how will this work?

A “grace period,” in the parlance of immigration law, recognizes a basic fact: foreign workers cannot always leave the country the moment their U.S. employment ends. They may need to settle matters involving housing, transportation, possessions, insurance, and, of course, work. They may also seek to change or extend their status or apply for adjustment of status. Or they may finally take that trip to visit friends in New Hampshire or wherever.

Also, absent Star Trek-style transporters, people cannot physically teleport home when they clock out on their last day. Moving bodies and belongings from a dwelling to an airport does, in fact, take some small amount of time.

Recognizing this reality, federal regulations provide limited grace periods during which certain nonimmigrants are not considered to have failed to maintain status solely because their qualifying employment or activity has ended. For workers in several employment-based classifications, the available period is up to 30 or 60 days.

DHS has now proposed deleting the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.1(l)(2), which provides that grace period to people in E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, O-1, and TN status, as well as their dependents. Comments are due November 10. DHS must then review significant comments and decide whether to revise, finalize, or abandon the proposal. If it proceeds, it will publish a final rule with an effective date, after which people will sue them.

If implemented in its current form, workers who fail to teleport on their last day will be treated as having failed to maintain status (unless they have already been approved for a change, extension, or adjustment of status), subjecting them to deportation proceedings and possible detention.

While we find it unlikely that the rule will survive litigation in its current form, employers and foreign workers should assume that, at the end of this process, their grace period may well be truncated from its’ current duration.

duration of status endures (for now)

There are visas, and there are periods of authorized stay; these are not the same. A visa is a stamp placed in a passport by a U.S. consular post and presented to Customs and Border Protection when its holder requests admission in a particular status. The authorized period of stay, meanwhile, appears on the Form I-94 that CBP creates upon admission.

For various reasons, the dates on these documents do not always align. For many international students, exchange visitors, and foreign-media representatives, the I-94 has traditionally stated “duration of status,” or D/S. Rather than supplying a fixed expiration date, D/S allows the person to remain while complying with the terms of the applicable academic, exchange, or media program.

As we covered in July and again on September 1, a final rule replaced D/S with fixed admission periods for F students, J exchange visitors, and most I foreign-media representatives to begin today, September 15. People who would have needed additional time would have been required to apply for an extension of stay or depart and seek readmission. (The prior newsletter describe that process in a bit more detail.)

And then yesterday afternoon, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued an injunction blocking implementation of rule.

The court found that the plaintiffs (organizations representing schools, journalists, and related) were likely to succeed in their claim that the DHS acted arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to: conduct a reasoned cost-benefit analysis; meaningfully consider less burdensome alternatives; answer significant public comments; or to demonstrate a rational connection between fixed admission periods and its stated goals of preventing fraud and protecting national security.

Meanwhile, the court found that the institutions have been substantially harmed by a plummeting declines in national applications, coupled with enrolled students withdrawing from school, greatly increased compliance costs, and other harms.

The gist being: you can’t completely circumvent the traditional guidelines for rule making with slop and a handful of anecdotes: particularly where the damage is so acute.

As a matter of pure caution, those in F, J, or I status may seek alignment across Form I-94 and their I-20 or DS-2019 issued by their school or exchange program. And check the pending litigation here and here. Expect the matter to continue to be appealed regardless of the ultimate decision from the District Court. But for the near future, D/S remains the rule.

H-2B

We previously discussed the extraordinary demand for H-2B visas, which cover temporary, nonagricultural work. Employers requested 51,158 positions beginning October 1, 2026, against a first-half allocation of 33,000—more than 1.5 requested workers for every available visa.

And by “requested,” we mean that employers may already have recruited workers, obtained labor certification, and planned an entire season before learning whether a visa number will actually be available. Missing out can have significant consequences for seasonal businesses.

USCIS announced that September 4 was the final receipt date for new cap-subject H-2B petitions requesting employment start dates before April 1, 2027. Later filings in that category will be rejected. Cap-exempt petitions—including certain extensions and employer changes, qualifying work in the fish-roe industry, and qualifying employment in Guam or the Northern Mariana Islands—may still proceed.

The next major filing window is expected around January 1–3, 2027, for employers seeking April 1 start dates. Those applications will compete for the remaining 33,000 visas allocated to employment beginning during the second half of FY2027, from April 1 through September 30.

H-2A

We touched on the replacement of the H-2A Adverse Effect Wage Rate, or AEWR, last week. Beneath the question of whether the Department of Labor will seek back wages under its new formula lies another: may DOL obtain monetary remedies through its own administrative process, or must it go to an independent federal court?

The Supreme Court will hear a case on November 10 addressing whether the Constitution permits DOL to adjudicate monetary claims against H-2A employers and whether 8 U.S.C. § 1188(g)(2) authorizes it to do so. The dispute arose after an administrative law judge found that a family-run farm owed more than $500,000 in back wages and penalties.

The case does not decide whether H-2A employers must follow wage and worker-protection rules. It asks who may determine and impose the monetary remedy: an administrative judge within the executive branch or an Article III federal court. The answer could affect not only agricultural employers, but also the broader balance between federal agencies and the courts that review them. We favor an immigration-enforcement system that is less politicized and less susceptible to changing agency priorities. Here’s hoping for some movement in that direction.

improvise

After massive earthquakes struck El Salvador in 2001, the United States designated the country for Temporary Protected Status, or TPS. The designation allowed eligible Salvadorans already here to remain and work because conditions prevented their safe return. Roughly 25 years later, about 200,000 people remain covered.

Because Salvadorans remit close to $10 billion a year to their home country—about 1/4 of El Salvador’s GDP—their ability to remain here has always been priority for the Salvadoran government.

Because the current U.S. administration is torn between deporting everyone as quickly as possible while also maintaining strong ties to the Salvadoran government, and because no one seems to be actually running the show with any real plan, TPS for El Salvador expired September 9th: yet with no new expiration date, effort to initiate enforcement, or plan for providing any other form of relief or continuation.

Thus, USCIS has announced that affected individuals may in fact stay and work here “until further notice,” despite not having any valid documents or any way for employers to comply with their I-9 and E-Verify requirements.

