Chaos maxing in corporate immigration.

improvisation by proclamation

On September 19, the President issued a proclamation requiring U.S. employers to pay a one-time $100,000 fee with any new H-1B petition filed on behalf of a worker outside the United States: with exemptions for petitions already filed before the effective date and for renewals. The proclamation, effective 12:01 a.m. on September 22, 2025, directs USCIS to deny petitions not accompanied by proof of payment (for which there is no guidance) and instructs consular officers to refuse visas if the fee has not been paid, unless it is subject to a national interest exception (for which there is also no guidance).

Companies panicked, the administration strived to explain, and there was something about a gold card. The lawyers, who understand the H-1B laws, understood very little of the rule.

A Howard Lutnick press conference, subsequent White House statements, and a slew of social media postings have both clarified and contradicted earlier signals. Somewhat less confusing than the tweets would be the update from the Department of State and the FAQ from USCIS.

Laws are composed of words. The meanings of the words are, in real sense, the laws. Unfortunately, the proclamation opted not to utilize the words used in the instructions and regulations, but rather simply referred to “new” petitions and “renewals”—terms that don’t exist in practice, which instead utilize:

• Initial petitions: the first-ever H-1B petition for a foreign national;
  
  
• Extensions: continued employment with the same employer, changes of employment within the same employer, or change of employer cases; and
  
  
• Amendments: modifications that don’t alter the expiration date.
  
  If “new” = “initial” and “renewal” = “extension,” then the fee would apply only to first-time H-1B filings: were the laws so simple. Rather, we are left to grasp with the following scenarios.
  
  
• Filing a petition for a change of employer: Are these “new” petitions requiring the fee? We don’t know!
  
  
• Application to change to H-1B status: INA §212(f) grants the President certain authority authority relating to the “entry” of foreign nationals for reasons relating to foreign policy and national security. Logically, in-country changes would be exempt. Yet USCIS memos imply the fee applies to all filings post-September 21, regardless of beneficiary location. So who knows!
  
  
• Petitions to extension H-1B status: Is a petition filed after September 21, for a beneficiary with a previously-approved petition, a “renewal?” Probably. But then: why not just call them “extensions” instead of “renewals?”
  
  
• Travel and stamping: What if you are here in the U.S., in H-1B status, but plan on leaving to obtain a visa stamp? We’re waiting to find out!
  
  
• A past beneficiary of an H-1B visa is outside the U.S.: the USCIS memo guides that the proclamation does notably to beneficiaries of currently approved petitions, but that it does apply to prospective petitions to those outside the U.S. So . . .
  
  
• And more, we’re quite sure.
  
  Whether this qualifies as a matter of national security or foreign policy emergency for the purposes of INA §212(f), such that it can override Congress’s detailed H-1B framework, will be a matter for litigation. For now, H-1B holders continue to be admitted at ports of entry without incident.Those selected in the H-1B lottery for 2026, with petitions filed before September 21, 2025, appear safe, while we can assume that those selected in the 2027 lottery (in March 2026) will be subject. Everything else is, as above, TBD.
  
  The H-1B has been a target of the Trump administration(s) since 2020, when a wage-based lottery rule attempted to prioritize high earners, which was then struck down. Fees have continued to rise, slowly pricing out smaller employers. Crackdowns on IT consulting firms that spammed the lottery with essentially bogus registrations were welcomed by some, particularly by the linking of registrations to individual beneficiaries.
  
  Indian professionals, the majority of H-1B recipients already facing massive green card backlogs will be the most affected by this (and other recent changes, as discussed last week). Smaller firms and startup will be among the first priced out. Indeed, foreign policy concerns may may have been at play. As may have more base concerns.
  
  this week in free speech, immigration version
  
  Over the past two weeks, litigation and new data on large-scale student visa revocations have sharpened concerns about “continuous vetting.” These developments illustrate how SEVIS terminations, social media reviews, and proposed changes to D/S admissions are converging into a system where status, unlawful presence, and eligibility are constantly re-evaluated as a means of policing political opinion and minor (and often erroneous) civil and criminal charges.
  
  More than 6,000 student and exchange visas have been revoked in 2025, within a reported (though I’ve not confirmed) total of about 40,000 revocations across all categories. Officials also report that over 55 million visa holders are now subject to real-time screening, with “derogatory” flags triggered not only by terrorism alerts but also by SEVIS irregularities or social media activity.
  
  Court filings and press reports indicate that Canary Mission dossiers and social media posts were referenced in the case involving the detention of Tufts PhD student Rümeysa Öztürk earlier this year, following the quiet revocation of her F-1 visa. While a federal court ordered her release, litigation continues over whether SEVIS and First Amendment protections were violated.
  
  Others students & scholars targeting find themselves in an increasingly vulnerable position due to the blurring of the lines between the concepts of being “out of status” and “unlawfully present.” For students admitted with “Duration of Status” (D/S), unlawful presence should only begin when USCIS or an immigration judge makes a formal violation finding. But once unlawful presence is triggered, even a single day can void a visa and bar reentry. As we’ve discussed, the Department of Homeland Security is proposing to change the admission period for students, scholars, and foreign media to classifications from D/S to a fixed period, after which unlawful presence would be immediately triggered.
  
  The upshot is that technical, often mistaken violations and outspoken political opinions can trigger status violations with dramatic consequences both for those within and outside of the U.S. via SEVIS termination, visa revocation, and judicial removal from the U.S.
  
  The measures have had their intended effect in terms of freezing out prospective students. As reported by the American Immigration Lawyers Association:
  
  In March of this year, DOS revoked the visas and terminated the SEVIS records of over 4700 international students (some of whom have since had their statuses restored). In May, DOS paused interview appointmentsfor F, M, and J visas, to allow consular posts to evaluate their processes and expand social media vetting criteria for these visa types. Student visa interview appointments did not resume until June 18, 2025. On June 4, 2025, the president issued a proclamation banning nationals of 12 countries from entering the U.S. and imposing a partial entry ban on nationals of an additional 7 countries, further hindering international students’ ability to study in the U.S. . . .
  
  International student visa issuances dropped significantly this spring, with DOS issuing “12,689 fewer F-1 visas in May 2025 compared to May 2024.” This 22% decline in F-1 visa issuance reflects the burden that increased vetting has put on consular posts – vetting means that each appointment now requires additional time due to heightened scrutiny, reducing the number of available appointments.
  
  As the op-ed states (per FAFSA), international students contributed nearly $44 billion to the U.S. economy and supported almost 400,00 U.S. jobs in just the 2023-2024 academic year alone.
  
  this week in judicial independence
  
  EOIR (the immigration court system)’s new Policy Memorandum 25-47 (Sept. 12, 2025) sets court-level performance standards for case completion, motions practice, and asylum review timelines, specifically:
  • 95% of detained cases done in 60 days
  • 95% of non-detained cases in 365 days
  • 95% of motions decided in 30 days (5 days for custody redeterminations)
  • 100% of credible fear reviews within 7 days and reasonable fear reviews within 10
  • 100% of expedited asylum cases within statutory deadlines
  
  EOIR emphasizes these are not individual judge quotas (a policy widely criticized under the prior administration). Instead, Assistant Chief Immigration Judges will track performance at the court level, with “specialized attention” (extra resources, planning, or intervention) if a court misses its benchmarks. However, this continues the trend that we’ve been noting of sustained pressure on immigration judges to accelerate adjudications: specifically, removal (deportation) orders. Inevitably, the changes will favor the lawyers for the DHS and increase the burden on the foreign nationals who are not entitled to representation. For those who can find counsel, the lawyers themselves will continue to struggle to adequately prepare under these constraints within one of the most complicated areas of law.
  
