The Law Office of Anne Z. Sedki, LLC

$100K H-1B Fee Extended to 2027 Despite Court Challenge: What Now?

2026-09-22T04:56:40Z

The $100K H-1B fee has been extended to 2027 under Trump’s H-1B executive order, despite an ongoing H-1B court case challenging the policy. If you’re an H-1B visa holder, employer, international student, or foreign worker planning an H-1B transition, this is important H-1B visa news to understand. But there’s an important wrinkle. The administration has extended the policy, while a federal court ruling that struck down the government’s implementation of the $100,000 payment remains in effect. USCIS currently says it will not collect the payment while that court order remains in place. So, what does the 2027 extension actually mean?

What is the $100,000 H-1B fee and why was it extended to 2027?

On September 19, 2025, President Trump issued Proclamation 10973, restricting the entry of certain H-1B workers unless the employer’s petition was accompanied or supplemented by a $100,000 payment. The original policy took effect on September 21, 2025, for 12 months. On September 18, 2026, President Trump issued a new proclamation extending those restrictions for another 12 months, through September 21, 2027. The new proclamation says the original restrictions have been effective and that the administration believes the conditions that prompted them continue. The administration says the measure is intended to address what it describes as abuse of the H-1B program, including lower-paid recruitment and replacement of U.S. workers. Those are the administration’s stated reasons for continuing the policy. The extension does not create a separate $100,000 charge. It continues the existing framework for another year. However, the court challenge changes the picture significantly. A federal district court has already vacated the government’s implementation of the payment requirement, and the First Circuit later refused to put that ruling on hold.

Who is actually subject to the $100,000 H-1B fee?

The original policy was aimed at certain new H-1B petitions involving workers outside the United States. The State Department explains that the restriction applies to H-1B visa issuance and entry based on petitions filed after September 21, 2025. The proclamation also directs DHS to restrict decisions on covered petitions for H-1B workers outside the U.S. unless the payment is made or an exception applies. That does not mean every H-1B petition carries a $100,000 payment. The original policy generally did not target:

H-1B workers already in the U.S. seeking an extension or change of status
Petitions filed before September 21, 2025
Existing H-1B visa holders whose previously issued visas were not being revoked under the proclamation
Certain cases qualifying for an exception or national-interest determination

This distinction is particularly important for F-1 students moving to H-1B status. An F-1 student already in the U.S. may have an H-1B petition filed requesting a change of status rather than consular processing. That is different from an H-1B worker outside the U.S. who needs visa issuance and admission. The details of the petition and the beneficiary’s location therefore matter.

Why did the courts block the $100,000 H-1B fee?

The main case is State of California v. Mullin, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts by a coalition of 20 states. On June 8, 2026, Judge Leo T. Sorokin ruled for the states and vacated the government’s policy implementing the $100,000 payment requirement. The court concluded that the payment functioned as a tax and that the executive branch lacked congressional authority to impose it. The court also found violations of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court wrote: “There are no statutory powers authorizing Defendants to implement a $100,000 tax on H-1B petitions.” The government appealed. The district court temporarily placed its ruling under an administrative stay while the government sought relief from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. On July 24, 2026, the First Circuit denied the government’s request to stay the district court’s ruling. The appeals court said the government had not made a “strong showing” that it was likely to succeed on the merits. That decision did not end the lawsuit. The underlying appeal remains pending.

If the fee is extended, do employers have to pay it right now?

Not according to USCIS’s current position. This is probably the most important part of the latest update. The administration has extended the policy through September 21, 2027. But the court ruling vacating the government’s implementation remains in effect. USCIS says it will comply with the First Circuit’s order and will not collect the $100,000 payment while the court ruling remains in place. USCIS has also stated that if the court order is later lifted, DHS still intends to collect the payment. So, the September 18 extension should not be interpreted as an instruction for employers to start sending $100,000 with covered H-1B petitions today. There are currently two separate developments to follow: The administration: has extended the policy through 2027. The courts: have blocked the government’s current implementation of the payment requirement. For an employer preparing an H-1B filing, current USCIS instructions and the status of the litigation should be checked before filing.

What does the 2027 extension mean for H-1B workers, employers, and future applicants?

For employers recruiting H-1B workers from abroad, the extension keeps the possibility of a $100,000 payment requirement on the table if the court ruling is eventually lifted. That could affect hiring decisions, sponsorship plans and the timing of bringing workers to the United States. For H-1B workers already in the U.S., the extension does not automatically turn every extension, transfer or change-of-status petition into a $100,000 case. The original policy focused on certain H-1B workers outside the country. International students should also pay attention to the distinction between change of status and consular processing. An F-1 student transitioning to H-1B inside the U.S. may be in a different position from someone who needs to obtain an H-1B visa abroad. For employers planning ahead for 2027, uncertainty remains. The administration has extended the policy, but the litigation could change its legal status.

What happens next with the $100,000 H-1B fee?

The First Circuit appeal continues, with briefing on the merits expected to conclude in October 2026. The appeals court could ultimately uphold the district court’s ruling, reverse it, or otherwise alter the legal framework surrounding the payment requirement. Further review could also be sought. There is another H-1B fee that employers should not confuse with the $100,000 payment. In August 2026, DHS proposed a separate $103,265 fee for all H-1B cap-subject petitions, including petitions eligible for the advanced degree exemption. The proposed fee would be paid when the petition is filed and would be added to other applicable fees. That proposal is not the same $100,000 payment involved in State of California v. Mullin, and it is not currently a final fee. Public comments on the $103,265 proposal are due September 24, 2026. For now, employers and applicants should keep track of filing dates, whether the beneficiary is inside or outside the United States, whether the case requests change of status or consular processing, and any upcoming international travel.

What should you do now?

If you’re an H-1B employer or worker, don’t let the headline alone determine your next move. The administration has extended the $100,000 H-1B policy to 2027. At the same time, USCIS is currently not collecting the $100,000 payment because of the court ruling. If you’re planning an H-1B filing, particularly for someone outside the U.S., review the current government instructions before filing. The difference between a change-of-status case and a case requiring visa issuance abroad can also matter. Whether you’re an employer in New York or New Jersey, an H-1B worker elsewhere in the U.S., or a foreign national preparing to move to the U.S., immigration strategy can become especially important when a major fee is tied up in ongoing litigation.