Updates from USCIS can be found here and from E-Verify here.

some headlines

ICE Opens a Tip Line to Report Undocumented Truck Drivers, ICE retreats from some warehouse detention plans as lawsuits mount, ICE Sends Legal Immigrant to Guantánamo Bay, and ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ Used Small Cages as ‘Calming Areas,’ Report Says.

court things

Street racing is dangerous, kidnapping a president constitutes a change in country conditions conditions, evidence of torture doesn’t have to be quantitative, and they can’t just mail the court notice to your house if they are keeping you in jail.

This newsletter is for general information only and is not legal advice.

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

more public charge, more petulance

They’re checking on your credit . . .

Late on August 31, US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) released new editions of the Affidavit of Support—Forms I-864, I-864A and I-864EZ. These forms are used to show that an intending immigrant has adequate financial support and is unlikely to depend on government assistance. Although the new forms largely resemble their predecessors, they authorize USCIS to obtain information, including credit reports and scores, about a financial sponsor from consumer-reporting agencies.

USCIS initially provided no grace period: filings submitted from August 31 were required to include the new editions. The abrupt change caused considerable disruption. Affidavits of support can require extensive financial information and supporting documents, particularly when a household member or joint sponsor is involved. The rollout also came amid increased scrutiny of financial sponsorship and the public-charge ground of inadmissibility.

On September 3, the American Immigration Lawyers Association and an immigration law firm filed a complaint in the US District Court for the District of Columbia. They alleged that the immediate change violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the Paperwork Reduction Act. The next day, USCIS reversed course and announced that the previous editions could be used through September 30. From October 1, USCIS will treat an outdated affidavit as missing initial evidence: rather than rejecting the entire application at the mailroom, it will accept the filing and request the new form. All of which it could have done up front, precluding the need for a very predictable lawsuit.

. . . and your benefits.

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), the welfare-reform law enacted in 1996, requires a state participating in Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), or in certain arrangements involving Supplemental Security Income (SSI), to notify federal immigration authorities when “the State knows” that someone is unlawfully present.

In 1988, the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) interpreted this requirement to apply only to the state agencies actively administering the programs, and not all state agencies. Last week, the OLC withdrew this interpretation, stating that the reporting duties of all component agencies extended to TANF and SSI income.

How this shakes out will be interesting. The Department of Justice has warned that future non-compliance could jeopardize federal funding. OLC also rejected the view that an agency can have the necessary knowledge only after a formal immigration determination. Its opinion gives examples of information that may establish knowledge, but it does not supply a complete operating procedure for state agencies.

OLC opinions bind the executive branch, not states or courts directly. Federal agencies must now translate the interpretation into grant agreements, reporting procedures and compliance guidance. Until that happens, state governments, service providers and non-citizens should distinguish OLC’s legal interpretation from the specific procedures, data-sharing systems and enforcement timelines that may eventually follow.

Birthright citizenship wins another round (for now).

In June, the Supreme Court held that children born in the U.S. to parents, without legal status, are U.S. citizens: invalidating the Trump Administration’s executive order seeking to deny them citizenship. The Administration very shortly thereafter published another order targeting a somewhat narrower class of individuals, focusing on instances of purported “birth tourism” and other circumstances.

In response, the same plaintiffs who challenged the first order duly challenged the new one, and the District of Maryland held that the Administration cannot enforce the order until the new round of litigation concludes. The court found that the Administration is likely to lose in the end, as the group of people targeted in this order is basically the same as the first order: which was held to be unlawful. Meanwhile, litigation of the new order will continue through the federal court system until likely landing back at the Supreme Court.

DOL begrudgingly agrees to revise it’s H-2A adverse wage rate. Maybe.

The H-2A program allows farms to hire temporary foreign workers when sufficient US workers are unavailable. To prevent this from depressing domestic wages, employers generally must pay at least an Adverse Effect Wage Rate set by the Department of Labor. DOL cannot randomly pick a number: its methodology must be reasonably designed to protect the wages of similarly employed US workers.

Last year, DOL adopted an interim methodology that substantially changed how it calculated these rates. Among other things, it replaced a farm-specific wage survey with data that largely excluded workers employed directly by farms, placed an estimated 92% of H-2A jobs in a lower wage tier, and reduced wages to reflect the value of employer-provided housing. Most of these changes took effect without the usual notice-and-comment process.

On August 26, the US District Court for the Eastern District of California held the methodology unlawful and ordered DOL to develop and publish a replacement promptly. To avoid leaving the programme without an operative wage floor, however, the court allowed the existing rates to remain in force temporarily.

In a responselikely written by a first-year law student, DOL did not concede that its methodology was unlawful, waive its right to appeal, or accept that employers would ultimately owe back wages. It nevertheless said that it would develop and publish a replacement methodology. It also warned employers that wages paid from September 2 until the replacement rates are published might later have to be adjusted if the new rates are higher. For now, employers must continue paying the existing rates and preserve the records needed to calculate and deliver any eventual adjustment.

Pass a new law already

There are 1.2 million people who have been sponsored by a U.S. employer that remain waiting in line for an employment-based green card, largely due to the fact that we last capped the number of visas available back in 1990 and are incapable of conducting any effective lawmaking on this topic.

This newsletter is for general information only and is not legal advice. Consult an attorney about your specific situation.

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

What’s another $103,265 for an application?

Blocked from being able to collect $100,000 for H-1B beneficiaries overseas, the Department of Homeland Security is now trying to impose the fee instead on the vast majority of new H-1B petitions at the time of filing.

The notice of proposed rulemakingimposes a $103,265 fee on every cap-subject petition, including those eligible for the advanced-degree exemption. These are the petitions that count towards the annual limit: 65,000 for workers with at least the equivalent of a US bachelor’s degree, plus 20,000 for those with a qualifying US master’s degree or higher. They generally must first pass through the H-1B lottery.

The proposal would not apply to cap-exempt petitions. These do not count towards the annual limit, usually because the employer is a university or qualifying research organization, or because the worker has already been counted against the cap.

he earlier $100,000 payment was imposed by presidential proclamation. This time DHS is using notice-and-comment rulemaking, under which a federal agency publishes a proposed regulation and allows the public to respond before issuing a final rule. DHS claims it is needed to fund the government’s administration of the immigration laws through various Departments.

