Visa Lawyer Blog

Articles Posted in Litigation

by

memed_nurrohmad-new-york-1670435_1280

The Trump administration’s 75-country immigrant visa pause may be over following a federal court ruling, but thousands of previously refused applications remain unresolved.

In an October 5, 2026 court filing, the State Department revealed that only 706 affected applications were adjudicated between August 21 and September 30. Of those, just 318 were approved for visa issuance or resulted in visas being issued.

These figures highlight the slow progress in addressing more than 43,000 applications previously refused solely under the pause.

With no firm deadline for reconsideration, federal litigation may be an important option for applicants seeking to move their cases forward.

Key Highlights

  • The 75-country immigrant visa pause was struck down on August 21, 2026.
  • More than 43,000 applications were previously refused solely under the policy.
  • Between August 21 and September 30, only 706 affected applications were adjudicated, with 318 approved for issuance or issued and 388 refused under other immigration provisions.
  • Applicants whose visas were previously refused are not guaranteed automatic reconsideration within a specific timeframe.
  • Federal lawsuits, including mandamus actions, may offer a way to challenge unreasonable delays and seek action on previously refused applications.

What Do the Latest Visa Processing Statistics Reveal?

The State Department’s October 5 court filing in CLINIC v. Rubio provides a clearer picture of how slowly visa processing has progressed since the pause was lifted.

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

artsybeekids-gavel-5660494-scaledA federal judge in California has blocked the Trump administration from enforcing policies that required certain employers to pay a $100,000 fee when filing new H-1B petitions.

On September 30, 2026, U.S. District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. granted a preliminary injunction in Global Nurse Force v. Trump, N.D. Cal., No. 4:25-cv-08454, preventing federal agencies from enforcing or implementing the policies used to carry out the $100,000 H-1B payment requirement.

What Was the $100,000 H-1B Fee?

Continue reading

by

elisariva-hammer-3183166-scaledYesterday, a federal judge ruled that the Trump administration’s policy pausing immigrant visa approvals for nationals of 75 countries violates federal immigration law.

The State Department introduced the policy in January 2026, directing consular officers to refuse covered immigrant visa applications while the government developed additional screening procedures concerning whether applicants might become dependent on public benefits.

The freeze affected primarily family-based applicants, along with some employment- and investment-based applicants.

Continue reading

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