced in early March through the New York Times.

That draft hinted at sweeping restrictions targeting so-called “red,” “orange,” and “yellow” countries—coded designations that formed the backbone of President Trump’s proposed directive.

While there are notable differences, as predicted, the administration has framed the ban as a national security measure, but critics argue it remains susceptible to being challenged or overturned through lawsuits that may soon be filed in federal court.

Here’s what you need to know.

President Trump’s travel ban goes into effect today Monday June 9, 2025, at 12:01 am Eastern Daylight time.

Who it Affects

Full Suspension on Nationals from Countries of Concern

The travel ban temporarily suspends the entry of both immigrants and non-immigrants from 12 designated countries who are outside the United States and do not have a valid visa on the effective date of the proclamation, including Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, the Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen.

However, several key exceptions apply for lawful permanent residents (LPRs), immediate family members of U.S. citizens, dual nationals, athletes and teams competing in major international sporting events such as the World Cup and the Olympics, and others (a full list of exceptions is provided below).

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