Immigration Updates: September 16, 2025

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