The fee must be paid at the time of filing, included with all other USCIS government filing fees H-1B fees, already between $460 (for a qualifying nonprofit organization filing a cap-exempt or extension petition without premium processing) and $10,345 (for a large, H-1B-dependent corporation filing a first-time, cap-subject petition utilizing premium processing). (And then, of course, there’s paying the lawyers.) More here.

Public comments are due by September 24. DHS must then review them before publishing any final rule. Litigation will follow. The rule will be scaled back. Tantrums will ensue. Time is a flat circle.

**Embassies start again. And stop again. And start again. **

Last week we covered a federal-court ruling ending the State Department’s ban on issuing immigrant visas to nationals of 75 countries deemed at “high risk” of relying on public benefits.

On Friday, DOS announced that the pause was no longer in effect. While under the ban applicants had previously been able to schedule and attend their appointments, DOS would not issue their green cards. Thus, those who departed the U.S. to attend their interview risked being stranded indefinitely.

Then, right after announcing the end of the pause, DOS suddenly cancelled all interviews at all embassies, asserting that they needed time to implement the new public charge policies we also covered last week. Though as of this week it seems that certain embassies are reaching out to reschedule individuals who had been waiting.

Outstanding questions include: how long the pause will last; how long applicants may have to wait for decisions after their interviews; what additional evidence they may be asked to provide; and what standards they will have to meet before their visas are issued.

faster for families, slower for employers

The September visa bulletin shows shorter waits in several family-sponsored categories for applicants outside Mexico and the Philippines. The largest advance is in F-3, for married sons and daughters of US citizens. Employment-based categories, however, did not advance at all.

Why the discrepancy? The State Department says that the administration’s restrictions—including the 75-country pause discussed above—have reduced immigrant-visa issuance. That has left more numbers available for applicants from other countries, allowing filing and final-action dates to advance.

Immigrant visa issuance rates for aliens from certain countries have decreased in light of various actions the administration has taken . . . Consequently . . . dates for filing and final action dates have been advanced across various immigrant visa categories throughout recent months. Note that as additional immigrant visa demand materializes, or administration actions are amended, retrogression may be necessary in the upcoming months to keep issuances within annual limits.

DOS also warns that EB-1 India and EB-2 worldwide could become unavailable or fall backwards before the end of the fiscal year (and the reset of visa availability) on September 30th).

be kind to your neighbors

All pending and newly-filed applications for naturalization may be subject to neighborhood investigations, per an update to the USCIS Policy Manual. USCIS may (but is not required to) investigate “the vicinity of an alien’s place of residence and employment and include at least the 5-year period prior to the filing of the alien’s naturalization application” (more here).

Enforcement

200,000 tourist visas are about to be revoked, targeting asylum-seekers, and Mexico pushes for investigations in to the deaths of 17 migrants in ICE custody.

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

**75-country visa ban struck down: public charge can’t be presumed by nationality . . . **

In January, the Department of State effectively suspended the processing of green cards to nationals of 75 countries, on the basis that nationals of those countries were all a “high risk” of becoming of becoming a public charge: i.e., dependent on public financial support. (Somehow this also included those immigrating on the basis of their employment.)

Shortly thereafter, a number of organizations challenged the visa ban in Clinic v. Rubio, citing Congressional law, administrative regulations, separation-of-powers principles, and the Fifth Amendment.

On Friday, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) vacated this policy on statutory and regulatory grounds alone, directing that DOS must proceed to evaluate each application on a case-by-case basis.

There is at this moment no guidance as to implementation. An appeal by the administration may be forthcoming.

**. . . but they are really trying to apply it at the embassies . . . **

We last touched on the new public charge rule in July, and the visitor visa bond pilot program two weeks ago, under which green card applicants in certain countries may be required to pay a bond if they are found to be a “public charge” at their interview. The public charge bonds for immigrant visa applicants, meanwhile, targets those applying for a green card.

Under this program: 1) the consular officer denies (refuses) the application under INA § 212(a)(4); 2) the applicant is then selected and notified by a consular officer to make a separate application USCIS for a bond; 3) the applicant then provides notification of the approval to the consular officer; and 4) if the applicant is otherwise eligible, the officer may then issue the visa.

It has now been reported that Santo Domingo will be the first post to begin implementing this process.

The amount of the bond will be determined on a case-by-case basis, in consideration of the totality of the circumstances. This is distinct from the visitor visa bond program, which provides specific bonds of $10,000, $15,000, or $20,000, depending on the country and circumstances.

. . . and now at USCIS as well.

As of September 18, all applications to adjust status (either postmarked or electronically submitted by that date) must be submitted on the new Form I-485. The updated form reflects the new public charge guidance, with ever more detailed questioning regarding health, family status, assets, resources, education, and skills.

Any means-tested public benefits received before that time will not be considered to have triggered the public charge ground, outside of public cash assistance for income maintenance and long-term institutionalization at government expense. Going forward, however, any and all means-tested benefits (think housing assistance, food stamps, financial aid, etc.) may be given heightened consideration. Everyone is subject: including those whose green card petitions were based on high-skilled employment or investment in the U.S.

As with the consular pilot program, if public charge is the only bar to adjustment, then USCIS may send (attached to a Notice of Intent to Deny) an invitation to submit Form I-945 with a cash or qualifying surety bond. USCIS says the amount will reflect the government assistance the applicant may be eligible to receive over the next five years.

more posts allow payments to expedite visitor visa

The premium visa scheduling pilot we touched on in July, in which a payment of $750 will expedite an appointment for a visitor visa application (within 10 business days), has now been expanded beyond Mission Mexico to Mission Canada and the embassies in Bogota, Guatemala City, San Jose, and Tegucigalpa. The program covers both B-1 business activity and B-2 tourism, and is set to run through December 31, 2026.

Limitations: the expedite fee depends on local availability and is nonrefundable, nontransferable, and forfeited if the applicant misses or cancels the appointment.

Making America older and smaller again

“The Trump administration’s policies will reduce legal immigration to the United States by an estimated 33% to 50%, or by 1.5 million to 2.4 million legal immigrants, by the end of Donald Trump’s four-year term,” according to a January 2026 National Foundation for American Policy. See here.

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

Another decision with drastic consequences.

Fourteen years ago, the Board of Immigration Appeals, in Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly, held that, when someone leaves the U.S. and returns using an advance parole document, they do not trigger the penalty (the three- and ten-year bars) for having been unlawfully present in the U.S.