The Law Offices of Anne Z. Sedki

H-1B rules are changing quickly, and I know it can be difficult to figure out which headline actually applies to your case. At The Law Offices of Anne Z. Sedki, I help employers, H-1B workers and other foreign nationals understand how changing immigration rules may affect their options. My team serves clients in New York and New Jersey, nationwide, and worldwide, including employers dealing with H-1B sponsorship and workers navigating status changes, visa processing and international travel. If you’re unsure whether the $100,000 H-1B payment could affect your case, or you’re trying to plan an H-1B transition while the lawsuit continues, let’s talk about your situation.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Is the $100,000 H-1B fee still in effect in 2026?

The administration has extended the policy through September 21, 2027. However, USCIS currently says it will not collect the $100,000 payment because the government’s implementation was vacated and the First Circuit denied the government’s request to pause that ruling.

Has the $100,000 H-1B fee been extended to 2027?

Yes. The September 18, 2026 proclamation extends the restrictions for another 12 months, through September 21, 2027.

Who has to pay the $100,000 H-1B fee?

The original policy targeted certain new H-1B petitions involving workers outside the United States. It did not impose a $100,000 payment on every H-1B petition.

Does the $100,000 fee apply to H-1B extensions or transfers?

Generally, the original policy did not target H-1B extensions or changes of status for workers already in the United States.

Does the $100,000 H-1B fee apply to F-1 students changing to H-1B status?

An F-1 student requesting a change of status inside the United States is treated differently from an H-1B beneficiary outside the country who needs visa issuance and admission. The specific filing strategy matters.

Can the $100,000 fee still be collected while the court case is pending?

USCIS currently says it will not collect the payment while the court ruling remains in effect. DHS has stated that it plans to collect the payment if the order is later lifted.

What happens if the court ultimately strikes down the $100,000 H-1B fee?

If the court ultimately upholds the vacatur, the government would remain unable to collect the payment under the policy as currently implemented. The final consequences would depend on the court’s orders and any government guidance.

Will employers get the $100,000 H-1B fee back if the fee is ruled unlawful?

That would depend on the final court orders and any refund process established by the government. Employers should not assume a refund would automatically be issued.

Does the $100,000 H-1B fee apply to workers already in the United States?

The original policy focused on certain H-1B workers outside the United States. It generally did not impose the payment on existing workers seeking extensions or changes of status inside the country.

What should employers and H-1B applicants do while the lawsuit continues?

Monitor current USCIS and State Department instructions, confirm whether the beneficiary is inside or outside the United States, and review the filing and travel strategy before taking action.

USCIS Proposal to End the 60-Day Grace Period: What Visa Holders Need to Know Now

2026-09-16T03:39:26Z

If you’re on an H-1B, L-1, O-1, or another employment-based visa, you may have heard about the USCIS grace period that gives certain workers up to 60 days after their employment ends to find another option. Now, The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has proposed removing that protection. The H-1B grace period and similar protections for other work visa holders could change under this proposal 2026 rule. But there’s an important point to keep in mind: the 60-day grace period has not ended. The current rule remains in effect while DHS considers the proposal. Here’s what the proposal says, who could be affected, and what you can do now to prepare.

What is the 60-day grace period for visa holders?

Under the current rule, certain employment-based nonimmigrant workers who lose or stop their qualifying employment can receive up to 60 consecutive days without being considered out of status solely because that employment ended. The period can be shorter if the worker’s authorized stay ends sooner. It can also be shortened by DHS as a matter of discretion. The benefit is available once during each authorized validity period. The rule covers E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, O-1 and TN workers, as well as their dependents. The grace period was created to give these workers some flexibility when employment ends unexpectedly. A worker may use that time to look for another qualifying job, have a new employer file a petition, apply for a change of status, pursue adjustment of status if eligible, or make plans to leave the United States. There is an important limitation: the grace period does not give the worker permission to keep working. Unless separately authorized, employment must stop when the qualifying job ends.

What is USCIS proposing to change?

DHS is proposing to remove the regulation that provides the up-to-60-day grace period for these classifications. The agency says the proposal would restore what it describes as its previous, long-standing approach: tying a worker’s immigration status more directly to the employment or activity that formed the basis for that status. DHS argues that the current grace period can separate a worker’s lawful status from the employment that supports the status. The agency also says eliminating it would reduce administrative burdens and make the rules more consistent with the underlying employment-based classifications. The proposal would remove 8 CFR 214.1(l)(2) for E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, O-1 and TN workers and their dependents. But this is critical: DHS has proposed the change. It has not finalized it. The current 60-day protection therefore remains available under the existing regulation.

Which visa holders would be affected?

The proposal is broader than H-1B. If finalized as written, it would affect workers in:

H-1B and H-1B1
L-1
O-1
E-1
E-2
E-3
TN

Their dependents would also be affected because the current regulation extends the protection to dependents of covered workers. So while H-1B workers may receive most of the attention, this proposal could matter to a much wider group of people whose ability to remain in the United States depends on employment.

What happens if you lose your job without the 60-day grace period?

This is where the proposed change could have its biggest practical effect. Under the current system, losing a job does not automatically mean a qualifying worker has to leave the United States that same day. The grace period can provide time to find another employer or pursue another immigration option. If the proposed rule takes effect, that cushion would disappear for the affected classifications. DHS states that a worker who stops maintaining the employment or activity supporting their status could be required to leave the United States unless they have another legal basis to remain. The proposal specifically notes that some affected workers may need to depart and later seek admission again after finding new employment. That could make timing much more important. A worker who receives a layoff notice may need to move quickly to:

Find a new qualifying employer.
Determine whether a new petition can be filed.
Consider whether a change or extension of status is available.
Explore adjustment of status or another immigration option if eligible.
Prepare for departure if no lawful option is available.

Spouses and children could also be affected because the proposal covers dependents of the listed classifications. For families who have built their lives in the United States, the loss of that 60-day window could make an unexpected job loss much harder to manage.

What should visa holders do if the rule takes effect?

