Visa Lawyer Blog

Articles Posted in LPRs

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
26493199526_8a6efa5192_z

Flickr Creative Commons Attribution Jeroen Akkermans

In the last months, the U.S. Department of State released two significant policy updates that impact both immigrant and nonimmigrant visa applicants. These updates focus on a core change: applicants will now be required to have their visa interviews in their place of residence or country of nationality.

This change has significant consequences for third-country nationals who have traditionally applied for U.S. visas outside their country of nationality, particularly those renewing H-1B, E, O, and L visas, as well as immigrant visa applicants outside the United States.

Immigrant Visa Applicants Must Apply in their Country of Residence

On August 28, 2025, the State Department announced that, starting November 1, 2025, immigrant visa applicants must attend their interviews at a U.S. consulate or embassy located in their country of residence, or in their country of nationality, with limited exceptions. The update applies across all immigrant visa categories, including Diversity Visas.

There are exceptions to this rule, though they are limited. Exceptions may be granted in rare cases involving humanitarian or medical emergencies, or in circumstances involving specific foreign policy considerations. Applicants residing in countries where routine U.S. visa services have been suspended or paused will need to process their case at a designated consular post, which is typically assigned by the State Department to handle cases from those particular regions.

Existing appointments for immigrant visa interviews scheduled prior to November 1st will not be cancelled or rescheduled.

Same Policy Applies to Nonimmigrant Visa Applicants

A similar change was later announced on September 6, 2025, for nonimmigrant visa applicants. Effective immediately, nonimmigrant visa applicants must also apply for their visa in their country of residence or nationality. This means that individuals cannot simply choose a different country’s embassy based on convenience or shorter wait times unless they reside there or are citizens of that country. This applies to all third country nationals who previously traveled to embassies or consulates in Mexico or Canada to renew their nonimmigrant visas.

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

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

patty-zavala-TKwGZ9a6YHU-unsplash-scaledThe Department of Homeland Security has announced the implementation of its REAL ID enforcement measures at Transportation Security Administration (TSA) checkpoints nationwide as of May 7th.

Anyone 18 years and older traveling domestically within the United States must have a REAL ID-compliant state-issued driver’s license or another accepted form of identification to board a commercial flight.

According to the agency, 81 percent of travelers are already REAL ID compliant.

Continue reading

by

boeing-159589_1280A new article published in the New York Times reveals the 43 countries that are reportedly included in President Trump’s new travel ban, expected to be released by executive order on Friday March 21st.

According to anonymous government sources, the White House is considering a draft proposal establishing partial or full suspensions on entry to the United States for countries falling into three different tiers: red, orange, and yellow.

The “red” list of countries includes nationals whose entry to the United States would be barred for a temporary period that is yet to be determined by the U.S. government including:

  • Afghanistan
  • Bhutan
  • Cuba
  • Iran
  • Libya
  • North Korea
  • Somalia
  • Sudan
  • Syria
  • Venezuela and
  • Yemen

The draft proposal also includes an “orange” list of countries whose nationals would not be barred from the United States, but who must be properly vetted and screened at mandatory in-person visa interviews before gaining admission to the United States.

Continue reading

by

ai-generated-8775943_1280We knew it was coming. The Trump administration is preparing to roll out a new ban on travel to the United States, restricting the entry of citizens from certain countries for which vetting and screening warrants a partial or full suspension of admission to the United States. This travel restriction is rumored to take place by executive action next week.

If this sounds like déjà vu, that’s because it is.

During his first term in office, in 2017 Trump signed Executive Order 13769 entitled, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” which banned nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States for a period of 90 days.

This executive order caused international chaos, due to several key provisions:

  • It suspended the entry of immigrants and non-immigrants from seven predominantly Muslim countries including Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen – for 90 days
  • The order indefinitely suspended the entry of Syrian refugees
  • It reduced the number of refugees to be admitted to the United States in 2017 to 50,000
  • The U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) was suspended for 120 days

Implementation of this executive order led to controversy and numerous legal challenges:

  • More than 700 travelers were detained, and up to 60,000 visas were “provisionally revoked”
  • Protests and chaos erupted at airports across the country
  • Multiple lawsuits were filed in federal court challenging its constitutionality

Continue reading

by
50484974517_c9a324e36a_b

This image is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License Fibonacci Blue

Watch the Press Conference here.