  Certainly, the backlogs themselves cause substantial harm to the system itself and to those caught inside of it. However, compressing timelines without providing adequate resources (indeed, what we’ve seen instead is the firing of highly experienced immigration judges) might instead have the opposite effect of compounding errors and thus appeals and motions.
  
  reminder: we voted for this
  
  ICE held 10,500 people in solitary confinement within one year; those with health issues were held twice as long as before. And we’re moving resources away from child predators and towards DACA recipients and U.S. citizens.

Matthew Blaisdell, Esq.
Sunset Immigration PLLC
219 36th Street, Ste 511
Brooklyn, NY 11232
Book appointment

Things keep getting harder for Indians on H-1Bs, the legal context behind the Hyundai raid, and a TPS roundup.

H-1B enforcement, in contextSeveral recent developments related to employment-based visas, coincidentally or not, have a cumulatively negative effect one nationality in particular.

The backlog

For Indian nationals, the current employment-based visa drought is the bottleneck that drives nearly everything else. The Department of State (DOS) published updates leaving EB-1 and EB-2 effectively closed until the October Bulletin (when visas for the coming fiscal year are released), with long-standing cutoffs for India, meaning otherwise-approvable cases are paused until new numbers are released and only if the priority date is current. Last week, EB-3 joined the list.

The just-published October Bulletin notes that EB-1 remains stuck at February 15, 2022, while EB-2 and EB-3 move forward only three months (to April 2013 and August 2013, respectively).

The implications for H-1B holders

Because Indians comprise the clear majority of newly approved H-1Bs—consistently ~70% of approvals in recent years—the EB slowdowns cascade onto a very large H-1B population that must keep their nonimmigrant status in good order for years while they wait.

Congress anticipated this problem back in 2000 with AC21. Two core AC21 tools keep long-waiting beneficiaries in authorized H-1B status past the normal six-year limit: (1) one-year extensions under §106(a)/(b) when a PERM or I-140 has been pending ≥365 days; and (2) three-year extensions under §104(c) when the I-140 is approved but the immigrant visa is not yet available. USCIS memorialized this framework in policy memoranda and it remains the backbone of H-1B maintenance for those stuck in the EB queue.

The obstacle of visa stamping

That long wait also forces travel churn. Workers who change employers, renew passports, or simply haven’t had a visa foil (“stamp”) in years often need a new visa issuance abroad to return after travel. DOS now emphasizes that the place of immigrant-visa application is tied to residence (i.e., “principal, actual dwelling place”), not nationality: see implementation in the Foreign Affairs Manual at 9 FAM 504.4-8(A). This matters for Indians who reside outside India (e.g., in the Gulf or South East Asia) and for those trying to avoid ultra-backlogged posts, limiting flexibility and pushing them into posts with severe queues.

And now removal proceedings

Overlaying this is USCIS’s revived, across-the-board Notice to Appear (NTA**)** posture. The 2018 NTA memo and USCIS’s February 28, 2025 update state that USCIS will “no longer” exempt classes or categories from potential referral or NTA issuance when a benefit is denied and the person appears removable. That places H-1B workers who miss a filing window, are between jobs, or suffer a denial squarely at risk of being placed into removal proceedings—even if their long-term EB case is meritorious.

An NTA is the charging document that starts removal proceedings once DHS files it with the immigration court; it carries serious downstream consequences (e.g., in-absentia removal if a hearing is missed, detention exposure, and added hurdles for work authorization while proceedings are pending) substantially increasing a worker’s legal risk profile. This has, often erroneously, been happening to H-1B holders.

The upshot

Indians in EB-1/EB-2 backlogs remain on H-1B for many years via AC21; they periodically need visa issuance abroad; DOS’s residence-based routing narrows options for where to apply; and if a petition or extension stumbles—particularly amid new USCIS adjudication trends—USCIS is now more likely to issue an NTA before properly analyzing the situation.

Harassment of Indian communities has elevated among the Trump Administration’s base of support, and while these recent policy changes are not explicitly aimed at Indian nationals, one could certainly connect those dots.

Hyundai raid, in contextA bit more information has come out regarding the basis of the ICE raid at a Hyundai-affiliated EV battery factory construction site, in which over 300 South Korean workers were detained. Reports indicate many were present on B-1 business visas, which are intended for short-term business visits, not long-term employment. The raid triggered outrage in South Korea, where the government launched an inquiry into potential human rights violations.

Why B-1?

The B-1 visa permits business activities such as attending meetings, negotiating contracts, or providing after-sales services like installing, servicing, or repairing equipment purchased from abroad, if such obligations are specified in the contract. What it does not permit is hands-on construction or routine labor.

Employers typically protect themselves in such cases with documentation: the underlying sales contract showing after-sales obligations; letters of invitation detailing the itinerary; proof that wages are paid abroad; and evidence of specialized technical knowledge. Indeed, many companies have successfully sent technicians to the U.S. for installation work on B-1 visas with such safeguards.

ICE’s theory appears to be that the Hyundai workers crossed that line, engaging in unauthorized employment rather than permissible business activity. Whether this nuanced analysis was performed on a huge scale in a single day by guys in armored vehicles chaining workers at their hands and feet before loading them into coaches is another matter.

Why not L-1?

If the issue was employees remaining beyond their B-1 authorized stay, performing “hands-on” work, or otherwise receiving payment in the U.S., some suggest the L-1 visa (for intracompany transferees) might have been a safer fit, since it allows employment with a U.S. entity and can cover specialized knowledge roles. But L-1s require extensive paperwork and often long lead times for approval, with a relatively high denial rate, and are not typically utilized for installation work: impractical for a massive, time-sensitive factory project under political pressure to showcase “foreign investment in U.S. manufacturing.” For short-term installation tied to a sales contract, the B-1 is often the only workable category. Had ICE instead conducted an inspection rather than a raid, offering the employer a chance to respond to any allegations or requests for evidence, the agency could have achieved it’s objectives without creating a diplomatic disaster. But one would expect that from a competent administration: not the one we have.

your TPS roundupSince nothing dramatic took place this week in the world of Temporary Protected Status (TPS), now might be a good time to take a breather and provide a recap of where we’re at. Created in 1990, TPS allows the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to grant temporary lawful presence and work authorization to nationals of countries experiencing armed conflict, environmental disaster, or extraordinary conditions. Designations last six to 18 months at a time and can be extended, but do not themselves provide a path to permanent residency.

