Visa Lawyer Blog

Articles Posted in Politics

by

washington-dc-4457050_1280

In the wake of a deadly shooting of two National Guard members in Washington, D.C., U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has been instructed to pause all asylum decisions until further notice.

Asylum officers at USCIS, a branch of the Department of Homeland Security, have been told to refrain from approving, denying or closing affirmative asylum applications received by the agency.

The directive comes after authorities reported that the perpetrator of the shooting was an Afghan national who had previously been granted asylum.

Officials have framed the pause as a measure to “reassess immigration and vetting procedures” in light of public safety concerns. This decision will create delays for thousands of asylum seekers who are already navigating a complex and uncertain system.

In-person appointments for applicants seeking updates on their cases are also canceled until further notice.

According to internal guidance, officers may continue conducting asylum interviews and reviewing cases up to the point of issuing a decision. “Once you’ve reached decision entry, stop and hold,” the directive stated.

On November 28th USCIS Director Joseph Edlow confirmed the news on X.

Continue reading

by

payment-terminal-6400952_1280On September 19, 2025, the President issued a Proclamation on the Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers, requiring any new H-1B petitions to include an additional $100,000 payment as a condition for eligibility.

Following the President’s announcement, USCIS released clarification on the new fee requirement, specifying that the surcharge only applies to new H-1B petitions filed on or after 12:01 a.m. EDT on September 21, 2025. The fee is triggered only when the foreign national beneficiary is outside the United States at the time the petition is filed, and the petition requires visa issuance at a U.S. or port of entry notification.

Importantly, the USCIS guidance also clarifies who is exempt from the surcharge. For example, H-1B petitions filed before the effective date are not subject to the fee. Additionally, individuals already in H-1B status in the U.S.—such as those seeking extensions, amendments, or a change of employer—are not required to pay the surcharge under the current guidance. The responsibility for paying the fee rests with the petitioner (employer), and proof of payment must be included with the petition at the time of filing. USCIS instructs employers to submit the required fee using pay.gov, following the payment instructions.  

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

raul-najera-TAqspfWom04-unsplash-1-scaledOn September 18, 2025, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) published a notice in the Federal Register announcing the implementation of a newly revised civics test for naturalization applicants, known as the 2025 Naturalization Civics Test.

This updated version builds on the 2020 test—and will replace the existing 2008 civics examination for most applicants.

The civics test remains a key component of the naturalization process, intended to evaluate an applicant’s knowledge of U.S. history, government, and civic responsibilities. While the English language portion of the test remains unchanged, the civics section has been updated to improve clarity and educational relevance.

What’s New & What’s the Same

  • The 2025 Civics Test builds off the 2020 version (which had been previously introduced by the Trump administration but not widely used), making modifications in content and procedure.
  • About 75% of the questions come from the 2008 test—some carried over exactly, others reworded or updated to reflect current educational goals. The rest (~25%) are entirely new content. Some 2008 questions were removed altogether.
  • English‑language requirements remain the same. The focus is on updating the civics portion only.

Key Changes in Test Procedure

  • The question bank used is the same 128‑question bank that had been introduced in 2020.
  • Applicants will be asked up to 20 questions and must answer at least 12 correctly to pass.
  • A procedural change: the USCIS officer can stop asking additional questions once the applicant either passes (i.e. reaches 12 correct answers) or fails (i.e. accumulates 9 incorrect answers). This reduces extra, unnecessary questions for both parties.

Continue reading

by

prison-370112_1280Introducing sweeping changes, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has expanded its role by gaining law enforcement powers previously limited to agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

Under a new final rule published today, USCIS will now recruit 1,811-classified special agents—fully empowered officers with authority—to investigate, arrest, and prosecute individuals violating U.S. immigration laws.

What’s Changed?

  • Law Enforcement Authority: The newly designated USCIS special agents are authorized to carry firearms, execute search and arrest warrants, make arrests, and use force—including in pursuit and potentially lethal situations—under standard federal law enforcement protocols.
  • Operational Autonomy: Previously, USCIS investigations—especially those involving criminal violations—were referred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
  • Enforcement Agency: Now, USCIS itself can manage law enforcement investigations from start to finish, including investigating civil and criminal violations within the jurisdiction of USCIS and ordering expedited removal when warranted.

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

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

hand-634653_1280In a recent interview with the New York Times, published on July 25th the new director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Joseph Edlow told reporters that the agency is planning sweeping changes to the way the agency awards visas for H-1B high-skilled workers in specialty occupations.

Under current provisions, USCIS conducts a random lottery to select enough applicants to fill the government’s annual H-1B visa quota of 85,000 visas. But that may all soon change.

As we reported last week, the government has been quietly advancing efforts to reform the H-1B visa selection process. On Thursday last week, the Department of Homeland Security submitted a proposed rule—RIN 1615-AD01, titled “Weighted Selection Process for Registrants and Petitioners Seeking to File Cap-Subject H-1B Petitions” aimed at significantly restructuring the selection system for cap-subject H-1B specialty occupation visas. The proposal is now under review by the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

It has not yet been made public, but once approved, the government is required to publish the proposed rule in the Federal Register for public comment as part of the formal rulemaking process.

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

media-998990_1280On June 18, 2025, the State Department announced that U.S. Embassies and Consulates around the world will resume scheduling appointments for F, M, and J nonimmigrant visas, introducing new guidance that includes stricter vetting procedures and an expanded review of applicants’ social media activity.

Moving forward, all F, M, and J nonimmigrants applying for visas at U.S. Consulates overseas will be instructed to change their social media privacy settings to “public” so that they can be reviewed by Consular officers. Those who fail to comply may be presumed to be evading the vetting process and risk having their application denied.

Under the State Department’s new policy that views a U.S. visa as a privilege rather than a right, these enhanced screening and vetting measures aim to identify individuals who may present a threat to our national security.

As part of the process, visa officers will closely examine applications to confirm both the applicant’s eligibility for the requested visa and their intent to carry out activities aligned with the purpose of their entry into the United States. Internal guidance sent to Consular officers also states that officers should look for, “any indications of hostility toward the citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles of the United States.”

Continue reading