On Wednesday February 26th House lawmakers reintroduced the American Dream and Promise Act of 2025—a bill that would create a legal pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children known as “Dreamers.” The bill would also include beneficiaries of Temporary Protected Status or Deferred Enforced Departure.

The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program was first created in 2012 by the Obama administration to protect eligible undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children from deportation, while allowing them to apply for work authorization for temporary, renewable periods.

After a lengthy legal battle, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit allowed the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to continue to accept and process DACA renewal applications and accompanying applications for employment authorization. However, USCIS is prohibited from processing initial requests for DACA.

In a statement accompanying the reintroduction of the bill, Congresswoman Sylvia Garcia, one of its authors said, “Dreamers are American in every way but on paper. For decades, they have contributed to and shaped the fabric of America. Yet, they are currently denied their place in the American story.

Continue reading

by

calendar-151591_1280We are pleased to report that today the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs published the January 2025 Visa Bulletin.

In this blog post, we breakdown the movement of the employment-based and family-sponsored categories in the coming month.

USCIS Adjustment of Status

The U.S. Citizenship and immigration Services (USCIS) has not yet indicated which chart it will use to determine filing eligibility for adjustment of status to permanent residence in January 2025.

Please click here for more information.

Highlights of the January 2025 Visa Bulletin

At a Glance

What can we expect to see in the month of January?

Employment-Based Categories

Dates for Filing

  • No change from previous month 

Final Action Advancements

EB-2 Members of the Professions and Aliens of Exceptional Ability

  • EB-2 India will advance by two months to October 1, 2012
  • EB-2 China will advance by one month to April 22, 2020
  • EB-2 All other countries will advance by two weeks to April 1, 2023

EB-3 Professionals and Skilled Workers

  • EB-3 India will advance by three weeks to December 1, 2012
  • EB-3 China will advance by two months to June 1, 2020
  • EB-3 All other countries will advance by two weeks to December 1, 2022

EB-3 Other Workers

  • EB-3 India will advance by three weeks to December 1, 2012
  • EB-3 Except China, all other countries will advance by one week to December 8, 2020

Continue reading

by

donald-trump-2030308_1280In this blog post, we discuss how Trump’s return to the White House on January 20th could impact employment-based visa applicants and their employers in the years ahead.

While the Trump campaign has been very vocal about their zero-tolerance policy toward illegal immigration, much less has been said about employment-based immigration. For that reason, it has been hard to know exactly what lies ahead for foreign workers.

While we don’t have all the answers, Trump’s track record on employment-based immigration helps provide insights into the changes we are likely to see during his second term.

To help readers understand how the incoming Trump administration may impact employment-based immigration, we have drawn up the top five areas where there is a high likelihood that changes may be introduced either by executive action or internal policymaking.

This information is based on our collective experience dealing with immigration agencies during Trump’s first term in office. Readers should be aware that none of this information is set in stone. Immigration policies are likely to evolve as the Trump administration settles in and as the political climate becomes more balanced.

Increasing Vetting and Processing Times for Employment-Based Workers

Foreign workers who plan to file employment-based cases should be aware of the following potential changes in the months ahead.

  1. The Return of Employment-Based Green Card Interviews?

In 2017, the Trump administration made the employment-based green card application process much more difficult when it required adjustment of status applicants to attend in-person interviews.

This directive was handed down with the passage of Trump’s executive order known as “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States.” This executive order was meant to crack down on immigration, by combating fraud and abuse in the green card process.

The decision to reinstate visa interviews for employment-based green card applicants led to a sharp increase in processing times at USCIS offices nationwide. This was due to the increased demand for interviews and limited resources available to accommodate the surge in applicants.

While in-person interviews are generally required under the law, prior to Trump’s presidency, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) waived in-person interviews for a broad category of applicants, including employment-based green card applicants to better allocate resources toward higher risk cases.

Continue reading