Visa Lawyer Blog

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

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
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

by

haiti-162313_1280On Friday June 27, 2025, the Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem announced that the government will not renew Temporary Protected Status (TPS) benefits for Haiti once the current designation expires on August 3, 2025.

Beneficiaries will be granted a 60-day transition period to make preparations to either depart the United States or seek alternative lawful immigration status in the United States, before Haiti’s designation officially terminates on September 2, 2025.

Employment Authorization

Continue reading

by

lawyer-3819044_1280The growing presence of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials at immigration courthouses nationwide has prompted several states to enact laws preventing ICE from arresting or detaining individuals attending their immigration hearings.

One such law passed by the state of New York is the “Protect Our Courts Act,” which shields individuals from being arrested by federal immigration authorities like ICE while traveling to, attending, or leaving court proceedings. This law is designed to guarantee that people can access the justice system without fearing immigration-related repercussions. It forbids arrests in these situations unless a judicial warrant or court order is shown to court personnel.

On June 12th the Justice Department sued the state of New York challenging the constitutionality of the Act under the supremacy clause. The government argues that it unlawfully obstructs federal immigration enforcement operations.

The Trump administration is seeking to invalidate these laws to facilitate detention and removal. According to the government, arrests at courthouses helps prevent individuals from evading authorities and decreases safety risks because of the security offered by courthouses.

In response to the lawsuit, the New York Civil Liberties Union issued a statement defending the state law adding, “This latest attempt by the Trump administration to meddle in our laws would push immigrant communities further into the shadows, throw due process out the window, and weaken trust in our justice system — making everyone less safe. It sends a dangerous message: that ICE can and should operate wherever it wants, regardless of the human cost.”

Continue reading