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

Fewer dramatic decisions and potentially more friction points for employers and travelers: exit screening, re-verifying work permits, departure screening, wage-year data, and flying-while-pregnant.

Not unauthorized yet, but maybe soon

Last week we highlighted the Supreme Court decision in Mullin v. Doe that precludes federal courts from reviewing non-constitutional challenges to the Department of Homeland Security’s termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS): thus permitting DHS to end the programs for Haiti and Syria. Lower courts had previously issued injunctions blocking terminations and ordering extensions of Employment Authorization Documents (EADs); those courts must now adjust their orders consistent with Mullin. USCIS E-Verify and SAVE issued guidance recognizing that affected TPS beneficiaries (Burma, Ethiopia, Haiti, Somalia, South Sudan, Syria, and Yemen) will maintain their status and employment authorization in the United States until that time.

HR and payroll teams responsible for I-9 reverification, E-Verify, and SAVE should note that the SAVE manual responses will identify the person as “Temporary Protected Status - Employment Authorized - Temp Emp Auth,” show an employment-authorized-through date of July 10, 2026, and include DHS comments that TPS and employment authorization are extended per court order while the relevant USCIS TPS country page should be checked regularly. It describes the July 10, 2026 work-authorization date as a placeholder extension that may change depending on DHS and lower-court action. It is thus not a stable expiration date for all practical purposes. As different district courts may dissolve stays for different TPS countries at different times, anticipate rolling terminations and/or reverification’s.

Affected employers should develop a country-by-country reverification plan, a process for checking alternative work authorization, and consider action when employment authorization has actually expired (not necessarily when the document expires) and no valid List A or List C document is presented.

Really, you just gotta keep checking this page, scrolling down to ‘Countries Currently Designated for TPS,’ and taking it from there. You’ll have to skim through the summaries, which are essentially “the stupid judge ruled against us even though the Supreme Court said we’re better,” etc., and scroll down again to the section for “Automatic Employment Authorization Document (EAD) Extension.”

wages

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Foreign Labor Certification(OFLC) publishes wage levels that serve as the baseline pay standard in a number of employment-based immigration programs, so employers use them to assess whether a proposed job offer meets the required minimum compensation. OFLC updates wage data each year to set benchmarks for paying foreign workers for jobs tied to labor certification and work-visa filings, including H-1B, H-2B, and many employment-based green cards. Last week it released updated wage data (for the period of July 2026 through June 2027, effective July 1, 2026), effectively setting the wage levels to be used in recruiting, budgeting, compliance decisions, and and responses to government requests for evidence.

The OFLC also announced that employers seeking H-2B workers with an October 1, 2026 start date were required to file during the designated registration window of July 3–5, 2026. Applications submitted before the filing window opened are subject to denial, while timely filed applications will be randomly assigned for processing.

EB-5 stuff

Created in 1990 to stimulate the economy through job creation and capital investment by foreign investors (and their immediate family members) seeking green cards, the EB-5 immigrant funnels qualifying investment in a U.S. business that will create jobs for U.S. workers. It has since been used as a financing source for development projects, especially through the regional center program, which allows investors to pool capital in federally approved regional centers that are meant to promote economic growth. (With the pleasant side effect of the centers sponsoring a lot of the conferences we attend.)

While generally seen as successful, the program has also dealt with concerns about needing stronger integrity safeguards, including better oversight of investments, promoters, project governance, and the risk of fraud or abuse in the petition process.

USCIS published a proposed rule on July 2, 2026 titled EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022; Ensuring the Integrity of the EB-5 Program; Automatic Revocation of Petitions for Immigrant Classification. The Act adds anti-fraud and oversight measures while also reauthorizing the regional center program through September 2027. The point of the law was to make the program more transparent and accountable (addressing documentation, promoter registration, investment duration, targeted employment areas, project governance, and revocation risk), while still keeping it available for investors who create jobs and invest in U.S. businesses. Comments may be submitted until August 31, 2026.

birth-tourism

In light of last week’s decision in Trump v. Barbara defeating the Trump Administration’s attempt to end birthright citizenship, a leaked memo indicates that the Department of Justice (DOJ) is moving to address the issue via investigations of visitors for visa fraud and false pretenses, using their full scope of available tools for prosecutions, including criminal charges under visa fraud, money laundering, identity theft, and wire fraud statutes via a “birth tourism initiative” that has been active since April. Those traveling while pregnant may face additional scrutiny regarding their stated purpose of travel, misrepresentation, funding, lodging, and organized birth-tourism services.