There is no need to panic while the proposal is still being considered. But it may be a good time to prepare. If your immigration status depends on your employment, consider taking a few practical steps now. Keep your immigration records organized. Know when your current status expires and keep copies of your approval notices, I-94 and other important documents. Understand your options before you need them. If you lose your job, you may have more than one possible immigration path. Those options can depend on your visa category, employment history, family situation and other factors. Stay in communication with your employer’s immigration team. If your employer knows about a possible layoff, restructuring or change in employment, early communication can give everyone more time to assess the immigration consequences. Don’t wait until the final days to get advice. If the rule is finalized, the timeline for finding another employer or pursuing another status could become much tighter. Most importantly, don’t assume that losing a job automatically means there are no options. The right next step depends on the facts of your case.

Will USCIS actually end the 60-day grace period?

That hasn’t been decided yet. The proposal was published in the Federal Register on September 11, 2026, beginning the formal public-comment process. Comments are due by November 10, 2026. After the comment period, DHS could finalize the proposal, revise it, withdraw it, or take another approach. The final version could also differ from the proposal currently on the table. If DHS does finalize the rule, there would then be an effective date. The treatment of workers who lose employment before that date could therefore be different from the treatment of workers whose employment ends after the new rule becomes effective. There is also the possibility of legal challenges after a final rule is issued. For now, the most important fact is simple: the 60-day grace period is still available under the current regulation.

What this means for you right now

If you’re currently working in H-1B, L-1, O-1, E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B1 or TN status, you don’t need to act as though the grace period has already disappeared. But you also shouldn’t ignore the proposal. The current rule gives qualifying workers a valuable window after employment ends. If that protection is removed, finding another job or securing a different immigration status could become much more time-sensitive. For anyone whose status depends on a job, having a backup plan is increasingly important.

The Law Offices of Anne Z. Sedki

Immigration rules can change before you have time to adjust your plans. That’s especially true when your ability to remain in the United States is tied directly to your employment. At The Law Offices of Anne Z. Sedki, we help individuals and families understand their immigration options, including employment-based visas, changes of status, green cards, TPS and other immigration matters. With offices in New York and New Jersey, our firm serves clients throughout the United States and worldwide. If you’re concerned about a potential job loss, a change in your visa status, or how this proposed rule could affect your plans, getting advice before a problem arises can give you more options. Book a personalized consultation today.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

1. Is the 60-day grace period ending?

Not yet. DHS has proposed eliminating it, but the proposal is not a final rule. The current regulation providing up to 60 days remains in effect.

2. Can H-1B workers still use the 60-day grace period?

Yes. Under the current rule, eligible H-1B workers can receive up to 60 consecutive days, or until the end of their authorized validity period if that comes first. The period is discretionary and available once during each authorized validity period.

3. What happens if I lose my H-1B job?

Under the current rule, you may have up to 60 days to find another qualifying employer or pursue another eligible immigration option, subject to the rule’s conditions. If the proposal becomes final, that protection could be removed.

4. How long can I stay in the U.S. after losing my job?

Under the current regulation, eligible workers can generally receive up to 60 days, or until their authorized validity period ends, whichever is shorter. The proposed rule would remove this specific protection.

5. Does the proposed rule affect H-1B dependents?

Yes. The proposal would remove the grace-period protection for dependents of the covered employment-based classifications as well.

6. Does the proposal affect L-1, O-1, TN and E visas?

Yes. The proposal covers E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, O-1 and TN classifications, along with their dependents.

7. When would the new rule take effect?

It has not been finalized, so there is currently no effective date for eliminating the grace period. DHS must first complete the rulemaking process, including the public-comment period. Comments on the current proposal are due November 10, 2026.

USCIS Neighborhood Investigations for Citizenship: Can It Be Avoided?

2026-09-09T10:02:08Z

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has reinforced its use of neighborhood investigations in certain naturalization cases, giving officers another way to verify information provided by people applying for U.S. citizenship. The August 25, 2026 USCIS policy update is important, but it is not an entirely new policy. It builds on a USCIS memorandum issued in August 2025 that ended the agency’s longstanding general waiver of neighborhood investigations and brought personal investigations back into the naturalization process. The latest guidance incorporates the practice into the USCIS Policy Manual and emphasizes the agency’s authority to verify information and documentation during the naturalization examination.

What are USCIS “Neighborhood Investigations” for Citizenship?

A neighborhood investigation, also called a personal investigation, allows USCIS to gather information to help determine whether a naturalization applicant meets the requirements for citizenship. The legal authority comes from Section 335(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). USCIS’s August 2025 memorandum explained that these investigations cover the vicinity of an applicant’s residence and employment and include at least the five-year period before the naturalization application was filed. The purpose is to corroborate eligibility for naturalization, including matters such as residence, good moral character, attachment to the U.S. Constitution, and disposition toward the good order and happiness of the United States. This is different from the standard background checks that are already part of the naturalization process. USCIS generally collects biometrics and uses FBI background checks, while the naturalization interview allows an officer to review the N-400 and question the applicant about their application and background. A neighborhood investigation gives USCIS another method of independently verifying information.

Why is USCIS using these investigations again?

For decades, USCIS generally waived the personal investigation requirement. The August 2025 memorandum changed that approach, and USCIS said the August 2026 guidance was based in part on the agency’s experience conducting investigations since the policy was revived. The latest guidance therefore should not be understood as a new requirement that every citizenship applicant will face. USCIS describes personal investigations as an adjudication tool that can be used to further assess and corroborate naturalization eligibility. The agency’s authority is also not unlimited. The investigation must relate to determining whether the applicant satisfies the legal requirements for naturalization.

What can USCIS investigate about a naturalization applicant?

The investigation can involve information connected to the applicant’s eligibility for citizenship. Depending on the circumstances, this can include:

Current and previous residences
Employment history and places of employment
Residence and physical-presence history
Information provided on Form N-400
Statements made during the naturalization interview
Information relevant to good moral character
Other information that may help USCIS determine whether the applicant meets the requirements for naturalization

USCIS’s 2025 memorandum specifically described investigations around an applicant’s residence and employment and at least the five years preceding the N-400 filing. The relevant period can also depend on the naturalization category and the requirement being examined. For example, most applicants applying through the five-year lawful permanent resident route must demonstrate continuous residence for five years and physical presence in the United States for at least 30 months during that period. Applicants using the three-year marriage-based route generally have different requirements.

