Visa Lawyer Blog

Articles Posted in Litigation

by

jorono-flag-2693195-scaledOn June 25, 2026, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to end Temporary Protected Status for more than 350,000 people from Haiti and Syria who have been legally living and working in the United States.

Although the ruling directly affects only TPS holders from Haiti and Syria, its impact could reach much further.

The decision may have consequences for the broader TPS program, which currently protects about 1.3 million people from more than a dozen countries.

What is TPS

Temporary Protected Status (TPS) is a temporary immigration protection that allows people from certain countries to live and work legally in the United States, when it is unsafe for them to return home because of conditions like war, natural disasters, or major political instability.

The federal government determines which countries qualify for TPS and decides whether conditions in those countries justify renewing their designation.

The Ruling

The case, Mullin v. Doe, written by Justice Alito, held that courts do not have authority to review an administration’s decision to terminate TPS for a particular country. The court also rejected a constitutional claim brought by Haitian TPS holders, who argued that Haiti’s designation was ended because of racial bias. The court found that the evidence was not enough to show that racism played a motivating role in the decision.

Continue reading

by

katie-moum-7XGtYefMXiQ-unsplash-scaledGood news for green card applicants impacted by the 39-country ban.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has confirmed that it has resumed processing immigration applications for nationals from 39 countries after a federal court ordered the agency to halt policies that had frozen adjudications for months.

However, the government has already filed an appeal, meaning the future of these cases remains uncertain.

The case, Dorcas v. USCIS, challenged several USCIS policies that had suspended the processing of green card applications, work permits, naturalization applications, and certain asylum cases for individuals from designated countries. A federal judge ruled that these policies were unlawful and ordered USCIS to resume normal processing.

Importantly, the court’s decision requires USCIS to process applications, not automatically approve them. Applicants must still meet all eligibility requirements under existing immigration laws. Additionally, separate travel restrictions and other immigration policies remain in effect.

Continue reading

by

owantana-donald-trump-2333743_1280The Trump administration’s “Gold Card” visa program, which lets ultra-wealthy immigrants obtain permanent U.S. residency in exchange for a $1 million gift, is now the target of a federal lawsuit challenging its legality.

The lawsuit filed by the American Association of University Professors argues that the program is unlawful, claiming it violates the Administrative Procedure Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and was implemented without statutory authority.

Instead of calling on Congress to establish a new visa category, President Trump unilaterally created the Gold Card program by executive order. The order instructs federal agencies to utilize visa numbers from the existing EB-1 “extraordinary ability” and EB-2 “exceptional ability” green card categories, which have been specifically reserved by Congress for highly skilled individuals at the top of their field.

Under the Gold Card program, a $1 million payment by an individual—or $2 million paid by a corporation on their behalf—is treated as proof that the applicant satisfies the EB-1 or EB-2 visa criteria.

Continue reading

by

judge-10029829_1280On January 28th a federal judge in Nebraska ruled that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) must approve an EB-1A petition that was previously denied, based on the court’s finding that the “final merits requirement,” was unlawfully adopted by USCIS.

What Happened in the EB-1A Case?

On January 28, 2026, a U.S. District Court judge in Nebraska issued a decision in Mukherji v. Miller in favor of an EB-1A applicant who challenged the denial of her I-140 petition. The case focused on USCIS’s practice of applying a “final merits determination,” an additional layer of review that goes beyond evaluating whether an applicant meets the regulatory criteria for the EB-1A classification.

Continue reading

by

children-5606239_1280
Nearly 200 immigrants, including six from Massachusetts, have filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. government over a sudden pause in processing green cards, citizenship applications, and asylum petitions. The pause was announced by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) shortly after the Trump administration expanded travel restrictions to 39 countries—20 of them facing partial restrictions.