Where the programs stand

TPS remains in effect for Myanmar, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Lebanon, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine, and Yemen. Each has an active designation with varying expiration dates: Myanmar (Nov. 25, 2025), El Salvador (Sept. 9, 2026), Ethiopia (Dec. 12, 2025), Lebanon (May 27, 2026), Somalia (Mar. 17, 2026), South Sudan (Nov. 3, 2025), Sudan (Oct. 19, 2026), Syria (Sept. 30, 2025), Ukraine (Oct. 19, 2026), and Yemen (Mar. 3, 2026). Haiti remains active under court order through Feb. 3, 2026, despite DHS announcing termination. By contrast, TPS for Honduras, Nepal, and Nicaragua has been terminated as of late summer 2025. Venezuela’s 2021 designation is scheduled to terminate on Nov. 7, 2025.

Note also that the CHNV Parole program (for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans) has been terminated; related work permits have expired. Parole programs for Ukraine and Afghanistan remain in place, though the U4U program for Ukraine is no longer accepting applications; the only publicly-available guidance stems from an affidavit.

For employers

EADs are valid under automatic extensions, while others may expire abruptly if courts uphold terminations. As we’ve been covering, automatic EAD extensions can differ between USCIS postings and what systems like E-Verify recognize, creating liability traps if HR fails to track expiration dates carefully. Employers should maintain clear protocols for reverification, document any reliance on official USCIS guidance, avoid premature terminations, and cross your fingers.

something betterWhile Iranian nationals are generally subject to the most recent travel ban, a DOS cable specified that members of historically persecuted groups (including, but not limited to: Ahwazi Arabs, Azeris, Baha’i, Balouch, Christians, Jews, Kurds, Sabean-Mandaeans, Sufi Muslims, Sunni Muslims, Yarsans, and Zoroastrians) may process their immigrant visas (green cards) in third countries, rather than being forced to apply in Iran. I guess that’s something.

Matthew Blaisdell, Esq.
Sunset Immigration PLLC
219 36th Street, Ste 511
Brooklyn, NY 11232
Book appointment

context for all the other takes you’ll read

Last night, the Supreme Court temporarily stayed (halted) a district court injunction—a court order telling someone to stop doing something—that restricted federal agents in Los Angeles from making stops the challengers described as racial profiling. The challengers argue that agents violate the Fourth Amendment by acting without reasonable suspicion: meaning specific, articulable facts suggesting that a particular person was unlawfully present in the United States. Instead, they say the stops relied on broad profiles rather than individualized suspicion, which requires objective reasons to suspect that person specifically, not traits shared by large groups.

The Ninth Circuit had largely left the district court’s order in place, but the Trump administration appealed, arguing the injunction tied agents’ hands and that the plaintiffs lacked standing—the rule that plaintiffs must show a direct, likely future injury from the challenged action.

Justice Kavanaugh––concurring in Judge Roberts’ decision––concluded that the challengers likely could not show standing, since they could not demonstrate a likelihood of being stopped again. He added that while race alone cannot create reasonable suspicion, the “totality of the circumstances”—such as gathering places, job types, and language spoken—might do so. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Brown Jackson dissented, warning that the ruling effectively permits Latino workers to be detained on broad profiles rather than individualized suspicion.

We emphasize that the Supreme Court has not decided the Fourth Amendment issue—whether the stops violate the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches and seizures. The case here was about the administration’s application for an emergency stay of the injunction: essentially whether the Ninth Circuit’s temporary injunction should remain in place while the separate, Fourth Amendment case goes forward in the district court.

When the Court decides whether to grant a stay, one factor is whether the appealing party is “likely to succeed on the merits”: thus the discussion about the Fourth Amendment, which were made only in the context of the stay. The Ninth Circuit will now review the injunction more fully, and the underlying case in district court will eventually decide the constitutional questions, almost certainly setting up further appeals for both cases: the injunction and the merits. I think.

expect more waiting for EB-1s & -2s

On September 3, 2025, the Department of State (DOS) announced that the EB-2 immigrant visa category was “unavailable” for the rest of the fiscal year. EB-2 covers employment-based green cards for professionals with advanced degrees (or a bachelor’s plus five years of progressive experience), individuals with exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, and applicants seeking a national interest waiver (NIW). Shortly after, DOS confirmed that the EB-1 category—extraordinary ability, outstanding professors/researchers, and multinational managers/executives—had also reached its annual limit. Neither category will issue additional visas until the government’s new fiscal year begins on October 1, 2025.

For people already in the United States with pending adjustment of status (I-485) applications, adjudications that were otherwise ready to approve will pause until new visa numbers are released in October and only if the applicant’s priority date is current under the new Visa Bulletin. For those processing abroad through consulates (consular processing), interviews may still occur, but immigrant visas cannot be issued until numbers are available again, and again only if the applicant’s priority date is current. The September 2025 Visa Bulletin set EB-1 India at February 15, 2022 and EB-2 India at January 1, 2013; EB-2 China stood at January 1, 2020; both categories had been current for the rest of the world before numbers ran out. When October arrives, the categories reopen, but forward movement may be modest—especially for oversubscribed countries—depending on DOS demand projections.

EB-2 also interlocks with EB-3 (skilled and professional workers). Many applicants “interfile,” shifting between EB-2 and EB-3 based on which category is moving faster in the Visa Bulletin. With EB-2 unavailable and EB-1 also closed out through September 30, pressure can shift toward EB-3, but that can trigger its own retrogression if demand spikes. This likely means additional waiting even after October, governed by whatever the Visa Bulletin shows next.

they were serious about the no-experience part

As we discussed last week, after firing 100 immigration judges that they didn’t like, (and, now, 1/3 of the Judges in San Francisco) the Department of Justice (DOJ) finalized a rule eliminating the requirement that temporary immigration judges have ANY experience in immigration law, then authorized the use of up to 600 military Judge Advocate General (JAG) lawyers to serve temporarily in the immigration courts. Each judge now typically handles roughly 700–800 matters per year (though who knows now given the flux in personnel) primarily determining whether noncitizens can remain in the United States. It’s Justice Alito who stated in Padilla v. Kentucky that “nothing is ever simple in immigration law.”

We’re dealing with a host of federal agencies (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Department of State, and the Department of Labor), many forms available for many benefits, layered with the highly-complicated grounds of inadmissibility and removability, their related waivers, potential eligibility for benefits, potential penalties and forms of relief, and countless regulations, statutes, agency manuals, memoranda, and abstract legal concepts and principles that govern every aspect of immigration practice. But I’m sure it will go fine.

this weeks TPS update

DHS announced that the 2021 TPS (Temporary Protected Status) designation for Venezuela will end on September 10, 2025, with termination to take effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register (November 7, 2025). Expect case-specific questions on employment authorization timing and wind-down periods once the notice publishes.

The State Department now requires most nonimmigrant visa applicants to interview in their country of nationality or residence. Certain nationalities must apply in designated third countries. Limited exceptions remain (e.g., A/G/NATO visas, UN Headquarters Agreement cases, urgent humanitarian need). For immigrant visas, continue to expect jurisdiction to be tied to residence as well; plan for venue constraints and longer lead times where capacity is tight

dumb

USCIS is the agency that give you stuff. It’s where you send your applications and appear for interviews to get permanent residency and citizenship by sitting in a cramped cubicle in front of a messy desk while a someone that looks (at best) straight out of The Office shuffles papers and complains about buggy software. The Trump administration has decided that they also need “special agents” to investigate, carry firearms, execute warrants, and make arrests tied to fraud. Of course, USCIS agents have always investigated fraud (and quite effectively). It seems that instead of additional hardware and software to pour through databases and detect patterns they needed . . . guns.

and dumber

After sending 75 officers in Syracuse with dogs and crowbars to protect the public from Nutrition Bar Confectioners, ICE orchestrated a unit of 500 federal, state, and local officers to the construction site of an EV battery factory linked to Hyundai and LG, arresting 475 individual, primarily from South Korea; it is presumed (though not confirmed) that many entered as business visitors for work related to installations for contractors: a common and appropriate use of the visa, albeit with strict limitations. The South Korean government said it reached a deal to release and repatriate those detained. There have been no statements as to why the appropriateness of the use of certain visas could have not been addressed in a healthy diplomatic manner with one of the nation’s most important allies.