What can cause problems during a Neighborhood Investigation?

The investigation itself does not mean an applicant has done anything wrong. Problems can arise when information USCIS obtains does not match the applicant’s N-400, supporting evidence or answers during the interview. Examples can include: Inconsistent addresses or dates. A residence history that does not match other records can raise questions about where an applicant actually lived and whether continuous residence and physical presence requirements were satisfied. Undisclosed employment. Employment that was omitted from the N-400 or described differently elsewhere may require an explanation. Contradictions. Differences between an applicant’s answers and information USCIS obtains from other sources can lead to additional questions or investigation. Criminal history or other conduct. Certain criminal conduct can affect eligibility or good moral character. USCIS’s N-400 instructions specifically tell applicants to report offenses, including certain offenses that were expunged or occurred before the applicant turned 18. Tax problems. Failure to pay required taxes can affect a good moral character determination. USCIS may request tax records and evidence of an agreement to repay overdue taxes. Immigration violations. Past immigration violations or inaccurate information in previous immigration applications may become relevant when USCIS evaluates the naturalization application. False statements or omissions. Leaving out information or providing false information can create a much more serious issue than an ordinary mistake. USCIS has also placed greater emphasis on a broader, holistic evaluation of good moral character. Its 2025 guidance states that officers should consider both negative conduct and positive attributes, including community involvement, family responsibilities, education, lawful employment, length of lawful residence and compliance with tax obligations.

Can you avoid a USCIS Neighborhood Investigation?

There is no guaranteed way to avoid these checks. Under the new policy, USCIS retains full discretion to choose which applicants it investigates. In practice, that means:

USCIS does not promise to skip investigations for certain groups. Don’t be lured by rumors like “If you’ve never been arrested, they won’t check.” There is no published checklist of triggers. According to USCIS guidance, the agency’s security unit will look at the facts of each case and decide whether an investigation is warranted. It’s entirely possible – even likely – that any case could be selected, especially if there are any red flags in the file.
Applicants cannot demand a waiver upfront. Under the rule, the district director may waive the investigation for particular cases, but there is no applicant right to a waiver. You could politely request one, but ultimately it’s USCIS’s call.
Not cooperating may invite scrutiny. The policy highlights that if you ignore requests for information (like character letters or evidence), USCIS is more likely to proceed with a field investigation. In other words, being unhelpful doesn’t make USCIS forget about the case – it may push them to dig deeper.

The best approach is proactive preparation rather than avoidance. A fully honest, well-documented application may never need a neighborhood visit. In fact, USCIS encourages applicants to submit high-quality character reference letters and documentation before an investigation is launched. These letters (from non-family U.S. citizens who know you) and solid records can sometimes persuade USCIS that an in-person check isn’t needed. But even this isn’t foolproof – USCIS says it will consider letters among all evidence in deciding whether to waive the investigation. Bottom line: There’s no hack to skip this step if the agency chooses to use it. The only way to minimize risks is to give USCIS every reason to trust your application upfront. That means being thorough and truthful (so there are no surprises) and furnishing any helpful evidence (like letters or proof of good conduct) early. Applicants also should not change their living arrangements, employment or other circumstances simply to try to avoid scrutiny. The goal should be accuracy, not attempting to influence whether USCIS decides to investigate.

How to prepare for a USCIS Neighborhood Investigation

Before filing Form N-400, applicants should consider reviewing:

Residence history: Confirm addresses and dates for the required period.
Employment history: Make sure employers, positions and dates are accurately reported.
Travel history: Review trips outside the United States and physical-presence calculations.
Previous immigration filings: Check older applications for information that could conflict with the N-400.
Tax records: Make sure tax filings and payment arrangements accurately reflect your history.
Criminal or court records: Review any arrests, charges, convictions or other relevant matters.
Naturalization answers: Be prepared to explain information on the N-400 consistently during the interview.

The point is not to prepare for what a neighbor might say. It is to make sure the information USCIS is reviewing is accurate and can be supported if questions arise.

What happens if USCIS finds a problem?

A concern discovered during an investigation does not automatically mean that a naturalization application will be denied. Depending on the issue, USCIS may seek additional evidence, ask follow-up questions, continue its investigation or take additional time to adjudicate the application. If USCIS determines that the applicant has not established eligibility, the N-400 could ultimately be denied. The consequences depend heavily on the underlying issue. A simple discrepancy may be explainable or correctable. A concern involving fraud, false testimony, certain criminal conduct, tax problems, unlawful voting or a false claim to U.S. citizenship can be significantly more serious. If an applicant receives a request for additional evidence, receives a notice of intent to deny, or is concerned about information in their immigration history, speaking with an immigration attorney before responding can be important. A denied naturalization application does not necessarily mean the applicant can never become a U.S. citizen. Whether the person can reapply, appeal or pursue another option depends on the reason for the denial and the applicant’s circumstances.

How The Law Offices of Anne Z. Sedki Can Help

Applying for U.S. citizenship involves more than completing Form N-400. USCIS is now placing renewed emphasis on verifying information and conducting personal investigations in some naturalization cases. At The Law Offices of Anne Z. Sedki, we help individuals understand their immigration history, prepare for the naturalization process and identify potential issues before they become bigger problems. With offices in New York and New Jersey, our firm also serves clients throughout the United States and worldwide. If you’re considering applying for citizenship and have questions about your residence history, employment, taxes, immigration history, good moral character or a possible USCIS investigation, you can book a consultation to discuss your situation.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can USCIS visit my home for citizenship?

USCIS has authority to conduct personal or neighborhood investigations in connection with naturalization applications. The policy does not mean that every applicant will receive a home visit. Investigations are discretionary and can be used to verify information relevant to eligibility.

Does USCIS interview your neighbors for naturalization?

A neighborhood investigation can involve gathering information from people or sources connected to an applicant’s residence or employment. However, USCIS has not stated that every naturalization applicant will have their neighbors interviewed.