Smile

Prepare to have your picture taken on the way out. All international travelers (excluding U.S. citizens) departing the U.S. may be required to provide biometrics upon departure; earlier exemptions for children under 14 and adults over 79 have been removed. Last week DHS published a Final Rule amending how biometric collection systems integrate into the broader immigration framework. Custom and Border Protection (CBP)’s biometric exit system does not require physical contact, primarily using facial comparison, taking your picture at the departure gate (or other inspection point) and, within seconds, matching it with your passport or visa photos, verifying departure, and updating their records. If a “hit” appears, they may thus address it before you board. Essentially, anything that could have caused an issue on the way in may now cause an issue on the way out, so perhaps make your way to the gate a bit earlier than planned if you’ve had significant immigration or criminal issues in the past (and carry clarifying documentation). The window for public comment on the rule remains open until August 28, 2026. Check CBP alerts here.

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

The bulletin goes backwards, jus soli survives while TPS does not: plus dairy memos, metering, and more.

That time of year

The lines for employment-based (EB) green cards are getting longer as demand continues to outstrip supply. This is particularly so for Indians, for whom EB-2 and EB-5 are unavailable for the remainder of FY 2026, with EB-1 moving backwards two months to October 2022. EB-1 China and EB-3 (all categories) moved slightly forward, though EB-2 China and EB-3 Philippines may retrogress or become unavailable in coming months. Family-based categories remain largely unchanged. The bulletin warns that further retrogression is possible until the FY 2027 quota is released in October.

Trump loses

Birthright citizenship remains the law of the land: by a 6-3 vote, with Kavanaugh concurring in part and dissenting in part. See more on the litigation and decision on SCOTUSblog, and see the policy propelling us forward at the World Cup.

In California, A federal judge vacated an ICE directive and an Immigration Court policy memo that enabled ICE to make civil arrests in courthouses, as well an ICE memo permitting officers to detain people in holding facilities for up to 72 hours (for individuals who are not subject to detention but who are otherwise subject to processing, transfer, release, or repatriation). Unlike prior rulings, this order from the Northern District of California has nationwide effect. The related class action litigation will continue, and an appeal of the judge’s order is highly likely.

Trump wins

The administration may now end Temporary Protected Status for Haitians and Syrians following a 6-3 ruling by the Supreme Court, essentially holding that the federal law implementing TPS prevents court review of DHS decisions to end the designations. Expect healthcare professions to be hit particularly hard as very large numbers of individuals employed in the field will in all likelihood lose employment authorization in the coming weeks. It is estimated that over 350,000 Haitians and about 6,000 Syrians will be affected.

Another 6-3 SCOTUS decision, in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, permitted the administration to resume the practice of “metering,” under which CBP may turn back asylum seekers at the U.S.– Mexico border. The Court held that those standing at the border had not “arrived” at the U.S. such that they may avail themselves of the inspection and asylum processing procedures at ports of entry.

Meanwhile, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals essentially permittedthe administration to dramatically expand the use of expedited removal, a fast-track removal process initially limited to areas within 100 miles of a U.S. land border. The practice can now be applied anywhere in the U.S. to an individual unable to prove that they have lived in the U.S. continuously for two years (though the individual may not be notified of their right to assert this exception), at which point an immigration officer (not judge) may order the individual removed, without recourse to appeal and (generally) a five-year bar to reentering the U.S. The order vacates a district court injunction, though the litigation itself remains ongoing.

We note that each of the above policies from the current administration could be limited, reversed, or reinforced by legislation.

Dairies

The H-2A program for temporary agricultural workers requires that employers demonstrate a need for agricultural labor or services of a temporary or seasonal nature. The employers must satisfy recruitment, wage, housing, transportation, and other contract obligations, and must document the temporary nature of the labor need. We now have a USCIS policy memo explaining how dairies (which typically operate year-round) can establish a “temporary or seasonal need”: namely, by tying work to an annual event or pattern that requires significantly greater operational resources (such as a short growing cycle). More on the program generally and its wage requirements here and here.

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

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