In the Chicago area, local reporting indicates federal agents have staged at Naval Station Great Lakes ahead of planned enforcement actions, including crowd-control training with shields and flash-bang grenades. State and local officials are publicly cautioning against local participation in federal immigration arrests and urging documentation of federal activities.

Somewhat relatedly, preliminary Census Bureau data analyzed by Pew suggest more than 1.2 million immigrants left the U.S. labor force from January through July. Researchers note immigrants constitute nearly 20% of the workforce overall and a much higher share in agriculture, construction, and services. Economists point to a sharp drop in inflows as a key driver of slower job growth capacity.

and still in the year 2025

Using a digital signature may result in denial of an application or petition. USCIS is probably using pattern-recognition (AI) to flag identical signatures across multiple pages. The American Immigration Lawyers Association reports a spike in Notices of Intent to Deny (NOID), RFEs, and denials in H-1B cases where USCIS alleges pasted or digitally duplicated signatures on Form I-129. It appears officers are requesting the originally signed forms from before filing; submitting a newly signed page has not resolved the issue. So keep the original signature sets and maintain contemporaneous proof of execution.

just why

The Trump administration, having already taken visitor visas away from Palestinians, has now barred their representatives showing up for the United Nations General Assembly as well.

Matthew Blaisdell, Esq.
Sunset Immigration PLLC
219 36th Street, Ste 511
Brooklyn, NY 11232
Book appointment

Exhuming McCarthy.

be kind to your neighbors

In mid-August, USCIS rolled out a trio of policy updates that together mark a significant shift toward heightened scrutiny of naturalization and other immigration benefits.

On the 15th, USCIS directed officers to apply a “rigorous, holistic” approach to good moral character (GMC) determinations that accounts not only for the absence of misconduct but also for affirmative positive attributes such as community involvement, caregiving, steady employment, and tax compliance. At the same time, adjudicators are told to weigh lawful but “inconsistent” conduct (like repeated traffic infractions or aggressive solicitation) as potential negatives. This standard gives officers broader discretion to probe beyond traditional statutory bars.

On the 19th, the Policy Manual was updated to instruct officers to deny benefits (for any immigration application) where there is evidence of anti-American or antisemitic activity (without any helpful guidance for interpretation). These factors are now “overwhelmingly negative” in any discretionary analysis. USCIS also expanded social media vetting across a wider set of benefit types, with online activity now fair game for review.

The 22nd brought us a revival of the neighborhood investigations of neighbors, employers, co-workers, or business associates to corroborate eligibility, character, and attachment to the Constitution. Applicants are encouraged to submit testimonial letters proactively; failure to do so may trigger an investigation. Difficult to see how this could be abused.

we did vote for chaos

The past two weeks have brought a cascade of conflicting policy changes, court orders, and agency communications on Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for nationals of Honduras, Nepal, and Nicaragua.

On August 20, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the Trump administration’s request to stay a lower court order issued on August 1. That district court order had continued TPS for about 60,000 nationals of Honduras, Nepal, and Nicaragua until a merits hearing scheduled for November 18, 2025. The stay allowed the administration’s termination of TPS for these countries to take effect immediately.

On August 25, USCIS updated its Temporary Protected Status webpage and removed Nepal from the list of designated countries. The agency also archived the prior Nepal TPS page and added an alert: “Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem terminated Temporary Protected Status for Nepal. On August 20, 2025, the Ninth Circuit court stayed the lower court order postponing the termination, allowing the termination to take effect. Accordingly, TPS benefits are no longer in effect as of August 20, 2025.” The archived chart for Nepal confirmed that TPS was deemed to have ended on August 20 and that EAD auto-extensions for Nepali nationals ceased to be valid as of that date.

A day later, the USCIS-operated E-Verify system posted its own notice stating that DHS was “complying with the District Court-issued stay” and that EADs for employees with TPS from all three countries remain valid through November 18, 2025. The notice pointed users to USCIS country pages for expiration dates.

Thus: USCIS’s TPS site says Nepal’s TPS and EADs ended August 20, while E-Verify told employers to keep accepting them until November 18. Employers enrolled in E-Verify may want to run a Status Change Report to see whether the system is flagging TPS-related EADs.

This confusion landed just as CNN published a report on August 27 in which DHS officials admitted it is “reckless” to rely on their own system that they require for employment verification. Reminder: in this realm, employers are strictly liable for the government’s own mistakes.

below the bar

Having already pressured the immigration judges to remove potential judicial protections to immigrants in court proceedings (and attempting to prevent them from speaking about their work), the Trump administration is now trying to replace the ones they don’t like with the ones that can’t get a job anywhere else in order to push through the court’s millions of cases in the manner most favorable to ICE.

What started this spring as an effort to encourage early retirement or deferred resignation had developed into a policy of firings that included no stated basis: but that was alleged to correlate along lines of gender discrimination, decisions unfavorable to the Administration, and giving a courthouse tour to a high-ranking Democratic Senator.

Normally, the removal of over 100 judges would normally dramatically increase, rather than decrease, the backlog of 3.5 - 4 million currently in the in court. The Administration has an equally brilliant plan to replace them, however, by way of spending $3.3 billion to replace them with “any lawyer.” The Department of Justice issued a new rule on August 28, 2025 stating that experience in one of the most complicated areas of law “is not always a strong predictor of success,” dropping the requirement of 10+ years of experience in immigration law (or other related judicial experience) to zero. It has also reported, though not confirmed, that 600 military lawyers (or “jagoffs” as Secretary of Defense Hesgeth has called them) will be redirected to the immigration courts.

more government, more costs, less future productivity

Back in July, we noted the administration’s plan to revive its 2020 proposal to end “duration of status” (D/S) for students and exchange visitors. (See also Yale’s summaryhere.) At the time, the details looked nearly identical to the prior rule: fixed stays of two or four years, USCIS handling extensions instead of schools, and unlawful presence starting immediately after expiration.

Now, with the August 28, 2025 proposed rule, the picture is clearer — and more restrictive. DHS would:

* Cap most students at four years, some at two years depending on country of origin.

* Limit English-language students to 24 months and public high school students to 12 months.

* Shorten the grace period after completion to 30 days (down from 60).

* Bar graduate students from changing programs mid-course, and undergraduates from changing majors or transferring in their first year without DHS approval.

* Require extensions through USCIS filings with fees, biometrics, and “compelling” reasons.

* Trigger unlawful presence the day after I-94 expiration.