What does USCIS ask neighbors?

The specific questions can depend on what USCIS is trying to verify. The investigation is intended to help corroborate information relevant to naturalization eligibility, including residence, employment and good moral character.

Can USCIS investigate my previous addresses?

Yes. USCIS’s policy describes personal investigations covering the vicinity of an applicant’s residence and employment, including at least the five-year period before the naturalization application. The applicable period can vary depending on the naturalization category and requirement involved.

Can USCIS investigate my employer for citizenship?

USCIS’s policy specifically identifies the vicinity of an applicant’s employment as part of a personal investigation. Employment history can also be relevant to information provided on the N-400 and to the overall naturalization examination.

Can a neighbor cause my citizenship application to be denied?

A neighbor’s statement alone does not automatically determine whether an applicant qualifies for citizenship. USCIS must evaluate the information as part of the overall naturalization adjudication and determine whether the applicant has established eligibility.

How do I prepare for a USCIS home visit?

There is no special procedure that guarantees a home visit will not occur. The most useful preparation is to ensure that your N-400, supporting documents and answers accurately reflect your residence, employment, travel and immigration history. If there are potential inconsistencies or complicated issues in your history, consider addressing them before filing.

Federal Judge Lifts Freeze on Immigrant Visas for 75 Countries; Ban Called Unlawful

2026-08-26T04:17:00Z

A federal judge in New York has struck down the Trump administration’s blanket suspension of immigrant visas for nationals of 75 countries. On August 21, 2026, Judge Jeannette Vargas ruled the policy “contrary to law and in excess of statutory authority,” vacating the ban and ordering case-by-case evaluation of affected visa applications. This means the freeze on green cards and family-based visa approvals from those countries is no longer in effect, and prior denials made solely under the ban must be set aside. Here’s what applicants need to know about the original policy, the court’s ruling, and what happens next.

What was the 75-country immigrant visa freeze?

In January 2026, the State Department announced that effective January 21, 2026 it would pause all immigrant visa issuances for applicants who are nationals of 75 designated countries. The list included nations from Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe – for example Afghanistan, Nigeria, Brazil, Pakistan, Somalia, and Ukraine (among many others). According to the State Department notice, these countries were considered “at high risk” of their nationals using public benefits, so the administration said it was conducting a full review of visa policies to prevent prospective immigrants from becoming public charges. In practice, the policy meant consular officers were instructed to refuse all immigrant visas to citizens of those countries, regardless of an individual applicant’s situation. On paper, the government’s “public charge” rationale was that recipients of benefits could be a financial burden. However, the freeze did not require any showing that a particular applicant needed assistance – it was a blanket ban on 75 countries.

Why did the federal judge rule the freeze unlawful?

The State Department’s 75-country ban was challenged in CLINIC v. Rubio by advocacy groups and affected families. U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas held that Secretary of State Marco Rubio lacked the authority to impose this blanket rule, and that it violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The court noted that the policy “categorically prohibits the issuance of immigrant visas based upon the nationality of the applicant,” which is expressly forbidden by federal law. In other words, Congress has barred discrimination in visa issuance based on country of origin, and the judge found the ban ran “afoul” of that provision. Judge Vargas also emphasized that under the INA, consular officers – not the Secretary of State – have the authority to make visa decisions on a case-by-case basis. By ordering refusals for an entire class of applicants, the Secretary had “exceeded his authority” and undermined the statutory process. The judge therefore ruled the suspension was “patently unlawful,” vacating the policy itself as ultra vires (beyond the Secretary’s power). In practical terms, the ruling recognizes that each visa application should be considered on its own facts – a foreign national cannot be refused a green card solely because of their nationality. As Judge Vargas explained, “The Policy…categorically prohibits the issuance of immigrant visas based upon the nationality of the applicant [and] represents a direct abrogation of this statutory scheme.” The court held that both 8 U.S.C. §1152(a)(1)(A) (banning nationality discrimination) and 22 C.F.R. §40.6 were violated, and even noted the policy “exceeded the Secretary of State’s authority under 8 U.S.C. §1104(a)”.

What does the decision mean for applicants from the 75 countries?

The judge’s order vacates the visa freeze and requires the State Department to resume normal visa processing. Immigrant visa cases from the affected countries must now be handled individually – consular officers again have discretion to approve applicants who meet all eligibility criteria. In fact, the court explicitly set aside any visa denial that was based only on the 75-country ban. In other words, if an immigrant visa application was denied solely because the applicant was from a banned country, that denial is no longer valid. With the ban struck down, the State Department is expected to restore routine scheduling and adjudication of immigrant visa interviews. Practically, applicants should now be able to proceed toward obtaining their visas as before: they can file or maintain their visa applications, attend consular interviews, and ultimately receive a decision on the merits. That said, the court’s order did not automatically grant everyone a visa. Each application will still be evaluated under the existing legal standards. But the blanket refusal policy is gone, so visa officers must consider factors like the applicant’s qualifications, documents, and public-charge considerations in each case. The ruling simply ensures this is done on an individualized basis, not by country.

What happens to visa applications that were previously denied or put on hold?

This has been the greatest concern for families caught by the freeze. In its judgment, the court vacated any consular refusal that was made solely because of the visa ban. That means past denials under this rule are effectively nullified. Those applicants can now have their cases reconsidered. The court ordered those cases remanded for further proceedings – in practice, consulates should re-evaluate the applications, rather than forcing applicants to start completely over. Applicants who were left in limbo can inquire about the status of their cases. For example, if your immigrant visa interview was held or your case was otherwise stalled, you may contact the National Visa Center or the U.S. embassy/consulate handling your case to confirm that processing will resume. Petitions and priority dates generally remain valid; you should not need to file a brand-new application simply because of the temporary freeze. However, you may need to update documents or re-schedule interviews depending on how each consulate is handling cases. It’s wise to communicate with your visa attorney or the consular office to clarify next steps. In short, previous refusals based only on the ban do not stand anymore. Those applicants should now be treated like any other visa applicant from their country. If a visa had been refused only because of the suspension, consulates will be instructed to reopen the case. That said, denials for other reasons (ineligibility under other grounds of the law) are not erased – only those issued “based solely upon the Policy” are vacated.

