The Trump administration has significantly slowed the naturalization process, with 73% fewer citizenship applications decided over the past year.
These delays are leaving thousands of immigrants waiting longer to become U.S. citizens.
US Citizenship and Immigration Services’ latest quarterly data show it decided around 71,000 cases between April and June 2026, compared to around 265,000 during the same period last year.
Thousands of Ukrainian and Sudanese immigrants will retain their Temporary Protected Status (TPS) protections for now, despite their current designations being scheduled to expire on October 19, 2026.
On October 18, 2026, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) confirmed to CBS News that existing TPS beneficiaries from both countries will remain protected while the agency considers whether to formally extend or terminate their designations.
According to DHS, final decisions will “be made at the appropriate time.” Until then, affected beneficiaries will “retain protection.”
What Is Temporary Protected Status (TPS)?
TPS is a humanitarian immigration program that allows eligible nationals of designated countries experiencing armed conflict, natural disasters, or other extraordinary conditions to temporarily remain in the United States.
Individuals granted TPS generally receive protection from deportation and may obtain employment authorization. However, TPS does not automatically provide a pathway to permanent residency.
What Is Changing for Ukraine and Sudan?
In January 2025, DHS extended TPS for both Ukraine and Sudan for 18 months, from April 20, 2025, through October 19, 2026.
The extensions were based on continuing armed conflict and dangerous conditions preventing nationals from safely returning to their home countries.
According to CBS News, DHS has now confirmed that existing beneficiaries will retain their protections while the agency determines the future of the programs.
Major changes to the public charge policy took effect on September 18, 2026, changing how USCIS evaluates individuals applying for permanent residence in the United States.
The new policy gives immigration officers more discretion to consider government benefits and an individual’s circumstances when deciding whether someone is likely to become a public charge.
What Is Public Charge?
“Public charge” is a ground of inadmissibility used to determine whether a green card applicant is likely to rely on government assistance for support.
A public charge finding can affect whether an applicant is allowed to obtain permanent residence or enter the United States.
What Changed on September 18, 2026?
The federal government rescinded the 2022 DHS public charge rule and replaced the way USCIS evaluates green card applications with new agency guidance.
The change became effective September 18, 2026.
Under the new policy:
Receiving a public benefit does not automatically mean that someone will be denied a green card on public charge grounds. The determination depends on the person’s particular immigration case and circumstances.
On September 14th a coalition of states and major U.S. cities filed federal lawsuits challenging the Trump administration’s new public charge rule, giving immigration officers broader discretion when deciding whether certain immigrants may be denied admission or lawful permanent residence.
The rule took effect on Friday, September 18, 2026, and applies to applications for admission made on or after that date and adjustment-of-status applications filed on or after September 18.
What Changed?
The Department of Homeland Security rescinded the narrower public charge regulations adopted in 2022.
Under the new rule, immigration officers must consider at least five factors when deciding whether an applicant is likely to become a public charge: the applicant’s age; health; family status; assets, resources, and financial condition; and education and skills. Officers may also consider employment history and prospects, a required Affidavit of Support, and other information relevant to the applicant’s ability to remain financially self-sufficient.
The rule also significantly expands the public benefits that may be considered. For benefits received on or after September 18, 2026, officers may consider an applicant’s application for, approval for, or receipt of any means-tested public benefit, including programs such as Medicaid and SNAP.
Receipt of public benefits alone does not automatically result in a public charge finding; officers must evaluate the applicant’s circumstances as a whole.
The administration says the change restores necessary discretion and better reflects federal immigration law and policies encouraging immigrant self-sufficiency.
DHS has officially published a proposed rule that would eliminate the 60-day grace period currently available to certain nonimmigrant workers after their employment ends.
The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published in the Federal Register on September 11, 2026. The proposal would affect workers in E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, O-1, and TN status, as well as their dependent family members.
Old Rule
Under current rules, eligible workers may receive a grace period of up to 60 days after their employment ends, or until the expiration of their authorized stay, whichever is shorter. This period can give workers time to find a new employer, change immigration status, or make arrangements to leave the United States.
New Proposal
DHS is proposing to eliminate this protection. If the rule is finalized as written, affected workers would generally be considered out of status beginning the day after their qualifying employment ends unless they have another lawful basis to remain in the United States.
DHS states that the change would more closely tie a worker’s immigration status to the employment that supports that status and reduce the administrative burden associated with determining whether the grace period applies.
Importantly, this is only a proposed rule. The current 60-day grace period remains in effect at this time.
The public comment period is open through November 10, 2026. After reviewing public comments, DHS may modify the proposal and issue a final rule.
In this blog post we bring you some important developments impacting visa applicants in September.