These bars make someone “inadmissible” to the U.S., and they require a waiver in order to be eligible for a green card. Arrabally has since then been relied upon by DACA recipients and others to continue pursuit of their green card applications, assuming they were otherwise eligible but-for the issues surrounding their entry and/or prior unlawful presence.

Last week, the BIA reversed itselfin Matter of Delcarmen-Lara, meaning that those legally entering the U.S. on advance parole will have (via their prior act of departure) triggered the bar.

Because Delcarmen-Lara represents a drastic change with wide-ranging effects, the BIA elected to apply the new rule prospectively, i.e., only those who utilized advance parole from this point going forward will be affected.

use a computer

Under an interim rule, USCIS will require electronic filing for certain applications. meanwhile, USCIS continues to operate a mixed paper-and-online filing system. This can only be good, as the paper system is at present an absolute disaster.

continuing developments

confirmation on fee details of hike for H-1 and L-1 extensions

We have a few more details on the final rule will increase the 9-11 Response and Biometric Entry-Exit Fee attached to petitions for H-1B and L-1 extensions. As mentioned last week, companies subject will pay $4,000 for H-1B and $4,500 for L-1 extension requests. The fee will kick in next month and run for the fiscal year.

At this point we can safely say that the rule applies only to petitions that include all of the following:

• employers with at least 50 U.S. employees;
• most of whom most are in H-1B or L-1 status;
• extensions filed by the current employer; and
• filed during the period between September 09, 2026, and September 30, 2027.

_TPS & parole EAD roundup_

As mentioned last week, employment authorization documents (work permits) under the terminated TPS programs for South Sudan and Burma are no longer valid. Somalianow joins that list as well, with documents invalid as of last Friday, superseding guidance issued just last Wednesday. Documents issued under the Ethiopian program still maintain validity through August 19th, El Salvador’s through September 9th, and Sudan’s and Ukraine’s programs are set to terminate on (with documents invalid as of) October 19th. Haiti, Syria, and Yemen were terminated last month.

Prepare for the end of duration of status

As of September 15th, F, J, and most I periods of stay in the U.S. will now be fixed to certain dates (rather than to the duration of their programs) and capped at four years, with the grace period reduced to 30 days, and greater USCIS oversight over extensions. Additional restrictions will apply to students’ ability to change schools and/or their program. (Find more background in our July 21 newsletter.)

A timely-filed request for an F-1 extension will permit continued study while the application processes, and some F-1 and J-1 employment may continue for up to 240 days while a timely extension request remains pending (though J-2 dependents may not work beyond the expiration of their EAD).

Employers relying on employment incident to OPT or J-1 programs should coordinate and monitor Forms I-94, DS-2019, I-20, and work permits. enforcement.

this week in birth tourism

Pursuant to an executive order we highlighted two weeks ago, the Department of State established a Birth Tourism Prevention Task Force which will add another layer of screening for those in possession of or applying for temporary (nonimmigrant) visas, in addition to revoking visas believed to be associated with the practice. Broader investigations will focus on organized birth-tourism networks.

enforcement

More deaths at Delaney, and changes to court rules punishes immigrants for USCIS delays: a topic we’ll cover in more detail later.

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

And more rules, and more fees.

make good use of your checklists

No more second chances: a new USCIS policy, applicable to all pending cases, restores the ability of officers to deny an application without first issuing a Request for Evidence (RFE) or Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) when the filing does not establish eligibility or when the required documentation was not included.

The alert also shrinks the time to respond to an RFE/NOID that is issued: a maximum of12 weeks for an RFE and 30 days for a NOID (with three days added for service by mail). USCIS will then make a decision based on the record that exists at the time of the response, i.e., no further opportunity to supplement the record will be given.

For employers, families and applicants, the operational point is to front-load evidence and eligibility analysis. A filing strategy that depends on an RFE to fill gaps is now riskier. The policy does not mean every imperfect filing will be denied without notice, but it gives officers more freedom to do so.

Thankfully, USCIS never loses documents in the mailroom or at the scanner, and their AI never fails to correctly identify documentation. All the time.

this week in TPS I-9 verification

Your E-Verify/SAVE updates for work permits under the various TPS programs: South Sudan and Burma have been terminated, Somalia was verified through August 10, 2026, and Ethiopia have been given a holding date of August 19, 2026. See the linked websites for instructions on completing the form, and last week’s newsletter for a more detailed roundup of all remaining TPS and parole programs.

continuing to make the IT firms pay

DHS and CBP have completed a final rule expanding the Biometric Entry-Exit Fee to H-1B and L-1 extension-of-status petitions for large employers making heavy use of the visas. The additional fees of $4,000 for H-1B petitions and $4,500 for L-1 petitions will apply to firms with least 50 U.S. employees, most of whom are already on an H-1B or L-1 visa. Other petitioners are not subject to the fee. The rule was scheduled for Federal Register publication on August 10th, and will take effect 30 days later.

a visa ban by any other name

The 2025 Visa Bond Pilot Program for visitor visas is now permanent under a State Department final rule. Applicants from countries that score low for overstay rates, deficient information sharing, weak identity or criminal-record information, or shortcomings in screening, vetting, travel documents or civil documents, may be required to post a bond of $10,000, $15,000 or $20,000. A country can be added to the list with at least 15 days’ notice, and removed on a rolling basis. But a clear geographic focus can be discerned.

It is understood that applications for extension of visitor status will not automatically breach the bond, and waivers do exist for applicant’s whose entry is not contrary to the national interest, or where there are otherwise national or humanitarian reasons for doing so. Do not expect these to be granted liberally.

social security administration screening for alien enemy parents

Federal agencies (including the Departments of State, Justice, Homeland Security, and the Social Security Administration) have been directed to avoid issuing or accepting documents recognizing U.S. citizenship to a person for whom either parent is a U.S. citizen and one of four categories applies: an “alien enemy” parent; specified foreign-government or international-organization employment; commercial or fraudulent activity to obtain birthright citizenship, including certain surrogacy arrangements; or birth in territory or territorial waters where federal statute does not confer citizenship. Sounds straightforward! The agencies are directed to align policy and issue implementation guidance within 30 days, it will all get litigated, and we’ll see what happens.

more about birth-tourism

A new executive orderdefines birth tourism to include entering on a temporary visa for the purpose of giving birth, or helping someone else to do it. Entry may be barred (permanently), visas may be revoked, deportation pursued, and other actions taken. and acting against facilitators inside or outside the United States. Humanitarian and national-interest exemptions may be granted. It’s worth noting that pregnancy itself is not the specific target, but rather, the pre-conceived intention to give birth in the U.S. The Departments of State and Homeland Security are directed to revise their rules and policies accordingly.

flying tips

The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) recently issued guidance to its members for advising clients on flight risks (given the uptick in airport arrests we have been noting), and we thought it would be helpful to summarize here.