As we noted previously, shifting thousands of extension requests to USCIS would presumably create delays that may leave students unable to register for new terms, at a time when SEVIS already provides detailed oversight. The proposal would add nearly$100 million in compliance costs in its first year and could make the U.S. a less attractive destination at a moment when new data already show a steep drop in international student arrivals — including nearly 50% fewer from India. Comments on the proposal are due by September 28, 2025.

more dumb stuff

Alligator Alcatraz makes way for Deportation Depot; we’re now using natural emergencies to round of immigrants; and while “scathing 39-page ruling” and “calamitous” would normally be bad omens for one’s career, unless that career involves representing the Trump administration.

Matthew Blaisdell, Esq.

Sunset Immigration

219 36th Street, Ste 511

Brooklyn, NY 11232

Book appointment

Sent from my iPad

More social media vetting, “false claim” finally gets a reasonable update, and we’re losing a lot of workers over here.



making “Anti-American”meaningless



USCIS officers arenow instructed to weigh whether an applicant has engaged in either antisemitic activity or alleged anti-American activity: the latter of which seems to focus on involvement in hostile or terrorist organizations or advocacy that raises national security concerns. The guidance also expands the use of social media vetting, which is more an investigative tool than a substantive factor in the decision-making process. Whereas the social media vetting policy had previously been focused on applications for visas to enter the U.S., it will now applied to applications for benefits within the U.S. as well The upshot is that officers may now review an applicant’s online activity more broadly — posts, affiliations, memberships — and if they identify material considered “anti-American,” that information can then be used as a negative discretionary factor when deciding the case.

Of course, there’s already a blanket of grounds to deny an application for anything related to involvement in hostile or terrorist organizations or advocacy that raises national security concerns. But if “Anti-American” activity here is to refer to anything else, we’re left with no clue as to what: likely because of obvious First Amendment violations, thus meaningless either way. It’s likely another random thought generated by someone in DHS leadership, running almost unfiltered into the Policy Manual. So for now, nothing to see here, though we continue to advise refraining from any potentially antisemitic social media postings.

new drop from the OFLC



The H-2B program allows U.S. employers to hire foreign nationals for temporary non-agricultural jobs—landscaping, hospitality, seafood processing, seasonal construction, etc. Due to the high demand, urgent need, and relatively low profile, this is one category where Congress regularly authorizes supplemental visas beyond the annual cap.

To mitigate against exploitation and opaque recruitment chains, federal regulations now require employers to disclose the names and locations of the recruiters they (Mexico, Guatemala, and Jamaica are popular locations) in order to see who is involved in the pipelines. The Office of Foreign Labor Certification (OFLC, part of the Department of Labor) last week published its latest H-2B Foreign Labor Recruiter List, a quarterly catalog of the names and addresses of where employers turn when they need large seasonal workforces. Enjoy.

something good . . .

USCIS has issued Policy Alert 2025-17, updating its manual on the ground of inadmissibility for making a false claim to U.S. citizenship. There are a few findings that trigger a potential “death sentence” in immigration: a “sham marriage” and a false claim to U.S. citizenship. The former requires a fairly high burden for the USCIS investigator. The latter can be triggered by a number of innocuous, unintentional representations: an accidental marking on a job application or a DMV form, allowing an aggressive poll worker to register you to vote, and numerous others. If a USCIS officer or immigration judge decides that you allowed yourself to be represented as a U.S. citizen in most any context, you are permanently barred from most benefits, with almost no waiver available, and potentially placed into removal proceedings. Matter of Zhang, a decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals, long held that a claim doesn’t need to be made directly to an immigration official, and that the government doesn’t have to show the claim actually helped the person. A single claim, made many years ago without understanding the consequences, can effectively end a person’s path to legal status in the U.S. The new guidance doesn’t undo Zhang, but it tells officers to weigh intent, context, and quality of evidence. Was the claim knowing and deliberate, or a checked box in error? Was it material to getting a benefit reserved for citizens, or incidental? Is there solid proof, or just a vague notation in an old database? The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) must now also provide “reasonable and probative” evidence before the burden shifts to the applicant. For example, imagine a lawful permanent resident who applied for a driver’s license 15 years ago and mistakenly checked the “U.S. citizen” box. Under Zhang, that error alone could have been enough to block them forever from naturalizing. Under the new guidance, an officer should now consider whether the mistake was intentional, whether it mattered to eligibility for the license (in this case, it would not have), and whether the record itself is reliable before treating it as a lifetime bar.

. . . and then the usual



Immigration is declining for the first time in 50 years (in line with a ton of data about the shrinking workforce), and we’re now asking the office workers in Defense to help, no one from Gaza will get in for medical treatment, and when Marco Rubio tried to be President, he wanted everyone to know that birthright citizenship was real.

Matthew Blaisdell, Esq.

Sunset Immigration PLLC

219 36th Street, Ste 511

Brooklyn, NY 11232

Book appointment

Immigration fraud at Trump Burger and other important developments.

everyone gets investigated

As of August 1, 2025, USCIS has made in-person interviews mandatory for nearly all marriage-based adjustment cases. Lawyers are reporting that, in some instances, USCIS officers have begun requesting information related to I-9s from prior employers. Putting aside the relevance and appropriateness of such a request,* what does an employer do when asked for employee records?

It may depend on whether we’re talking about a USCIS site visit or an ICE investigation. USCIS requests are administrative, in which officers verify the accuracy of information that’s been submitted: job duties, wages, validity of the marriage, etc. On certain employment-based cases, and yes,“certain spousal-based immigrant petitions(B)(2).),” USCIS asserts inspection rights at any address listed on a filing.

ICE, on the other hand, can conduct I-9 audits and raids, with employers subject to civil fines, criminal penalties, and orders to terminate unauthorized employment. ICE agents may also enter private areas with a judicial warrant.

Employers are very nearly damned if they do, damned if they don’t. Over-complying by providing more documents than are absolutely required (producing I-9s before the three-day deadline, or granting ICE access to private areas without a judicial warrant) can expand liability and mistrust from employees. Under-compliance (not timely producing I-9s or not permitting a lawful inspection) could easily result in fines, immigration penalties, or obstruction charges. Then there’s the other bad stuff that might come up: possible wage or tax issues coming to light, loss of confidence from investors or staff, or any number of unanticipated harms.

Standard counsel is to institute a clear response plan, a trained point person, and access to your lawyer. Couples, meanwhile, may consider a plan for toothbrush identification.

no visitors, please

The U.S. Department of State has launched a 12-month pilot program requiring applicants for visitor visas to post bonds of $5,000, $10,000, or $15,000: consular officers decide the amount. Nationals from Malawi and Zambia are the first to be subject; more countries may be added with 15 days’ notice. These applicants receive only a single-entry visa valid for 3 months, may enter the U.S. for a maximum of 30 days, and only through limited airports (Boston Logan, JFK, or Washington Dulles). If the visitor leaves the U.S. on time, or never enters at all, the bond is cancelled and refunded. It should not be considered a violation if the visitor timely applies to change or extend status before timely departing.

Even under a functional administration, the Arrival and Departure Information System (ADIS) used to verify departures is notorious for errors, so visitors may need to proactively prove timely document departure through other means: arrival stamps in the country of return, plane ticket stubs, receipts, Uber rides, credit card charges, ATM withdrawals, overweight baggage fee receipts, your pet’s customs quarantine paperwork, a video of the unstable person crashing out on your flight, whatever you have. That’s a lot of money at stake.



