Visa Lawyer Blog

Articles Posted in White House

by

brittani-burns-98uYQ-KupiE-unsplash-scaled

Key Takeaways

  • The Supreme Court terminated Haiti and Syria’s TPS status on June 25th
  • Approximately, 350,000 individuals will lose their work authorization and be subject to removal
  • Affected individuals must seek alternative legal status immediately to avoid removal proceedings once the transition period ends.

On July 1, 2026, DHS and USCIS set a temporary expiration date of July 10, 2026 for work permits held by Temporary Protected Status beneficiaries from seven countries (Haiti, Syria, Burma, Yemen, Ethiopia, South Sudan, and Somalia), after a Supreme Court ruling cleared the way for the government to end those protections.

On June 25th the Supreme Court ruled that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) can move forward with ending TPS for certain countries specifically Haiti and Syria even while other smaller legal battles about those terminations continue in lower courts.

Although the deadline for some countries could still be extended while lower court cases continue, DHS has described any continued relief as temporary.

Continue reading

by

ralphs_fotos-banner-3585161-scaledOn June 30, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected President Trump’s attempt to restrict birthright citizenship, ruling that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present in the country are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The 6-3 decision, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, marks a major ruling on the meaning of American citizenship and the limits of executive power in immigration policy.

The case, Trump v. Barbara, centered on Executive Order 14160, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.”

The order sought to deny automatic U.S. citizenship to certain children born in the United States if neither parent was a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. Specifically, it targeted children born to mothers who were either unlawfully present or lawfully present on a temporary basis, such as on a student, work, or tourist visa, when the father was not a U.S. citizen or green card holder.

The Supreme Court held that the executive order violated the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That clause provides that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States and of the state where they reside. The Court concluded that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present are still “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore are citizens at birth.

Continue reading

by

succo-hammer-1675156_1280In another rapid development surrounding the controversial $100,000 H-1B consular processing fee, a federal court has temporarily allowed U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to continue collecting the fee while the government’s appeal moves forward.

Employers and foreign workers should prepare for continued uncertainty as the litigation unfolds.

What Happened?

On June 8, 2026, a federal district court in Massachusetts struck down USCIS’s implementation of the $100,000 H-1B fee, finding significant legal issues with the policy. However, just four days later, on June 12, 2026, the same court temporarily paused its ruling after the government filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

As a result, USCIS currently retains the authority to continue collecting the $100,000 fee for qualifying H-1B petitions involving consular notification while the appellate court reviews the case.

The government must formally request a stay from the First Circuit by June 18, 2026, for the temporary reinstatement to remain in effect.

The appeal is pending in State of California, et al. v. Mullin, et al., No. 26-1699 (1st Cir. June 12, 2026).

Continue reading

by

artsybeekids-capitol-5660507-scaledThe U.S. Senate has approved legislation providing approximately $70 billion in additional funding for immigration enforcement, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Border Patrol. The measure passed by a 52-47 vote and now moves to the House of Representatives.

The bill significantly expands the administration’s immigration enforcement capabilities and provides substantial resources for detention, deportation, and border security operations through the remainder of President Trump’s term.

A major point of controversy was the bill’s inclusion of a $1.8 billion settlement fund connected to President Trump’s lawsuit over the disclosure of his tax records. Efforts to eliminate or restrict the fund failed, and the Senate ultimately passed the legislation without placing limits on how the money may be distributed.

The legislation marks one of the largest investments in federal immigration enforcement in recent years and reflects the administration’s continued focus on expanding immigration enforcement nationwide.

Continue reading

by

the-now-time-KXUKLB-_Sb0-unsplash-1-scaledOn Friday, June 5, a federal judge struck down several Trump administration immigration policies that targeted asylum seekers and halted the processing of immigration benefit applications for individuals from 39 countries, finding that the administration had exceeded its legal authority.

Last year, the administration paused asylum case processing and suspended immigration benefit applications for affected individuals subject to the travel ban for an undetermined period of time, leaving millions of immigrants across the United States facing uncertainty about their legal status.

In a lengthy 135-page court opinion, Chief U.S. District Judge John McConnell found that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) acted unlawfully by implementing broad restrictions without authorization from Congress or established regulations. The court concluded that the policy unfairly targeted applicants based on their country of origin and violated federal immigration and administrative law.

The opinion comes after several plaintiff organizations including Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island and Refugee Dream Center filed a lawsuit in federal court arguing that thousands of individuals were prevented from obtaining lawful immigration benefits despite meeting eligibility requirements. The ruling reinforces the principle that immigration agencies must follow existing law and cannot create sweeping restrictions without proper legal authority.