If you have a green card: carry your green card, obviously. However, if you’ve any criminal history, been ordered removed in the past, or otherwise suspect that there is a potential issue with your underlying status, talk to your lawyer before flying, and don’t sign any paperwork (especially USCIS forms) that you are not completely familiar with. While generally not an issue, certain airports are considered more high-risk than others.

Particular issues are also present for bus and train travel within the 100-mile border zones.

If you have a nonimmigrant (temporary) visa: aside from the visa, ideally keep your relevant status documentation (such as USCIS notices for approvals and receipt of pending applications) and a copy of your current I-94 printout: note that it is the I-94, not any entry in your passport, that controls you allotted period of stay. Foreign students should also take care to ensure that there is no reason for ICE or CBP to suspect that they have not fully complied with the terms of their status.

Undocumented travelers: as we stated last week, visa overstays are being targeted for arrests, and this includes individuals with pending applications. So maybe reconsider.

Though some airlines appear to be holding firm against the more zealous ICE officers.

more enforcement

ICE hits a record of 51,000 arrests in July, while still continuing to talk about Biden, and Haitians in Ohio who until last week were in TPS status now report being subject to ankle bracelets.

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

So many rules, so many fees.

hiring exchange visitors gets more complicated

The J-1 exchange visitor program is a Department of State–run program that lets foreign nationals come to the United States temporarily for approved educational and cultural exchange activities, including study, teaching, research, training, and similar programs. It is designed to promote mutual understanding between people in the United States and other countries, with designated sponsors overseeing the participant’s program.

Under a Department of State proposed rule, employers participating in the J-1 exchange visitor program would face a significantly higher reporting burden, and use of the program would become a riskier proposition. Changes to the job (duties, worksite, hours, compensation, supervision, etc.) must be cleared with the sponsor before being implemented, and the program could be terminated if the visa holder engages in outside employment, if the employer fails to maintain insurance or if the original purpose of the program is deemed to have been abandoned.

The sponsor must also terminate the program for incomplete or withheld information, thus requiring employers to be pristine with their job descriptions, worksite information, training plans, attendance records, and reports. Moreover, the information must be corrected within 30 days of occurrence. Failure to do so would require requesting reinstatement, which could set back the program five months.

let’s see how this goes

EOIR, the Department of Justice office that oversees the immigration courts and Board of Immigration Appeals, has its own professional-conduct system for lawyers practicing before it, with disciplinary counsel authorized to investigate misconduct and seek sanctions when those rules are violated. That federal discipline process runs alongside, not in place of, state bar regulation, so attorney conduct can be addressed separately by state licensing authorities and by EOIR under the federal immigration-practice rules

And yet: another proposed rule, this from the Executive Office for Immigration Review (within the Department of Justice), would create a new system under which certain attorneys, immigrants, and witnesses can be subject to fines ranging from $1,000 to $3,500. The targeted behavior includes repeated and unexcused failure to appear on time or comply with filings orders, false statements or submissions or to otherwise misleading behavior, and engaging in disorderly or abusive behavior (including the content within court submissions). Clear warnings must be given by the judge before the misconduct recurs, with requirements for notification, response, and appeal. A lawyer may face immediate suspension for failure to pay.

It goes without saying that counsel and staff for the Department of Homeland Security are not subject.

shrinking the application-to-deportation pipeline

And now an interim final rule, this one from the Department of Homeland Security, allows asylum offices to just skip the interview and send simply send certain cases straight to immigration court. For now, these should be limited to applications that were filed after the one-year deadline or that otherwise appear to be ineligible for asylum, or where there are factors present that lead the office to believe that the case is unlikely to approved. The rule applies to both prospective and currently-pending cases.

Moreover, reports have been emerging from the field of ICE arrests taking place at the interviews. While in some instances there may have been past criminal activity or other violation warranting detention, in others no particular basis for the arrest was known.

continuing developments

NYT confirms the airport arrests

We touched on the outbreak of airport arrests by ICE last week, and the New York Times this week confirms that these have taken place at at least 15 airports in California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, New Jersey, Texas, and Virginia. Those arrested generally had overstayed their visas, though many had pending applications for extensions of their status, as well as pending applications for green cards.

(The discrepancy between having an expired visa and a pending application for a new one is often due to the massive USCIS backlogs in reviewing new applications. An application for an extension or adjustment of status can be timely filed while someone is still currently in valid status, but by the time USCIS is able to review the new application, the prior status has already expired. For example: the maximum amount of time permitted for a visitor stay is six months, but the time it currently takes USCIS to review an application to extend that status is 7.5 months.)

We’ll note any expansion, and agency clarification, of this practice as it develops.

A week without TPS updates

Given how rare it is to find a week without a major update related to Temporary Protected Status, parole programs, and related work authorization, we’ll take this pause as an opportunity to round up existing guidance for the various programs.

Lebanon TPS: extended through November 27, 2026.

Burma, Ethiopia, Haiti, Somalia, South Sudan, Syria, and Yemen TPS: because expiration dates change frequently due to ongoing litigation, employers should keep checking USCIS and I-9 Central. Burma (Myanmar) and Somalia currently have August 3, 2026 as a placeholder date for expiration, while Ethiopia and South Sudan have August 6, 2026. However, for I-9s that are already updated, no additional changes are needed.

El Salvador, Sudan, and Ukraine TPS: the July 21st court order mentioned last week continues to preserve their 540-day automatic extensions.

Venezuela TPS: pursuant to a court order, documents/notices with an October 2, 2026, expiration dates, on or before February 5, 2025, will remain valid through October 2nd.