Bulletin time



The September 2025 visa bulletin will apply the Dates for Filing chart for family-based cases (which generally filing applications earlier during the waiting period), while for employment-based cases it will apply the stricter Final Action Dates chart (meaning cases can only move forward when a green card is truly available). There isn’t any retrogression for the employment-based cases, but the State Department does anticipate running out of these visas before the fiscal year begins in October.

This Dumb Age

There are now 60,000 people in immigration detention, and the Iowa National Guard is joining the effort.** ICE agents drew guns on a disabled student outside his school. Instead of just trying to win cases, the administration is now suing ALL of the federal judges in Maryland. The Republican administration continues it’s federal takeover of local government. The co-owner of Trump Burger was arrested by ICE for “orchestrating a fake marriage in order to gain permanent residency.”

*Employers, not employees, maintain I-9 information. Further, unlawful employment is not bar to adjusting status based on a petition filed by a U.S. citizen spouse.

**Having lived in the rural upper-midwest, I can attest that these guys do not in fact have anything else to do.

Matthew Blaisdell, Esq.

Sunset Immigration PLLC

219 36th Street, Ste 511

Brooklyn, NY 11232

Book appointment

Hiring gets more confusing, quotas have no meaning, and we only want Argentines. Two weeks of updates!

whom you can hire, whom you can’t, and for whom we have no idea

Terminations of TPS programs are somewhat complicated matters. Termination(s) of the Haitian program(s) are of a different scale. Here’s an “simplified” version:

- November 20, 2017: DHS announces termination of Haiti TPS with an 18-month wind-down (an effective date of July 22, 2019), and some complicated mechanics for work permit extensions.

- October 3, 2018: a federal case (Ramos v. Nielsen) blocks DHS from implementing TPS terminations for Haiti (as well as El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Sudan) while the case proceeds; work permits are extended in compliance with the injunctions.

- August 3, 2021: A new TPS designation is made for Haiti.

- As various lawsuits continue to proceed, work permit validity is repeatedly extended through June, 2024.

- January 26, 2023: The 2021 designation is redesignated and extended through August 03, 2024.

- July 01, 2024: The 2021 designation is extended & redesignated through February 3, 2026, with work permits (with 11 different expiration dates) extended through August 3, 2025. That same day, a new federal case, Haitian Evangelical Clergy Ass’n v. Trump blocks the termination due to it occurring before the program’s most current end date.

- July 15, 2025: final judgment in Haitian Evangelical Clergy Ass’n v. Trump delays termination to February 3, 2026 (the end date of the July 01, 2024 extension), and USCIS aligns is guidance accordingly.

The upshot for employers:

- No new work permits will be issued.

- E-Verify cases must be updated, and previously completed Forms I-9 corrected, by entering Feb. 3, 2026 in Section 2, initialing and dating the correction.

- Work permits with expiration dates from July 22, 2017 to September 2, 2025 remain valid through February 3, 2026.

- Employers must reverify affected employees before they resume work on February 4, 2026.

SAVE has updated its guidance accordingly, and verification may rely on work permits and USCIS notices.

On July 31st, a different lawsuit (National TPS Alliance v. Noem), blocked a different TPS termination (Nepal), extending the effective date to November 18, 2025.

On August 4th, USCIS confirmed that work permits for the TPS designations for Hondurasand Nicaragua are continued through November 18, 2025.

Employers may rehire anyone affected, but must reverify the I-9s, attach a printout of the relevant USCIS webpage, and should run Change of Status Reports (in addition to maintaining a record with all relevant documentation, including website prints with clear URLs).

Venezuela TPS is set to expire September 10th, and given that DHS neither extended nor terminated it within the 60-day deadline beforehand (July 12, 2025), a six-month extension may be triggered. However, USCIS has offered no confirmation, work permit extensions, or any action__ __to extend or terminate TPS by the statutory 60-day deadline (July 12, 2025): so employers continue to wing it for those who have expired work permits. Some employees are threatening legal action if the employers do not auto-extend the permits, while the employers concern themselves with recriminations from ICE forI-9 violations.



gender (and nationality) is not enough



The five protected grounds of asylum do not explicitly include gender, though gender-based claims are frequently included within the ground “particular social group,” often involving domestic violence or other harm from an actor the government is unwilling or unable to control: a line of jurisprudence that has been developing for 30 years.

Matter of K-E-S-G- slows this progress, holding that gender and nationality alone cannot define a “particular social group”: additional factors limiting the size of the group are required. In practice, gender + nationality alone has rarely been enough, on its own, to sustain a claim for asylum; additional factors limiting the size of the group are typically required (e.g., women in X country who have filed police complaints, women in X country who have opposed X practice, etc.). K-E-S-G- now formalizes this practice.

Because this is a decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals, and because the U.S. Supreme Court recently heldthat federal courts have relatively broad discretion to disagree with administrative courts, federal courts in different parts of the country may end up interpreting this decision in a number of ways on appeal. But at the level of the asylum office and the immigration courts, the holding stands.

____

What is a quota, really?

In May, Stephen Miller told anyone who would listen, all over television, in his Stephen Miller-y way of talking, that ICE had a quota of arresting “a minimum” of 3,000 immigrants every day, and would keep raising that number as soon as they could. Reports have stated that DHS Secretary Kristi Noem also pressured ICE leaders hit that number. During Trump’s campaign, he promised, as often as he could, “the largest domestic deportation operation,” promising that he would target 15–20 million people for removal. Shockingly, now that they are being sued, the Trump administration claims that these were merely aspirational: “goals to aim for,” rather than formal requirements.

interviews again

Beginning next month, the Department of State willremove interview waivers for nonimmigrant visas, except for diplomatic visa holders, and renewals of visitor visas and Border Crossing Cards in narrow exceptions.* For those who might qualify, the waivers remain discretionary, and consular officers may require the interview regardless. Expect longer waits––the busier the consulate, the longer the delays––and the requirement of applying in the home country precludes the possibility of shopping around for a different consulate. But it seems we now want more Argentines.**

more of the same

Between encouraging DACA recipients to self-deport, punishing DACA-friendly universities, dusting off more family separation policies, sending the military into our cities, targeting Spanish speakers, driving detainees to hunger strikes, shaming states and cities that aren’t playing along, and just generally acting in the dumbest, most aggro manner possible, it’s been . . . another two weeks in the second Trump administration.

* Visas must be within 12 months of expiration, they must have been at least 18 year old at initial issuance, they must have applied in their country of residence or nationality, have no prior refusals (unless overcome), and have no apparent ineligibility.

**Who doesn’t?

Matthew Blaisdell, Esq.