First, the U.S. government has resumed immigrant visa processing for applicants in Hungary and Poland, while processing restrictions remain in place in a number of other countries.
The broader pause was connected to changes in how the Department of State evaluates applicants under the public charge rules and additional training for consular officers.
The cost of sponsoring an H-1B worker could soon change dramatically.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has proposed a new $103,265 fee for H-1B cap-subject petitions—on top of the government filing fees employers already pay.
The proposal was published in the Federal Register on August 25, 2026.
Who Would Have to Pay?
The proposed six-figure fee would apply to H-1B petitions subject to the annual cap, including beneficiaries selected under the 20,000-visa U.S. advanced degree exemption.
Importantly, the fee would apply whether the petition requests:
The $103,265 payment would be due when the employer files the H-1B petition—not during the initial H-1B registration process.
Who Would Not Be Affected?
The proposal is limited to cap-subject cases.
Cap-exempt H-1B petitions would not be subject to the new fee. This generally includes H-1B extensions and qualifying petitions filed by cap-exempt organizations, such as certain universities, nonprofit research organizations, and governmental research organizations.
On August 21, 2026, a federal judge struck down the Trump administration policy that blocked immigrant visa issuance for nationals of 75 countries, allowing the green card process to resume for thousands of family- and employment-based green card applicants.
The policy, which took effect in January 2026, directed U.S. consulates to pause immigrant visa issuance for nationals of 75 countries identified by the State Department as presenting a higher risk of relying on public benefits.
These countries included:
Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burma, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Colombia, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, The Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyz Republic, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Pakistan, Republic of the Congo, Russia, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, and Yemen.
Although applicants could continue submitting documents and attending interviews, many could not actually receive their immigrant visas solely because of their nationality.
The public charge rule is changing again, and this time USCIS will be allowed to look at a much wider range of government benefits.
But before you panic about Medicaid, SNAP, housing assistance, or other benefits, ask one question first:
Does the public charge rule even apply to you?
In this blog post, we break this down so you don’t have to.
When does the public charge rule take effect?
The new USCIS guidance takes effect September 18, 2026, and applies to Forms I-485 postmarked or electronically submitted on or after that date.
Here is the easiest way to figure out where you stand.
Step 1: Are You Even Subject to the Public Charge Rule?
Public charge does not apply to every immigrant.
As a general rule, most people applying to become permanent residents are subject to public charge rules, unless Congress has specifically exempted your immigration category.
You Are Generally Subject to Public Charge If You Are Applying for a Green Card Through:
| Immigration Category | Public Charge? |
| Spouse of a U.S. citizen | YES |
| Parent of a U.S. citizen | YES |
| Child of a U.S. citizen | YES |
| Family-preference categories F1, F2A, F2B, F3 or F4 | YES |
| K-1 fiancé(e) adjusting status | YES |
| Employment-based EB-1 | YES |
| Employment-based EB-2, including many NIW applicants | YES |
| Employment-based EB-3 | YES |
| EB-4 applicants unless separately exempt | Generally YES |
| EB-5 investors | YES |
| Diversity Visa adjustment | YES |
In other words, being sponsored by your U.S. citizen spouse does not exempt you. Neither does having an approved employment petition or qualifying for an EB-2 National Interest Waiver.
Recent developments in U.S. immigration law and immigration enforcement have changed the risks associated with both international and domestic travel for certain noncitizens.
This does not mean that all travel is unsafe or that every person with a pending immigration case should avoid traveling.
However, beginning August 13, 2026, your immigration history, current status, prior periods of unlawful presence, and pending applications may significantly affect whether travel is advisable.
For this reason, individuals with unresolved immigration-status issues should carefully review their circumstances before making any travel plans on or after August 13th.
Major Change to International Travel With Advance Parole
One of the most significant recent developments involves Advance Parole.
Advance Parole is a travel document that may allow certain noncitizens—including some applicants with a pending Form I-485 Application to Adjust Status—to temporarily leave the United States and regain admission using advance parole after temporary foreign travel.
For years, many applicants relied on the rule established in Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly, 25 I&N Dec. 771 (BIA 2012), which generally held that temporary international travel under Advance Parole was not considered a “departure” for purposes of the unlawful-presence bar addressed in that case.
That rule has now changed.
On August 13, 2026, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) issued its precedential decision in Matter of Delcarmen-Lara, 29 I&N Dec. 830 (BIA 2026). The BIA expressly overruled Arrabally and Yerrabelly and held that leaving the United States pursuant to Advance Parole can constitute a “departure” under INA § 212(a)(9)(B).
This is an important change because departure from the United States can trigger serious immigration consequences for individuals who previously accumulated unlawful presence.
Visa Lawyer Blog