Haiti and Syria: TPS termination became effective for Haiti on July 27th and for Syria on July 20th.

Parole programs: Military parole in place remains active and continues to accept applications (though we note it can be incredibly difficult to get an application accepted and processed). Uniting for Ukraine is active but not accepting applications. Afghan parole benefits is suspended for affected travel-ban countries. The Family Reunification Program processes have been restored under court order for Colombians, Cubans, Ecuadorians, Guatemalans, Haitians, Hondurans, and Salvadorans who already had work permits. CHNV (for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans) has been terminated.

USCIS guidance for reverifying documents is here, and TPS updates on I-9 Central are found here.

other things that are happening

As over 500,000 TPS beneficiaries are about to be removed from the work force, labor shortages are expected in construction and health care. The administration is considering a $100,000 charge for international graduates who use Optional Practical Training (which permits one to three years of post-graduation work) likely affecting another 400,000 employees, many of whom are in STEM fields. And the Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals becomes the fifth federal appeals courts to find that immigrants arrested within the U.S. (rather than at a port of entry) cannot be categorically denied a bond hearing, though expect this to reach the Supreme Court given that two other courts have sided with the administration.

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

great news for consular H-1Bs and Mexican visitors, more of the same for everyone else

the $100,000 H-1B is gone (for now)

On **September 19, 2025, **President Trump issued Proclamation 10973, imposing a $100,000 fee on what essentially amounted to new H-1B petitions processed overseas. As we discussed at that time, the administration imposed the payment through a presidential entry proclamation rather than through legislation or ordinary fee-setting rulemaking, relying on authority under the federal statute INA §212(f)—which authorizes the President to suspend or restrict the entry of certain foreign nationals—to override Congress’s detailed statutory framework for H-1B petitions and fees.

Three months later, twenty states challenged the policy in federal court in Massachusetts. After eight months, the district court ruled that the agencies’ implementation—not the proclamation itself—was unlawful and vacated it (i.e., squashed it) nationwide. The court temporarily paused its ruling while the government appealed to the First Circuit and sought a longer stay pending appeal. (An administrative stay was only a short-term measure to preserve the status quo, not a final ruling on the policy’s legality.)

In opposition to the motion, the states asserted public harms imposed by the fee in that that it impaired the ability of public universities, schools, hospitals, and healthcare systems to recruit necessary workers, and would worsen existing staffing shortages: basically, that the implementation of the policy should not be stayed (paused) because of the harm that the states would suffer while the Circuit Court considered the government’s appeal.

On Friday, the First Circuit denied the government’s motion, effectively ruling that the government was likely to lose anyways. The district court concluded that the $100,000 charge functioned as a tax or comparable financial exaction and that Congress had not clearly delegated authority to impose it through INA §§212(f) and 215(a). The First Circuit did not sign on to every part of that reasoning, but nevertheless concluded that the government had not shown a strong likelihood of overturning the district court’s ruling.

Without the ability to implement the policy (was anyway set to expire in September), the government cannot collect the payment, cannot reject petitions for nonpayment, and cannot condition visa processing on proof of payment.

The upshot is that the $100,000 cannot be imposed at present, and will not return at all unless the government wins its appeal: which the First Circuit has already stated will be unlikely. The Massachusetts ruling is not the only litigation involving the fee, however. A separate case brought by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in the District of Columbia upheld the policy in December 2025, which was appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court Of Appeals. So we have a “circuit split” likely leading to resolution by the U.S. Supreme Court. However, the administration would be unlikely to be able to impose the policy throughout that period.

The First Circuit’s decision does _not _resolve every past dispute about which filings were covered, particularly where an employer already paid, a petition was rejected or delayed, or a case remains in agency processing. As to today, agency guidance remains pending (check here), so we don’t know how USCIS handle petitions submitted during the transition, whether or how there would be refunds or remedies for petitions rejected, delayed, or abandoned due to the fee, or whether the administration will decide to attempt to extend the proclamation after it’s expiration date on September 21. Expect petulance. However, the Pay.gov form created to collect the H-1B payment seems to have been taken down as of yesterday morning.

this week in TPS-based work permits

There is another thrilling chapter in the ongoing saga of Form I-9 reverification for employees with TPS-based A12 or C19 work permits.

Three days prior to the H-1B ruling, the the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued more rulings on temporary administrative stays, pausing the provisions of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”(OBBA) that:

• shortened expiration deadlines to Temporary Protected Status employment authorization documents (work permits) that had already received longer extensions; and
• prevented USCIS from rejecting an asylum application, terminating associated work authorization, or initiating removal solely because an applicant has not paid the new annual asylum fee.

Thus, TPS beneficiaries whose employment authorization had previously been extended beyond July 22, 2026 may continue to be employed throughout that period of extension. The government’s SAVE and E-Verify systems subsequently reflected that employment authorization for certain Haitian TPS beneficiaries remained extended through July 27, 2026. The court indicated that it expected to issue a further ruling by August 5th.

Employers, HR, and payroll should continue to review the relevant USCIS, E-Verify, and SAVE pages for each relevant employee’s TPS country (we’ve been posting them in prior newsletters). See the USCIS update here.

Now the fine print:

• The order is temporary, and the court may modify or dissolve it.
• TPS validity also remains affected by separate country-specific termination and extension litigation; these rulings do not reverse or delay any terminations of TPS.
• Agency databases and employer-facing guidance may not update simultaneously: keep refreshing.

**pay more for faster visitor visa interviews **

(in your home country) (if that country is Mexico)

The Department of State announced a preference that visa applicants interview in their country of nationality or residence (for both immigrantand nonimmigrant visas), effectuated last fall. Applicants requesting an appointment outside of their home country may face greater difficulty demonstrating eligibility, longer waits, and risk losing fees that cannot be transferred or refunded.

In June, the administration publicly proposed an entirely different policy: a paid scheduling pilot in which applications for visitor visas may pay an additional fee to obtain expedited interviews. This week, the administration announced implementation of premium visa scheduling pilotat U.S. Mission Mexico (the main U.S. Embassy in Mexico City, along with the nine consulates and nine consular agencies), under which applications paying an additional $750 will secure an interview within approximately ten business days (subject to availability).

