Visa Lawyer Blog

Articles Posted in Permanent Residents

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

statue-9782657_1280On Tuesday, August 19th, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued updated policy guidance clarifying that immigration officers will assess a range of factors when determining whether to grant a favorable exercise of discretion in the green card process—signaling a tougher stance that may create additional hurdles for applicants seeking approval.

Even where a person has met all eligibility requirements for a green card, officers are required to conduct a discretionary analysis to determine whether an application should be approved. This exercise of discretion involves weighing positive factors against negative ones and considering the totality of the circumstances of each applicant’s case.

Among these factors, immigration officers will need to consider the “[legality of] past requests for parole,” “any involvement in anti-American or terrorist organizations,” and “evidence of antisemitic activity,” which are counted as negative factors weighing against a favorable exercise of discretion.

This guidance is also meant to provide clearer guidance to immigration officers on the “substantial negative discretionary weight” that should be given in cases where an individual has “endorsed, promoted, supported, or otherwise espoused the views of a terrorist organization or group.” This includes those supporting or promoting anti-American sentiments, antisemitic terrorism, terrorist groups with antisemitic agendas, or antisemitic beliefs.

Continue reading

by

raul-najera-TAqspfWom04-unsplash-scaledOn Friday August 15th, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) released a new policy memorandum (PM-602-0188) increasing the scrutiny of applications for U.S. citizenship, as part of the Trump administration’s latest efforts to tighten eligibility for naturalization.

Specifically, USCIS has directed immigration officers to evaluate additional factors when assessing whether applicants demonstrate “good moral character,” a key requirement for naturalization, alongside passing English and civics tests.

The requirement of “good moral character” is typically met when applicants have no criminal history or have not engaged in conduct that would disqualify them from U.S. citizenship, such as committing violent crimes or aggravated felonies.

Friday’s policy memorandum however expands this determination stating that the “good moral character” assessment must involve more than a “cursory mechanical review focused on the absence of wrongdoing.” The expanded policy will now require “a holistic assessment of an alien’s behavior, adherence to societal norms, and positive contributions that affirmatively demonstrate good moral character.”

This directive mandates greater scrutiny of factors that could show a lack of “good moral character,” which go beyond the crimes and disqualifying conduct previously taken into consideration by USCIS.

Continue reading

by

the-now-time-KXUKLB-_Sb0-unsplash-scaledOn August 1st the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced new policies that could make immigrants applying for green cards through family-based petitions more vulnerable to deportation.

The changes appear in various updates to USCIS’ Policy Manual which states that immigration officials can begin removal proceedings for immigrants who lack legal status and apply to become permanent residents through family-based petitions.

According to the Policy Manual, “if USCIS determines the alien beneficiary is removeable and amenable to removal from the United States, USCIS may issue a Notice to Appear (NTA) [in immigration court] placing the beneficiary in removal proceedings. Petitioners and alien beneficiaries should be aware that a family-based petition accords no immigration status nor does it bar removal.”

The new policy went into effect immediately and applies to pending requests for a green card, and those filed on or after August 1st.

While the practical impact of this policy is yet to be seen, it provides immigration officials with more discretion to initiate removal proceedings even where a green card application is pending with USCIS, for those who entered the U.S. illegally, overstayed a U.S. visa, or otherwise failed to maintain their legal status.

These policy changes underscore the importance of maintaining underlying legal status throughout the green card process. Those who lack legal status or who lost their status during the green card process may be most at risk.

Continue reading

by

calendar-1559935_1280We are pleased to report that today the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs published the August 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

For employment-based preference categories, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has confirmed it will continue to use the Final Action Dates chart to determine filing eligibility for adjustment of status to permanent residence in the month of August.

For family-sponsored preference categories, USCIS will also continue to use the Dates for Filing chart to determine filing eligibility for adjustment of status to permanent residence in the month of August.

Please click here for more information.

Highlights of the August 2025 Visa Bulletin

At a Glance

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

Employment-Based Categories

Final Action Advancements

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

  • EB-2 Worldwide, Mexico, Philippines retrogressed by 1.4 months to September 1, 2023

EB-3 Professionals and Skilled Workers and Other Workers

  • EB-3 India will advance by 1 month to May 22, 2013

EB-5 Unreserved Categories (C5, T5, I5, and R5)

  • India will advance by 6.5 months to November 15, 2019
  • China will advance by 22.5 months to December 08, 2015

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

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

court-5665886_1280
On Wednesday, May 28, 2025, a federal judge from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a nationwide court order lifting the Trump administration’s suspension of adjudications for immigration benefit applications submitted by noncitizens who were lawfully paroled into the United States under certain categorical parole programs implemented during the Biden administration.

Those affected by the suspensions were parolees in the following programs:

  • Military Parole in Place (MPIP) for members of the U.S. armed forces to petition their relatives for parole
  • Uniting for Ukraine (U4U), for Ukrainian citizens and their family members to apply for advanced authorization to travel to the United States to request parole for up to two years and apply for employment authorization with USCIS
  • Noncitizens from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela (CHNV) authorizing parole requests of up to two years, and the ability to apply for employment authorization from USCIS
  • Family Reunification Parole (FRP) programs permitting individuals from Colombia, Cuba, Guatemala, Ecuador, Haiti, Honduras, and El Salvador to receive advanced authorization to travel to the United States while their family-based immigrant visas are pending.
  • Central American Minors Program (CAM) for individuals from El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala lawfully present in the United States to request immediate relatives not present in the United States to be granted access to the Refugee Admissions Program.

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