Does the ruling end all Trump’s immigration restrictions?

No. This decision specifically addresses only the 75-country immigrant visa suspension. It does not automatically overturn other travel or visa restrictions. For example, any separate travel bans or restrictions (such as the so-called “travel bans”, visa bond requirements, or other executive actions) remain in force unless and until challenged and struck down on their own merits. Similarly, this ruling does not affect nonimmigrant visas (tourist, student, work permits), or other federal immigration rules currently in effect. Applicants should not assume that every Trump-era policy is gone; they should verify each rule individually. In summary, this court order removes one particular barrier – the 75-country freeze – but doesn’t wipe the slate clean for all immigration rules. It’s important to stay informed about the status of other policies affecting your case.

What happens next? Can the administration appeal?

The ruling vacating the visa ban is now in effect, but it could be subject to further legal challenge. The government could appeal Judge Vargas’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals (the Second Circuit), and if it does, it might seek a stay of the order while the appeal is pending. If a stay were granted, the visa suspension could potentially be re-imposed temporarily. However, unless and until a higher court issues a stay, consulates should follow the district court’s order and resume individual processing. It’s also possible that another court (or Congress) could address similar policies. For now, though, the freeze is lifted by this decision. Applicants should proceed with the assumption that their cases can move forward, while remaining aware that the legal situation could evolve on appeal. Either way, affected visa applicants should continue gathering documentation, attending interviews when scheduled, and complying with visa requirements as usual. Any changes from higher courts would be implemented later, but building a strong case now can only help in the long run.

The Law Offices of Anne Z. Sedki

If you or a loved one have been affected by the 75-country visa suspension or other immigration rules, don’t go it alone. The Law Offices of Anne Z. Sedki, with offices in New York and New Jersey and a national client base, can help you understand your options and navigate the aftermath of this ruling. Our team has deep experience with consular processing and visa appeals. We can review your case, help you prepare updated applications or waivers if needed, and advise on the best strategy whether the government’s changes continue or are blocked. Immigration policy is in flux, but you don’t have to face uncertainty by yourself. Contact our office today to schedule a consultation. The right guidance can make a huge difference in moving your case forward.

Frequently asked questions

Is the 75-country U.S. immigrant visa ban still in effect? No. A federal court vacated the ban in August 2026, meaning it is no longer legally valid. Consular officers must return to case-by-case review for applicants from those countries.
Can citizens of Nigeria (or any of the 75 countries) now apply for a U.S. immigrant visa? Yes. With the freeze lifted, nationals of those countries can submit visa applications and attend interviews again. Any applications that were pending or denied solely due to the ban should be reconsidered.
What happens to immigrant visa applications that were frozen by the ban? The court’s order vacated the freeze and sets aside previous denials made only under the ban. Those cases should be remanded for continued processing. Applicants may need to contact the National Visa Center or consulate for the next steps.
Do I need to reapply after the 75-country visa freeze is lifted? Generally, no. You should not have to start over if you already filed an immigrant petition or visa application. Instead, consular officers will review the existing case on its merits now that the ban is gone. However, follow consulate instructions – you might need to update documents or attend a new interview.
Does this ruling affect tourist or student visas (nonimmigrant visas)? No. The 75-country suspension applied only to immigrant visas. Tourist, student, and other nonimmigrant visa categories were not part of this policy and continue under the usual rules.
Can the Trump administration appeal this decision? Yes. The government could appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. It might also seek to keep the ban in place by asking for a stay of the ruling. For now, the order stands, but stay tuned in case of any higher court action.
Which 75 countries were affected by the immigrant visa freeze? The list included 75 nations across Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe. Notable examples were Afghanistan, Iran, Russia, Somalia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Brazil, and Cuba, among others.

Each person’s situation is unique, so if you have concerns or questions about how this ruling affects you, it’s wise to consult an immigration attorney. The Law Offices of Anne Z. Sedki are ready to help you understand the implications and navigate the next steps.

What will become of Trump’s birth tourism and birthright citizenship orders?

2026-08-11T04:02:13Z

You’ve likely seen the headlines. After the Supreme Court struck down his broad 2025 order on birthright citizenship, President Trump has signed two new executive orders (EOs) in August 2026 targeting “birth tourism” and further limiting who qualifies as an American citizen by birth. If you’re feeling confused about what this means for you or your family, you’re not alone. Immigration law is complicated enough without sudden new policy changes. Let’s break down what happened, what’s in these new orders, who they affect, and what the likely outcome might be – all in plain language.

What did the Supreme Court decide on birthright citizenship?

Earlier this summer, the Supreme Court dealt a major blow to the Trump administration’s effort to end automatic citizenship for most babies born in the U.S. In Trump v. Barbara (June 30, 2026), the Court held by a 6-3 vote that the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause still guarantees that nearly everyone born on U.S. soil is automatically a citizen. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority that even children born to parents “unlawfully or temporarily present” in the country are “citizens at birth” if they are born here. In short, the Court said that the Constitution, not an executive order, defines who is a citizen at birth, and that definition remains broad. Practically speaking, this decision struck down Trump’s first executive order (EO 14160) from January 2025, which had tried to exclude many children of undocumented immigrants and temporary visa holders from automatic citizenship. The Court found that approach incompatible with the 14th Amendment. (Justice Kavanaugh concurred, not on constitutional grounds but by pointing out that existing federal law already grants birthright citizenship and Congress has not changed it.) The bottom line: the Supreme Court reaffirmed that birthright citizenship is broadly guaranteed by the Constitution. No executive order can simply undo that guarantee. As the ACLU’s deputy director put it right after the ruling: “The Supreme Court already decided this issue: Birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Constitution. No additional executive order can change the meaning of the Constitution”. Still, the Court’s decision left the door slightly ajar for future action. It hinted that any exceptions to birthright citizenship must be historically recognized or enacted by Congress, not just claimed by the President. In fact, Chief Justice Roberts noted that some narrow categories (children of foreign diplomats or foreign occupying armies, for example) were historically excluded from birthright by longstanding practice. But Trump’s broad Jan 2025 order went well beyond those exceptions, and the Court said that was unconstitutional. This distinction is key for understanding Trump’s new orders.