Sunset Immigration PLLC

219 36th Street, Ste 511

Brooklyn, NY 11232

Book appointment

More fee hikes, the lottery may be on its last legs, and it might finally be possible to feel sorry for Harvard.

still hating on Harvard

The Department of State administers the Exchange Visitor Program (EVP) to foster academic and cultural exchange by means of the J-1 visa. It covers a wide range of occupations and activities: including, but not limited to, students, au pairs, interns, researchers, summer work, professors, camp counselors, and medical trainees. The aim is to enable foreign nationals to gain experience in the U.S., often in positions where they are temporarily needed, that they would bring back to their home countries.*

The DOS is now investigating Harvard’s EVP––purportedly for appropriate oversight, transparency in reporting, and alignment with the program’s purpose––despite not yet having identified any misconduct. We’ve detailed the Trump administration’s numerous attempts to prevent Harvard from enrolling foreign students, as well as Harvard’s litigation in response, which seems to be going well enough that one might speculatethat this investigation essentially mounts to spaghetti-throwing.

humanitarianism gets more expensive

New fees kick in for a number of applications. Asylum applications will have a filing fee for the first time ($100), and will also be subject to an additional annual fee ($100) for as long as they are pending. Asylum-based applications for employment authorization will be increased for initial filing ($550) and for renewal ($275). New fees are also applied to applications for parole ($1,000), TPS ($500), and Special Immigrant Juvenile ($250). A number of other feeswill be applied to those applying for entry into the U.S., as well as for certain court-related filings. Related validity periods for employment authorization are also now limited. Applications postmarked on or after August 21, 2025 that do not include the new fee will be rejected.

lower haphazardness for higher wages

The H-1B visa allows an employer to hire a foreign worker in a “specialty occupation” that typically requires a the equivalent to a U.S. bachelor’s or master’s degree (though there is a limited exception for those with certain work experience). There are 65,000 of these visas available each year for those in the bachelor’s category, and another 20,000 for those with a U.S. master’s or higher.** As with nearly every type of visa that is numerically limited, a much larger number of people apply for the visas than there are visas available.

Normally, this creates a backlog that effectively operates as a queue in which applicant’s wait for a visa to become available—whether for months or many years. However, the H-1B replaces the line with an annual lottery. Recently, around 33% of lottery applicants were picked: meaning that there were basically 3x as many applicants as visas available. Because the visas are released at the start of the fiscal year (October), because most employers want the workers to begin their employment as quickly as possible, and because the H-1B petitions cannot be filed more than six months before the intended start date, the cap-subject petitions are generally all filed around April 1st.

Initially, employers were required to file the entire petition during the first five business days of April, after which USCIS ran a random selection (once the number of petitions exceeded the number of visas). Five years ago USCIS began using an electronic pre-registration system in which employers submitted only basic information about the prospective employee, which would be used to register them for a spot in the lottery. Thus, employers did not have to spend the substantial amounts of time and money to submit a petition that was unlikely to be selected.

However, this permitted abuse from businesses (largely high-volume IT staffing firms) that would file multiple registrations for the same employee in order to game the system in their favor, which many did with impunity. Last year, USCIS largely mitigated this by switching to a beneficiary-based system in which each person could be registered by several potential employers, but only once per employer, and that person could only be selected once. Employers were required to attest to a bona fide job offer, and job offers that were not legitimate were to be denied or investigated for fraud.

A soon-to-be-(re)published rule (first published by the first Trump administration in 2021) will essentially end the lottery by instituting a priority system based on tiers based on “prevailing wage” levels set by the Department of Labor, with the registrants offered a wage at the higher levels would receive priority, and an intra-tier lottery would only be used if demand exceeds supply at that level. While this would further mitigate against another concern (in which outsourcing firms pay lower wages and effectively replace U.S. workers in certain positions), smaller employers, universities, and recent graduates (typically offered lower wages) but be highly disadvantaged. These concerns sank the prior attempt to institute the rule; whether they are sufficient this time around under an administration more practiced in regulatory matters remains to be seen.

the headlines

During the Obama and Biden administrations, Republican states regularly sought to undermine the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause by arguing that the federal government does not have the sole power to regulate immigration––the exact opposite of what the Trump administration is currently arguing by suing New York City. Arizona has and Florida have yet to protest.

Certain visas from a whole bunch of countries will now be limited to three months, but birthright citizenship doesn’t appear to be going anywhere for the time being.

ICE wants to crack down on employers––including theDACA recipients they employ, and particularlyin Democratic states––meaning that care for your parents is probably going to getharder to find and more expensive. Alligator Alcatraz is generating a number of frightening reports, in addition to creating a lot of homeless pets. And more judges are getting fired.

_________

*As we’ve mentioned prior posts, ICE, via their Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), monitors student compliance through the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS).

** There are exceptions for certain organizations related to research institutions—sometimes referred to as ‘cap-exempt’ organizations.

Matthew Blaisdell, Esq.

Sunset Immigration PLLC

219 36th Street, Ste 511

Brooklyn, NY 11232

Book appointment

I-9 stuff, the IRS and Medicaid join the co-opted, overstating the overstays, and . . . Eswatini.

they get anonymity, we lose confidentiality

While ICE gets to dress like us (on a really bad day), but with masks and no identification, the Trump administration has found ways to permit ICE to unearth formerly confidential information from other agencies.

A ProPublica report dove into the IRS’ new digital system giving Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) real‑time access to taxpayer data––including home addresses––dramatically curtailing taxpayer confidentiality and exposing individuals without a criminal history to enforcement actions.

Meanwhile, the administration’s agreement between CMS and Homeland Security gives ICE limited access to personal data for all 79 million Medicaid recipients: including immigration status. Emergency Medicaid (covering only lifesaving services) is available to everyone, regardless of immigration status. Twenty states have sued, alleging violation of federal privacy laws, though the transfer of data has already occurred.

____

more headaches for employers . . .

. . . and more work for HR. In conjunction with the mass revocations of work authorization for (soon to be former) TPS holders, E‑Verify employers can now access a “Revoked Document Number” field in the new Status Change Report, a tool for identifying whether a work permit has been revoked. Employers enrolled in E‑Verify are now expected to regularly run the Status Change Report and compare employee documents against the “Revoked Document Number” field. If a match is found, they must reverify the authorization using Form I‑9 Supplement B (without creating a new E‑Verify case). Failure to act could expose employers to liability for knowingly continuing to employ unauthorized workers, though no indication has been given regarding how frequently this should be done. To be on the safe side, employers should create internal protocols, document all actions, and talk to their lawyers when reviewing I‑9s or generally evaluating risk.

The lines get a bit shorter next month

It’s the time of the month we all look forward to the most over here: the Visa Bulletin update! In the Family Final Action Dates, the F2A category (spouses and children under the age of 21 of permanent residents) jumped forward 8 months worldwide (to 9/1/22), with Mexico also advancing 7 months. The F3 (married adult children of U.S. citizens) and F4 categories (siblings of U.S. citizen adults) for the Philippines advanced over 2 months and 7 months, respectively—while Mexico’s F2B (unmarried adult children of permanent residents) moved ahead a full year. The Dates for Filing chart also advanced across categories, especially for F2B Mexico (forward one year) and F4 Worldwide/China (forward over 3 months). In the Employment-Based categories, EB-3 showed the most movement, with Worldwide, Mexico, and the Philippines advancing over 6 weeks (Final Action) and 2 months (Dates for Filing). EB-1 and EB-2 China and EB-3 India basically stayed the same. The EB-4 is still unavailable for everyone.