What the program does not do:

• open up availability to those who are not citizens or residents of Mexico;
• increase the likelihood of approval;
• decrease the likelihood of requests for additional evidence or of administrative processing; or
• eliminate security or social-media screening.

The premium option is available only when it appears in the scheduling system and when a limited premium slot remains available. The pilot is scheduled to run through December 31st, and there is not yet indication of whether it will expand beyond Mexico. Developments [here](https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/News/visas-news.html).

ICE arrests domestic flyers

Building off of reports of information-sharing between the TSA and ICE and subsequent arrests, reports continue to roll in of targeted civil immigration arrests of individuals taking domestic flights directly at the airports, with very recent anecdotal evidence confirming the same. While hard information is difficult to obtain, counsel for several individuals has stated that arrests took place over their objections that the arrested individuals had applications pending before USCIS. Organizations are publishing know your rights materials in response.

While this appears to be a new policy and level of enforcement, airports have always created a federal screening environment. Airlines collect passenger information, TSA verifies identity and conducts security screening, and federal law-enforcement agencies may already possess passenger or travel data. ICE does not necessarily need an airline employee to make a separate report before conducting a targeted arrest, but it certainly helps, and the information-sharing appears to have given rise to these incidents. Nevertheless, this is a clear escalation of prior practice and procedures.

legislation to make immigration courts into actual, functioning, 21st century, civilized, real courts

As we’ve been commenting (including, but not limited, to here, here, here, and here), there are real problems with the manner in which the immigration courts function within the Department of Justice rather than the federal court system. Immigration judges operate differently from federal district-court judges, and they can be manipulated over time to serve not as administers of justice but as arms of enforcement.

On July 23, 2026, Senators Kirsten Gillibrand and Dick Durbin announced the Senate version of the Real Courts, Rule of Law Act, which would replace the Department of Justice’s existing immigration-court system with an independent Article I court. (The House version, H.R. 7836, was introduced by Representative Zoe Lofgren on March 5, 2026.)

Immigration judges currently work within the Executive Office for Immigration Review, an agency of the Department of Justice, and exercise authority delegated by the Attorney General. ICE, which prosecutes the cases, sits within the Department of Homeland Security, though as with the DOJ remains part of the executive branch and subject to DOJ supervision and Attorney General review.

The system would move immigration cases outside DOJ to the regular federal court system. Judges would serve fixed judicial terms, be appointment according to merit, maintain greater control over their cases, and be removed only for cause. Courts would retain control over budgets and dockets, and would require far greater transparency. Political interference would be greatly reduced.

We’re unlikely to see this within the next few years, as with any legislation, it must pass both the House and Senate, be signed by the President, and then require substantial time and funding, with new judicial appointments, procedural rules, and the transfer of personnel, records, and pending cases. But it’s a step in the right direction.

yet more enforcement

The fines for overstaying are creeping up to $2,000,000 for some, the administration receives confirmation of its ability to detain illegal entrants for longer and without bond, and “deportation-maxing” becomes official.

lastly

If you received notifications last week that USCIS was automatically revoking your employment authorization documents and terminating advance parole, you’re one of many. This largely involved cases in which the green card had already been issued, though apparently some still had pending applications for work or travel documents. I defer to Hanlon’s Razor.

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

DHS get specific with students and journalists

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) finalized a rule that will limit the amount of time that students will be able to pursue their studies in the U.S. Currently, F and J visa holders (among other categories) are able to stay for a “duration of status (D/S)” This phrase essentially means that, when the visa holders enter, it is not known exactly how long their status will last. This is partly because educational programs often don’t have definite, fixed end dates. As long as the visa holders complies with the requirements of the visa, they can remain for the duration of that program.

That is, until September 15, 2026, when the new rule goes into effect. A process that has historically been managed by schools and exchange visitor programs will now be managed by the Department of Homeland Security, which will limit students to four-year stays, which will require a significant majority of them to seek extensions (particularly those pursuing Ph.D. programs).

As we wrote a year ago:

“Requests for extensions would no longer be processed by the schools alone, but via USCIS: requiring extra scrutiny fees, processing, and delays so lengthy they could effectively prevent students from registering in time for their upcoming semesters. Moreover, students may be required to present compelling academic reasons for the extensions (including medical issues or other extraordinary circumstances), among other restrictions, such as the ability of students to effectively transition from student status to H-1B status (via “cap-gap” extensions).

Most dramatically, “unlawful presence,” a legal determination that carries significant penalties and restrictions, would be attached to students immediately following the new fixed terms, rather than after official findings of status violations.”

Students already admitted for D/S will be transitioned into the new policy over the course of four years up until their program end date, without applying for an extension of status, up until November 14, 2030. Essentially, their situation remains unchanged: apply for an extension when your current program or OPT/STEM OPT ends. (I-visa holders will have a shorter transition period).

The upshot is that students seeking to begin a new program after September 15th should be prepared to have to justify the extra time needed after their four-year period expires: specifically, why they were not able to complete their program and training within that period, and/or why a new degree or program will advance their career prospects back in their home country.

metrics will matter

DHS also issued a final rule rescinding the 2022 public-charge ground of inadmissibility regulation, effective September 18, 2026 and applicable to applications for admission to the U.S. made on or after that date, as well as adjustment of status applications postmarked or electronically submitted on or after that date.

Most of those applying for admission to the U.S.—whether through an embassy or an application before USCIS—are subject to INA § 212(a)(4). Those with family-based cases already submit an affidavit of support, in which the sponsor essentially claims that they are willing to reimburse the government for certain benefits that the applicant might claim. Employment-based cases are exempt from this requirement, but are still generally subject to public-charge review at the green card stage.

The final rule restores broader discretionarypublic-charge review and removes rigid features of the 2022 rule, meaning that DHS officials are not limited to examining the use of cash benefits, but can investigate an applicant’s use of any public benefit, and can consider factors such as professional skills, education, age, and overall physical health.

As with the D/S rule, this applies prospectively as well. Certain means-tested benefits received before September 18th will be considered consistently with the 2022 rule. We can expect more aggressive requests from DHS documentation related to applicants’ finances, health, household situation, benefits received, and forms and amount of support.

this week in TPS

Beginning tomorrow, July 22, 2026, the 540-day automatic extensions to TPS-based work permits will expire(pursuant to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act) unless USCIS has issued them a new employment authorization document.