Executive Order 1: Ending “Birth Tourism”

The first new order specifically targets “birth tourism.” That term refers to the practice of foreign nationals traveling to the U.S. (often on tourist visas) for the express purpose of giving birth here so their baby obtains U.S. citizenship. In this order, Trump directs the State and Homeland Security Departments to crack down on birth tourism. It defines birth tourism broadly (any foreign national entering on a temporary visa with the intent to give birth in the U.S.). The order authorizes regulations to prevent visas or entry for anyone planning to use a visit to have a baby here. For example, the Secretaries can deny or revoke visas, bar entry, and remove anyone found engaging in this scheme. The administration says this is meant to “promote the integrity” of U.S. immigration by ensuring tourist and other temporary visas are not used “to obtain permanent immigration benefits” like citizenship. Who could be affected? Pregnant women (or those acting on their behalf, such as surrogacy agencies) who try to secure tourist visas or other visitor visas specifically so their child can be born in the U.S. might find it much harder to get a visa or to enter now. In practice, applying for a tourist visa generally involves stating your purpose honestly. If a consular officer or CBP officer suspects your main reason is to give birth, they could now deny entry. Note that visa fraud is already illegal – lying about why you plan to travel is grounds to deny a visa. This order makes it explicit that targeting births is against policy. What the order doesn’t do is immediately deport any current pregnant visitor. It mostly aims to tighten future visa issuance and entry policies. If you arrived legally and truthfully stated your purpose, you won’t suddenly be kicked out. Instead, officials will get new guidance on screening for birth tourism. Trump and his aides (like Stephen Miller) claimed birth tourism is a big problem. For example, Miller said at the signing ceremony: “People come here pretending to be a tourist… but the real reason they’re here is to have a child, to make that child an automatic citizen”. The administration calls this exploitative. However, data suggest the practice is rare. One Migration Policy Institute study noted government data show fewer than 10,000 births in 2024 to mothers with foreign addresses – well under 1% of the 3.5 million babies born nationwide. Even Trump’s own people admit it’s hard to quantify. At any rate, this “birth tourism” order is much narrower than changing birthright law itself. It doesn’t attempt to rewrite the 14th Amendment – it just tries to stop people from abusing visa rules. But critics note that even today a visitor who lies about the purpose of her trip is in legal trouble. How much more this order will add beyond existing law is uncertain.

Executive Order 2: Further limiting birthright citizenship

The second order is the one that more directly touches on birthright citizenship again – but in a narrower way than Trump’s failed 2025 order. It enumerates specific new categories of U.S.-born children who allegedly would not get automatic citizenship. According to the order text (EO on “Protecting the Meaning and Value of Citizenship”), a child born in the U.S. would not be considered a citizen at birth if neither parent is a citizen and any of the following applies:

“Alien enemies”: If either parent is defined as an “alien enemy” (for example, a member of a designated terrorist organization).
Foreign government employees: If either parent is employed by a foreign government in an official capacity (beyond just diplomats, this includes consular staff and anyone with international-organization immunity).
Citizenship schemes: If either parent engaged in a commercial transaction (“purchased” citizenship), such as paying a surrogate or paying someone to give birth in the U.S..
Certain U.S. territories: If the child is born in a U.S. territory or waters where citizenship isn’t automatically given by federal law (currently only American Samoa qualifies).

Put simply, this EO tries to carve out exceptions. As one White House official explained, it expands the historical exceptions to birthright citizenship recognized by courts (which already exclude children of diplomats, hostile forces, etc.) to new categories like terrorists or government agents. It also attempts to bar “birth tourists” by targeting anyone who “engaged in a commercial transaction” to secure a birth in the U.S.. How does this differ from Trump’s 2025 order? The old order said: any child born here whose parents were both non-citizens (one unlawfully present, one not a citizen/LPR) would lose citizenship. The new order is far narrower: only children with certain disqualifying parents lose citizenship, not all children of undocumented or nonimmigrant visitors. For example, a baby born to a student visa holder who is not in one of the listed categories (not a diplomat or terrorist etc.) would still be a citizen under the new order. Who could be affected by this EO? In theory, it mainly targets children of people the U.S. regards as foreign adversaries or those cheating the system. For instance, if one parent were a member of a designated terrorist group or a high-ranking foreign government official, the baby might be excluded from citizenship. It also explicitly repeats that children of foreign diplomats remain excluded (that exception already exists in law). Public reports note the new order tries to close loopholes. Stephen Miller said it would cover “children of members of foreign terrorist organizations” and “large categories of people who lobby and act on behalf of foreign governments”, though critics question how that broad language would be applied. Importantly, if the parents don’t fit any of these categories, your child is unaffected. The vast majority of parents (tourists, visa students, workers, undocumented, refugees, etc.) aren’t in those specific groups. The administration claims this order is consistent with the Supreme Court case, that identified “extraterritorial fictions.” But legal experts point out that even in Barbara, the Court reaffirmed citizenship for nearly all U.S.-born children. So while Trump’s new order is narrower, many lawyers warn it likely still violates the 14th Amendment.

How will the new EOs affect families and children born in the U.S.?