Why USCIS Paused Green Card Processing for Travel Ban Countries

USCIS has paused the processing of green card applications for individuals from countries subject to the travel ban to ensure that all applicants are thoroughly vetted before being allowed to enter or remain in the United States. The agency stated that the pause allows it to review and strengthen security screenings for people from the affected countries. According to the Department of Homeland Security, the temporary halt is intended to maximize the effectiveness of background checks and other vetting procedures, with the goal of protecting public safety while the agency implements the updated immigration restrictions.

Continue reading

by

bike-7071098_1280
On November 12, 2025, a federal court ruling in the case Moody et al. v. Mayorkas et al. granted relief to new investors in the EB-5 program by halting the increased application fees introduced by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on April 1, 2024.

What fees were increased?

Here’s a quick breakdown of the fee changes that were challenged:

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

pieter-van-de-sande-r6BdUpN_iSk-unsplash-scaledPresident Trump’s first 100 days in office have been marred by controversial actions targeting both legal and illegal immigration.

In its latest move, the Trump administration is going even further by targeting “sanctuary” cities which are state and local jurisdictions that limit their cooperation with federal immigration law enforcement officials. “Sanctuary” cities have been known to enact policies that prohibit the detention of individuals solely based on their immigration status and restrict the sharing of information about immigrants with federal authorities.

To force them into compliance, the Trump administration has begun filing lawsuits against sanctuary cities seeking to penalize them for their disobedience.

The first of these lawsuits targets Colorado and Denver for impeding federal immigration authorities from carrying out deportations. Denver is one of many states with state laws that prevent state and local officials from cooperating with federal immigration authorities. For instance, a Denver state law prevents the use of the city’s resources to assist with immigration enforcement, while a separate executive order establishes Denver as a “sanctuary city,” welcoming undocumented immigrants.

If Trump has it his way, the lawsuit would undo Colorado’s sanctuary state laws by declaring them unconstitutional and prohibiting their enforcement.

Interestingly, in responding to the lawsuit, the governor of Colorado Jared Polis denied Colorado’s status as a sanctuary state and said that Colorado regularly cooperates with federal law enforcement authorities.

Continue reading

by

poster-7297156_1280

In President Trump’s latest legal battles, a federal judge from the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts has dealt a blow to the administration’s plans to fast-track the deportations of thousands of undocumented migrants with final orders of removal.

Today, federal judge Brian Murphy issued a nationwide temporary restraining order immediately blocking U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from deporting migrants from the United States to countries with which they have no existing relationship, without first providing them written notice and a meaningful opportunity to claim relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) for immigrants fearing persecution.

This decision was made in response to a lawsuit filed by a group of migrants challenging ICE policies that expedite the removal of undocumented immigrants released from detention to third countries.

The judge’s court order specifically prohibits the U.S. government from:

“Removing any individual subject to a final order of removal from the United States to a third country, i.e., a country other than the country designated for removal in immigration proceedings, UNLESS and UNTIL [the government] provide[s] that individual, and their respective immigration counsel, if any, with written notice of the third country to where they may be removed, and UNTIL Defendants provide a meaningful opportunity for that individual to submit an application for CAT protection to the immigration court, and if any such application is filed, UNTIL that individual receives a final agency decision on any such application.”

Continue reading

by

ai-generated-8775948_1280Last month, San Diego’s Board of Supervisors passed a resolution ending the use of county resources aiding federal immigration enforcement actions.

The measure was made ahead of President Trump’s inauguration and puts an end to the cooperation between law enforcement agencies and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Previously, local law enforcement agencies cooperated with ICE officials by facilitating the transfer of detainees to ICE custody and notifying ICE of their release from custody to aid in their removal from the United States.

In response to San Diego’s actions, the America First Legal Foundation (founded by Trump advisor Stephen Miller) issued a letter to 249 elected officials including the Chair of San Diego’s Board of Supervisors, Nora Vargas. In the letter, the organization warned Vargas that she could be subject to criminal prosecution and civil liability for what the organization considered to be “obstruction” of federal immigration law.

Continue reading