Visa Lawyer Blog

Articles Posted in White House

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

judge-8779957_1280In a significant victory for civil rights and immigrant advocacy groups, a federal appeals court has upheld a lower court’s decision to temporarily block federal immigration agents from conducting immigration-related arrests in Los Angeles without reasonable suspicion.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued the ruling late Friday, marking a major legal development in the ongoing battle over immigration enforcement and constitutional protections.

At the heart of the case is the question of whether federal agents can detain individuals based solely on generalized characteristics such as race, ethnicity, or language. The appeals court was clear: they cannot.

A Firm Rejection of Racial Profiling

The three-judge panel ruled that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other federal agents cannot use factors like “apparent race, ethnicity, speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent, particular location, and type of work” as the basis for reasonable suspicion to stop an individual. Even taken together, the court stated, these characteristics form only a broad profile and fail to meet the legal standard required for a lawful stop.

“We agree with the district court that…these factors do not demonstrate reasonable suspicion for any particular stop,” the panel wrote, emphasizing the constitutional protections that apply to all individuals, regardless of immigration status.

Continue reading

by

interview-7323656_1280Starting September 2, 2025, the U.S. Department of State will implement major changes that limit eligibility for nonimmigrant visa interview waivers.

Under the State Department’s new revised policy, most applicants—including children under 14 and adults over 79—will be required to attend an in-person interview with a U.S. consular officer, with limited exceptions.

This new policy replaces the previous Interview Waiver Update issued on February 18, 2025, and will significantly impact individuals seeking to travel to the United States on a nonimmigrant visa including workers seeking to renew their visas.

Who Can Still Qualify for an Interview Waiver After September 2?

Although the new rules tighten overall interview requirements, certain applicants may still be eligible for an interview waiver, including:

  1. Certain Diplomatic and Official Visa Holders

Applicants under the following visa classes are exempt from the interview requirement:

  • A-1, A-2 (representatives of foreign governments)
  • C-3 (excluding attendants or personal staff)
  • G-1 through G-4 (representatives of international organizations)
  • NATO-1 through NATO-6
  • TECRO E-1 (Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office officials)
  1. Diplomatic or Official-Type Visa Applicants

Those applying for visas that support diplomatic or governmental missions may still be eligible for interview waivers.

  1. Applicants Renewing Certain B Visas or Border Crossing Cards

Applicants may qualify for an interview waiver if they meet all the following conditions:

Continue reading

by

programming-8450423_1280A new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposed rule known as RIN 1615-AD01 “Weighted Selection Process for Registrants and Petitioners Seeking to File Cap-Subject H-1B Petitions,” seeks to make radical changes to the selection process for new H-1B specialty occupation cap-subject visas.

On Thursday last week, the proposed rule was quietly sent to the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for review.

If approved, USCIS will publish the proposed rule in the Federal Register for public comment. Once the comment period has closed, USCIS will review the public comments and submit a final rule in the Federal Register with a future effective date.

What is the H-1B Visa Program

The H-1B visa program allows U.S. employers to temporarily hire foreign workers in specialty occupations that require specialized knowledge and at least a bachelor’s degree.

Each fiscal year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) conducts a random lottery to select enough applicants to fill the government’s annual H-1B visa quota of 85,000 visas—65,000 for regular applicants and 20,000 allocated for workers with advanced degrees from U.S. institutions.

Due to high demand, a lottery system is used to randomly select from the pool of eligible registrations submitted by employers each spring. Selected applicants can then file full H-1B petitions for USCIS adjudication.

Continue reading

by

dollar-2931882_1280On Tuesday, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will issue a Federal Register notice enforcing new fees for certain immigration benefit requests postmarked on or after July 22, 2025. Benefit requests submitted to the agency without the proper fees will be rejected.

These new fees are part of the H.R. 1 Reconciliation Bill. A portion of these new fees will be deposited into a U.S. Treasury account that primarily funds the operations of USCIS.

Please be aware that the Federal Register Notice does not include all the new fees mandated by the new bill. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will issue a future announcement regarding the implementation of fees that have not been addressed in Tuesday’s notice.

What are the new fees?

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
Gavin_Newsom_by_Gage_Skidmore

Attribution: Gage Skidmore

On Friday July 11, 2025, a federal judge ruled that the government’s ongoing immigration raids in Southern California and its denial of legal counsel to detained immigrants likely violates the Constitution.

In so ruling, the court issued two temporary restraining orders (TROs) barring the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other federal agencies from continuing these actions in the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo. (Pedro Vasquez Perdomo v. Kristi Noem (2:25-cv-05605)

The first TRO prohibits immigration agents from stopping individuals without reasonable suspicion and bars law enforcement from relying solely on the following factors—alone or in combination—to form reasonable suspicion for a stop including (1) apparent race or ethnicity (2) speaking Spanish or English with an accent (3) presence in a particular location like a bus stop, car wash, day laborer pick up site, or agricultural site, or (4) the type of work the person does.

The second TRO orders DHS to provide access to counsel on weekdays, weekends, and holidays for those who are detained in B-18, the basement of a federal building in downtown Los Angeles located at 300 North Los Angeles Street.

It further requires immigration officials to develop guidance on how agents and officers should determine whether “reasonable suspicion” exists when conducting stops and to implement training for officers involved in immigration operations.

In addition to immigration officers, the TROs apply to the FBI and Justice Department, who are named in the lawsuit and are involved in immigration enforcement actions.

Continue reading

by

prison-370112_1280A new lawsuit filed by a man detained in San Diego, California, is challenging the controversial practice of courthouse arrests by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) taking place in recent months. The case could offer critical insight into the government’s approach in making these arrests. (A.M. v. Larose (3:25-cv-01412))

The man identified in court filings as A.M. is seeking asylum in the United States after being subjected to torture in his home country from his human rights advocacy. On June 3, he arrived for what he believed would be a routine immigration court hearing but was shocked to find that the judge had dismissed his case and ICE agents were waiting outside, ready to arrest him and take him to Otay Mesa’s Detention Facility to eventually be deported.

Unfortunately, A.M.’s case is not unique. In recent months, the Trump administration has enforced a controversial policy in immigration courts to expedite deportations by instructing judges to swiftly dismiss cases, subjecting individuals to expedited removal without giving them a meaningful opportunity to contest the government’s claims or consult attorneys.

This approach, detailed in a May 30 directive from the Executive Office for Immigration Review, encourages judges to grant oral motions to dismiss without the standard 10-day response period, effectively eliminating opportunities for individuals to contest their cases. Once dismissed, individuals are immediately eligible for expedited removal, making it possible for ICE officers to arrest them.

Continue reading

by

gavel-7499921_1280In a stunning turn of events, on Tuesday a federal judge in New York blocked the Trump administration from ending Temporary Protected Status (TPS) benefits for Haitians ahead of schedule, ruling that DHS violated the law in attempting to strip deportations and work permits from over half a million Haitians.

The ruling comes in response to the Department of Homeland Security’s abrupt announcement that it would be terminating Haiti’s TPS designation effective September 2, 2025.

In a decision issued Tuesday, District Court Judge Brian M. Cogan found that accelerating the program’s expiration by at least five months was unlawful and that the government failed to follow required procedures mandated by Congress, such as conducting a review of current conditions in Haiti before ending its TPS designation—a requirement that was not followed in this case.

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