A brief explainer of how the bulletin works (and what these dates mean) can be found in the May 21st newsletter.

this stuff isn’t popular

An interesting class action lawsuit accuses the Departments of Justice and of Homeland Security of colluding to deport people right from court, alleging a violation of due process. We can anticipate that they’ll also get sued over their new practice of arresting migrants (who have been here less than two years) as they exit courtrooms—even those with pending asylum cases and no criminal history. And due to another new policy, once arrested, they won’t be eligible for bond. Along with removing the migrants from court, the Administration is removing many of the judges as well, with no reason given, despite the backlog of nearly 4 million cases. (As we’ve discussed, the immigration courts essentially all more under the executive branch than the judicial branch, giving the Administration far more leeway to mold the courts to their liking.) Meanwhile, the Administration considered bringing criminal charges against immigration judges that considered switching to virtual hearings in order to mitigate against the chances of migrants skipping on their in-person hearings due to fears of arrest.

And Eswatini, an African nation we understand to be smaller than New Jersey and ruled by a monarchy, will now receive deportees convicted of criminal offenses whose home countries refuse to accept them.

Coincidentally or not, two-thirds of the lawyers charged with defending the Administration have quit.

The public, including some Republicans, is not happy. Polls are showing that the public now rates immigration FAR more favorably than they do the Administration's approach to immigration. Maybe it’s the armed ICE officers raiding churches, arresting doctor’s with pending green card applications outside their kids’ preschool, tear-gassing and arresting U.S. citizen veterans without any basis other than looking Hispanic and being on a farm, limiting multi-lingual services (by making English the official language), or any of the other enforcement actions we’ve been detailing.

And the numbers they’ve been citing to justify the travel ban and restrictions on students turn out to have been substantially overblown.

Matthew Blaisdell, Esq.

Sunset Immigration PLLC

219 36th Street, Ste 511

Brooklyn, NY 11232

Book appointment

More ways to arrest people for following the rules, not many people are getting around the travel ban, and we delegate some asylum responsibilities to Honduras.

the (immigration) cops have taken over the (immigration) courts (and everything else) part 2

A simple way to understand the how the major immigration-related agencies within the Department of Homeland Security separate their duties is to divide them into benefits (USCIS), enforcement (ICE), and regulating entry (CBP). When someone submits an application for an immigration status within the U.S., that goes to USCIS. Of course, there is fair amount of overlap, particularly in regards to information-sharing. After USCIS approves a petition for someone overseas, they are admitted by CBP, and thereafter tracked by ICE for violations such as overstaying. USCIS might also decide to refer a case to ICE. USCIS also has a sub-agency (Fraud Detection and National Security––FDNS) that refers violators to ICE, and ICE has a subagency (Homeland Security Investigation––HSI) that, among other things, protects immigrants from crimes.

Under federal law, USCIS will refer cases to ICE and initiate removal (deportation) proceedings when asylum applications and certain other family- and humanitarian-based cases are denied. They may, but are not required to, take such action in other circumstances. Whether they do so is dependent on the policies in place at any given time, which are largely dictated by the policy preferences of the Administration in office.

USCIS will now issue the charging document for removal proceedings (called a Notice to Appear—NTA) in a much broader group of circumstances, including the expiration of Temporary Protected Status––which is about to affect a very large number of Haitians, Nepalese, Hondurans, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans, as well as a number of foreign nationals from Afghanistan and Cameroon––and the denial of an application for an immigration benefit where the applicant is otherwise out of status: for example, the denial of a green card application.

The lines really blur, however, in the situations where ICE is actively waiting to arrest individuals at their USCIS: before, during, or after their interviews. The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) reported ICE activity—including arrests—at USCIS Field offices throughout the U.S. The basis of an arrest normally arises from the applicant having committed an immigration violation in the past (typically an outstanding removal/deportation order, visa overstay, or unlawful entry), the arrest and an initiation of removal proceedings being the most effective method of preventing the applicant from “fixing” that violation.

We might assume that this Administration’s goal aligns with the obvious result: to detain and remove the lowest hanging fruit. It is hard to get the criminals, who are trying to hide. It is a lot easier to get the ones who put themselves squarely on the radar by trying to comply with the immigration laws.

We’d previously explained basis for detaining foreign nationals once their case were dismissed. However, both anecdotally and as reported, they are grabbing people at court that have active cases with future hearing dates, without any stated basis. We have now another arm of the government being guided from its independent stated mission to becoming another appendage of ICE.

exceptions should be exceptional

In an email response to a Congressional inquiry and as reported to AILA, the Department of State provided more clarity on the National Interest Exceptions to travel ban 2025.

There is no process for requesting the exception prior to the interview. The request is made verbally––supported by your responses in the DS-160 and any supporting documentation––explaining why your entry into the U.S. would be in it’s national interest and that you are not a threat to national security or public safety. If the officer decides to move the request up the chain, it will then go from the Chief of Mission at the post, and from there to DOS in Washington, D.C. where a Senior Bureau Official would sign off on it. These are expected to be very rare, and not on the basis of weddings, school attendance, employment and related purposes, or other financial/personal hardship.

so now should you take that trip to Puerto Rico?

We’re talked aboutwho should and shouldn’t be particularly nervous about traveling (and about Puerto Rico in particular). But advising clients with clients about travel to specific places at specific times, at times when policies and practices change daily, requires that attorneys regularly communicate with each other—particularly in regards to travel outside of the contiguous 48 states to and from the states of Alaska and Hawaii, as well as the territories (Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands).

As a general matter, CBP operates at ports of entry throughout the U.S., including its territories. However, when traveling between the contiguous 48 states and the territories, one shouldn’t encounter CBP directly. At offices within the airports and other “ports of entry” into the U.S., they scan the flight manifests of arrivals and departures, and otherwise communicating with TSA as needed when someone is flagged as being “inadmissible” to the U.S. As one might expect, they maintain their largest presence at the main entry points into the U.S., including (but not limited to), the states and territories mentioned above. San Juan, as mentioned, has been particularly active of late. Some of our colleagues report that it is essentially just business as usual at these locations, others report instances of more aggressive (and occasionally legal incorrect) enforcement.

Regardless, the final analysis is always the same. If you are in legal status, with no prior removal/deportation order and no reason to believe that you might be subject to immigration penalties for a past violation, then you should feel free to travel with your REAL ID document.

otherwise

The “Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Honduras for Cooperation in the Examination of Protection Requests,” published on July 8th, allows Honduras to process requests for asylum or other forms of protection for certain applicants (not Hondurans, unaccompanied minors, or those who arrived with a valid visa or waiver) after they have made the same request in the U.S.

ICE has been blocked in the L.A. area from continued racial profiling and are required to provide access to lawyers. I have not read the 52-page order, but the selections that have been reported are strongly-worded and quite dismissive of the government’s arguments. This order is geographically limited, so should not be subject to the same scrutiny as the nation-wide injunctions that were disfavored by a recent Supreme Court decision.

Fees are going up again (and no, it hasn’t been that long since the last major increase), the August visa bulletintells us when to file the green card applications next month (EB-3 is about to get backed up), employers now have instructions for opting out of E-verify+, and and as yet another study finds this week, fewer workers means more inflation.

Matthew Blaisdell, Esq.

Sunset Immigration PLLC

219 36th Street, Ste 511

Brooklyn, NY 11232

Book appointment