For renewals filed before July 22, 2025, the auto-extended work authorization expires July 22, 2026 even if the the USCIS notice shows a longer 540-day period; for renewals filed between July 22, 2025 and October 30, 2025, the extension is limited to one year from the card expiration date or the duration of TPS, whichever is shorter.

So again, employers should consider targeted I-9 review and reverification by July 22, 2026, while E-Verify employers may see system updates reflecting July 22, 2026 as the expiration date. And as some TPS countries remain affected by litigation or country-specific Federal Register notices, the general cutoff has to be checked against the worker’s specific TPS country, work permit category, filing date, receipt notice, and any USCIS/SAVE/E-Verify guidance. See this week’s E-Verify updates for Syria, Somalia, Ethiopia, Burma, South Sudan, and Yemen here.

regaining the power of speech

The U.S. District Court for District of Columbia, in Coalition for Independent Technology Research v. Rubio, temporarily paused the State Department policy restricting visas for those accused of “censoring Americans” through work on online misinformation, hate speech, content moderation, platform regulation, or trust-and-safety research, finding that the policy violated the the First Amendment (and thus also the Administrative Procedure Act) by burdening protected speech and association based on viewpoint.

The May 2025 policy was framed as a visa-ban measure against foreign nationals “complicit in censoring Americans,” which appears to have banned or restricted visa issuance to Europeans involved in online-content regulation, including European Union Digital Services Act enforcement, U.K. online-safety regulation, and civil-society research on disinformation and hate speech. The judge found that noncitizens could reasonably view the policy as putting their immigration status at risk because of their work and viewpoints, rather than because of any direct exercise of foreign government censorship power.

The order is not a final ruling, and merely pauses enforcement while the litigation continues.

the August bulletin

This month’s bulletin favors the family-based cases in general, and especially spouses and children of permanent residents (F2A) whose category advanced the most. USCIS is allowing family cases to use the more flexible filing chart, which may let more people submit their applications now.

Employment-based applicants, rather, must use the stricter final action chart (Chart A), so many people may have to wait longer for their priority date to become current there before they can file concurrent adjustment of status applications,.

DOS is also warning that some employment categories could get worse before the fiscal year ends on September 30, including possible date freezes, backward movement, or temporary unavailability. This usually happens near the end of the fiscal year when the government is trying to stay within annual visa limits.

other news

The United Nations doesn’t approve of the purges in immigration courts (more context here), ICE is using kids in shelters as bait to arrest relatives, a Trump nominee finds that T rump can’t force Minnesota to do it’s bidding, and it would be great if we could build t his much housingfor U.S. residents.

Sigh.

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

E-signatures become fatal; another week, another TPS reverification update; it’s still hard finding that seasonal work; and Republicans won’t let go of the birthright citizenship thing.

Just use a printer and pen.

USCIS has tightened the stakes around signatures on immigration filings. On July 10, 2026, new Policy Manual guidance took effect, following a May 2026 interim final rule on signature requirements. If USCIS accepts a filing and later decides it does not contain a valid signature, the agency may reject or _deny _the request. If it denies the filing, USCIS may keep the filing fee and treat the case as fully adjudicated.

That makes signatures more than an administrative detail. A missing, copied, pasted, or otherwise defective signature may no longer be caught only at the lockbox stage, where the package can be corrected and resubmitted. It could instead become a denial risk after the case is already in the system, with the added cost of lost fees, refiling, delay, or appeal.

Confirm who is authorized to sign and how wet signatures are collected, and retain the original. Or risk losing your time, money, and your case.

We’ll talk about this again in a week.

Those following the long-running saga regarding terminations of Temporary Protected Status programs have been experiencing it first as a looming termination issue, then as an employer I-9/E-Verify problem, and now as a struggle to determine how to align court orders, agency systems, and HR obligations. The newest July 10 USCIS guidance keeps that theme going. For Haiti, USCIS now instructs employers to use July 24, 2026 as the Form I-9/E-Verify date; for Burma, Ethiopia, Somalia, South Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, USCIS points to July 17, 2026. These are not broad new TPS extensions or stable long-term solutions. They are short, court-order-based validity dates while lower courts respond to the Supreme Court’s June 25, 2026 TPS decision in Mullin v. Doe.

Employers should continue to keep tabs on employees whose work authorization depends on TPS from one of these countries, confirm their EAD category and original expiration date, update I-9/E-Verify records exactly as USCIS instructs, and keep checking for new guidance. There will most likely be another update next week, and the weeks following until who knows.

Of crawfish and waitstaff

H-2B is the immigration system behind seasonal experiences we do not always associate with immigration, but that make perfect sense once we stop to think about them: crawfish boils, beach hotels, landscaping crews, resorts, summer tourism, and more. Because the number of H-2B visas is capped each year, the program can affect whether seasonal businesses have enough workers to process seafood, staff hotels, maintain resort grounds, or meet peak customer demand. In Louisiana’s crawfish industry, for example, processors have reported that H-2B delays and limits left them short-staffed during peak season, affecting a local food economy tied to restaurants, grocery stores, and tourism. AP Newså

Demand often exceeds supply, and this year is no exception. On July 8, 2026, the Office of Foreign Labor Certification (OFLC) reported 2,625 applications covering 51,158 requested worker positions for October 1 start dates, far above the 33,000 first-half H-2B allotment. OFLC randomized the filings into review groups: Group A goes first and alone contains enough requested workers to use up the cap; Group B, with another 744 cases, waits behind it. This kind of oversubscription is common in peak H-2B cycles such as the present.

Note that this is only the beginning of the process. Before workers can actually arrive, employers still have to move through DOL recruitment and certification, USCIS petitioning, consular processing, travel, onboarding, and the visa cap itself.

Make America Smaller Again

A Republican House Representative introduced a bill making a play for that Brett Kavanaugh vote to end birthright citizenship. The strategy being that, if it somehow passes and gets signed into law, it could survive a legal challenge under the theory, espoused by Kavanaugh, that the problem with ending birthright citizenship isn’t the constitution, but congressional law. Even so, winning over Kavanaugh would only move the needle from 6-3 to 5-4: still short of a majority. Which is nevertheless shockingly close.

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