Immigration updates: October 7, 2026

**The 100K fee takes another L. **

1 win, 2 losses for the proclamation fee

The Trump administration remains blocked from collecting the $100,000 payment required for covered H-1B petitions for workers outside the U.S.

You may recall thinking that this already happened, and in fact back in July, we discussed the First Circuit’s order, in California v. Mullin, where the district court had found that the payment amounted to a tax imposed without congressional authorization and that the agencies’ implementation violated the Administrative Procedure Act. The First Circuit focused on the government’s failure to show that Congress had authorized this kind of payment.

The original proclamation was set to expire on September 21, 2026. Undaunted, the administration issued another proclamation on September 18, extending the requirement through September 21, 2027.

On September 30, the Northern District of California added a second barrier to collection. In Global Nurse Force v. Trump, the court blocked the agency policies implementing both proclamations. It did not enjoin the proclamations themselves.

The California court focused on the administrative process the agencies had skipped. A presidential directive does not excuse agencies from considering alternatives, accounting for the interests of those who relied on existing policies, or following required notice-and-comment procedures. The court found the plaintiffs likely to succeed on those claims without deciding whether the proclamation imposed an unauthorized tax.

We’ve yet to cover the third major lawsuit making the rounds in the District of Columbia, where Chamber of Commerce v. DHS upheldthe implementation of the proclamation pursuant to the President’s authority to regulate the admission of foreign nationals under INA § 212(f).

The current scorecard reads:

• U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts: A final judgment against the agency policies remains in effect while the administration appeals to the First Circuit.
• U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California: The court granted preliminary relief against implementation under both proclamations. The case continues, and the administration can appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
• U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit: The district court upheld the policy. The [Chamber’s appeal](https://www.uschamber.com/cases/labor-and-employment/chamber-of-commerce-v-dhs-2) is pending before the D.C. Circuit.

Upshot: the payment remains blocked while the dispute winds its way through the various judicial circuits. Should there remain a split between them, it will almost inevitably arrive before the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, having been so chastised by the First Circuit, the administration’s proposed $103,265 fee for cap-subject petitions proposed to actually follow the rulemaking process, albeit under different claimed authority. Thus, public comments must be considered before DHS may decide whether to finalize, revise, or abandon it.

More background here and here.

Less fun, more functional

Thirteen years after CBP began replacing paper I-94 cards for air and sea arrivals, and four years after announcing electronic I-94s at land borders, the agency is ending routine passport admission stamps during primary inspection. Stamps may still be used during secondary inspection, in limited immigrant-visa processing, or upon a traveler’s specific request. CBP says the change will reduce processing times and operating costs.

The I-94, not any notation made on a passport, is the record that actually controls a person’s permitted period of stay in the U.S. and the classification of their manner of entry. For derivative family members (typically a spouse or child of a primary visa holder), it is also the primary evidence of employment authorization; the bulletin notes that might also be used for banking and school purposes.

The I-94 record can be found here, using the information contained on the passport used to enter. And in fact, one should check this information soon after entering, because mistakes are not terribly uncommon, and can be difficult to fix long after the fact. (Corrections are made a local ports of entry, typically within Deferred Inspection.) Printing and keeping it on hand is also not a terribly bad idea in the current environment of “papers, please.”

But a downloaded I-94 is unlikely to inspire the affection once reserved for a passport full of stamps.

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