Continue reading

by

markus-spiske-RX-BevgxSXs-unsplash-scaledIn a policy memorandum released today, just ahead of the Memorial Day holiday, the Trump administration announced that temporary visa holders seeking green cards should leave the United States and complete their immigration process through consular processing in their home countries.

But is adjustment of status completely off the table? No. While the government has made clear that individuals intending to immigrate to the United States are generally expected to pursue immigrant visas abroad, adjustment of status remains a discretionary pathway to a green card.

When deciding whether to exercise discretion to grant adjustment of status in the United States, USCIS officers will apply a “totality of the circumstances” analysis, weighing both favorable and unfavorable factors before reaching a decision.

Overview

For decades, Adjustment of Status has been one of the most reliable pathways to apply for a green card for immigrants already living in the U.S., who entered the country lawfully. This process has involved filing the I-485, remaining in the country while the green card case is pending, waiting for an interview, and receiving a final approval.

The ability to apply for adjustment of status has not been taken away with today’s announcement, however, the sense of security that applicants once had has been blurred.

The Policy Memorandum

In its policy memorandum, the government stressed that individuals admitted to the United States on temporary visas (tourist, student, work visas, etc.) are generally expected to leave the country rather than pursue Adjustment of Status from inside the U.S.

Instead, those wishing to remain in the U.S. permanently are expected to apply for an immigrant visa from abroad. But today’s announcement does not prevent those who qualify from seeking adjustment of status, although applicants should exercise greater caution and understand that certain factors may negatively affect their chances of approval.

Continue reading

by

elin-melaas-rAfpEO53684-unsplash-scaledWe are pleased to report that the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs has published the June 2026 Visa Bulletin.

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

Adjustment of Status Chart

For adjustment of status filings to permanent residence in the month of June, USCIS will continue using the Dates for Filing Chart for family-sponsored categories only.

For employment-based categories, USCIS will also continue using the Final Action Dates Chart.

   Highlights of the June 2026 Visa Bulletin

At a Glance

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

Employment-Based Categories

Final Action Advancements

EB-1 Aliens of extraordinary ability, Outstanding Professors and Researchers, and Certain Multinational Managers or Executives

  • EB-1 India will retrogress 3.5 months to December 15, 2022
  • Except China, all other countries remain current

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

  • EB-2 India will retrogress 10.4 months to September 1, 2013
  • Except China, all other countries remain current

Continue reading

by

mohamed_hassan-graduation-7077409_1280
The White House is reviewing a proposed federal rule (RIN: 1653-AA95) that could change how international students maintain legal status in the United States. The proposal, submitted by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), would replace the long-standing “duration of status” framework with fixed-term limits for student visas.

If finalized, the rule would affect students on F-1 visas, as well as some exchange visitors and foreign media. Under the current system, international students can remain in the U.S. for as long as they are enrolled full-time and comply with visa requirements.

The proposed change would instead impose a four-year stay limit before students would need to apply for a renewal of their status.

Continue reading

by

d4rkwzd-recruitment-6838250_1280The Trump administration has introduced a new visa screening policy at consulate interviews that could make it harder for people with potential asylum claims to enter the United States.

According to the Washington Post, consular officers are now directed to ask nonimmigrant visa applicants whether they have been persecuted in their home country, or fear harm if they return.

That question may sound harmless, but the consequences are significant. If an applicant says they have suffered harm/mistreatment in their country, or fear harm/mistreatment in returning home, their visa could be denied. If they say they do not fear returning to their home country and later apply for asylum in the United States, the government may use that earlier answer against them. This creates a serious dilemma for people who may genuinely need protection in the future.

The policy appears designed to screen potential asylum claims before an applicant ever reaches U.S. soil. Under U.S. asylum law, a person generally must be physically present in the United States or arrive at a U.S. border to request asylum. By using the visa process to flag and deny applicants who may later seek protection, the government could stop some individuals from ever getting the chance to present their asylum claims.

This change could especially affect people from countries facing political violence, religious persecution, war, government abuse, or targeted discrimination. Students, tourists, workers, and business visitors may all face difficult questions if they have legitimate reasons to travel to the U.S. on temporary visas but also fear returning home.

Continue reading

by

publicdomainpictures-passport-315266_1920According to a recent New York Times article, the Justice Department is reportedly preparing to expand efforts to strip citizenship from naturalized Americans, identifying 384 people whose citizenship it may try to revoke.

These cases may be assigned to prosecutors across 39 U.S. attorney’s offices, which could mean a sharp increase in denaturalization cases.

What’s Denaturalization?

Continue reading