For most immigrant families, these orders won’t change anything immediately. If your child is born on U.S. soil to parents not falling into the targeted categories, nothing about their citizenship status changes under current law. They will remain U.S. citizens by birth. If a baby is born and one of the parents is, say, a designated terrorist or certain foreign official, the new order says federal agencies should treat that child as not a citizen. That could mean USCIS would refuse to issue a birth certificate showing U.S. citizenship (or a Certificate of Citizenship) in that case. It could also mean the child might not be eligible for a U.S. passport or Social Security number as a citizen. Practically speaking, it would create the very outcome Trump criticized – potentially a U.S.-born child who is not considered an American. However, note that the order itself must still survive legal review to take effect, and for now it remains subject to challenge. Until (and unless) a court upholds it, the status quo stands: U.S. law (as interpreted in Barbara) still grants citizenship to virtually all U.S.-born children. What about pregnant visitors or citizens-in-waiting? A foreign national who truthfully said she was visiting to have a baby in 2026 and entered legally would not automatically get deported under these orders. But future visa applicants might face stricter scrutiny. For example, a visa applicant who is visibly pregnant might get extra questions about why she is traveling. The order gives consular officers more authority to deny visas if they suspect birth tourism. U.S. Customs and Border Protection could also turn back entry if officials think someone intended to give birth here. As for birth certificates: States have always issued certificates for all births in the U.S. They typically do not list parents’ immigration status or confer citizenship – they just record the birth. The Trump orders target federal recognition of citizenship, not state certificates. It’s unclear how state agencies might respond. For now, doctors and hospitals will continue to report births normally, and states will keep issuing certificates as they always do. If the new orders are blocked by courts, nothing changes on this front. Parents’ immigration status: If a parent lies on a visa application about their intent (for example, saying they are visiting family but actually planning to have a baby), that can be visa fraud under existing law. The new orders emphasize that such deception is unacceptable, but they don’t add any new criminal penalty. A parent could still face visa issues or removal if caught lying. However, simply giving birth here is not a crime. Even before these orders, nonimmigrants have come to the U.S. and had babies without losing their own status (so long as they didn’t break visa rules). In practical terms: Families should not panic or tear up their passports. Most children born here will remain U.S. citizens. The controversial part is that a few specific children might be treated as non-citizens if these orders hold. It’s reasonable to keep an eye on your own situation. If you’re an expectant mother traveling on a tourist or other temporary visa primarily to give birth in the U.S., be extra truthful on visa forms. You may want to consult an attorney before you travel, since that could raise questions under the new policy. For those who already have a child on the way or just born, continue to assert your rights under current law – a U.S.-born child is still entitled to citizenship until a court definitively says otherwise.

What Is the likely fate of Trump’s new birthright citizenship EOs?

We should be honest: both of these orders will face immediate legal challenges. Civil rights groups like the ACLU and NAACP will likely file suit, and Democratic-led states may do the same. The Supreme Court’s recent ruling suggests the courts are skeptical that a president can bypass the 14th Amendment with an order. ACLU’s Cody Wofsy put it bluntly: “No additional executive order can change the meaning of the Constitution… Any executive order that tries to rewrite birthright citizenship will meet the same fate as the last one.”. In other words, if these orders are challenged, many lawyers expect courts to invalidate them as unconstitutional, just as happened before. What exactly could happen in court? One scenario: a federal judge quickly issues an injunction blocking the orders from taking effect. That happened with the first Trump order – lower courts stopped it from ever going into effect while litigation played out. Given the language is different but the principle is similar, we’d likely see lawsuits arguing the 14th Amendment prohibits these exclusions. Can a president change birthright citizenship via executive action? Under our Constitution, the 14th Amendment explicitly says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States... are citizens.” That language leaves very little wiggle room. The Supreme Court’s majority said the Amendment covers anyone born here who is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. – essentially everyone except a few narrow categories (children of foreign diplomats, hostile invaders, etc.). The new orders create new categories that the Constitution doesn’t obviously exempt. Justice Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion (back in June) noted that Congress could theoretically change the law by amending statutes, but he agreed the President can’t do it alone. Courts seem likely to agree. Even if some judges might entertain narrow exceptions, any broad exclusion (especially targeting immigrants or tourists) will probably be struck down. If the courts do block them, then nothing actually changes except political talking points. Pregnant women and their babies will continue under the same rules as before. If, against expectations, some part of the orders survives, then a small number of children might have their citizenship questioned. For example, if in the unlikely event a court allowed the “alien enemy” clause to stand, a baby with terrorist parent could theoretically lose birthright. But note: such a child would also likely face many other legal obstacles (Congress often excludes criminals or terrorists from immigrating anyway). At this point, it’s important to remember: these orders are not law yet. They were just signed on one day; they still have to be implemented and defended in court. The history of this issue suggests the courts will not easily allow them. No one should assume these orders will actually strip away anyone’s citizenship without a final, definitive court ruling.

What should immigrants and families do now?

In light of all this, here’s a pragmatic guide on what to do (and not do):

Do not make major decisions based solely on the EOs. Your rights and status do not instantly change just because an order was signed. Until courts say otherwise, the law remains that almost all babies born here are U.S. citizens.
Stay informed and consult experts. This is a complicated, evolving situation. If your family is expecting a child or you are planning travel, stay updated through reliable sources (this blog, government websites, reputable news) and consider talking to an immigration attorney if you have concerns.
Be truthful on visa applications. If you are applying for a visa or entry, always honestly state the purpose of travel. Deception can get you in trouble no matter what the order says. If your travel purpose is genuinely tourism, business, or visiting family, make that clear. If your purpose is indeed to have a baby here, realize this may be flagged under the new rules.
Prepare documents. While nothing has changed on citizenship certainties yet, it’s always good practice to keep clear records (birth certificates, passports, visas, immigration documents) in order. If any official communications about your child’s citizenship come up, bring them to an attorney.
Monitor court developments. We expect lawsuits soon. If you have a case that could be affected (for example, a pending naturalization or citizenship interview involving a child born here), check with counsel about the timeline.
Seek legal advice when needed. If you have doubts or a unique situation (e.g., you think the EO might apply to you or your child), it’s wise to consult an immigration lawyer. The Law Offices of Anne Z. Sedki, with offices in New York and New Jersey, can provide guidance on how these orders interact with your case. We assist clients nationwide – even worldwide – and we’re watching these policies closely.

The bottom line: Keep calm and stay prepared. Right now, birthright citizenship is still protected by the Supreme Court’s ruling. The new orders are a setback in the courts but haven’t actually changed the law that applies to you yet. We’ll continue to follow developments and update our clients. In the meantime, focus on your family, keep your paperwork in order, and reach out if you have questions or need help navigating the uncertainty.

The Law Offices of Anne Z. Sedki

Immigration policy changes can be stressful, especially when they happen suddenly and involve families and children. The Law Offices of Anne Z. Sedki helps individuals and families understand new immigration rules and plan their best path forward. Whether you have a child’s citizenship status in question, need guidance on travel or visa issues, or simply want to protect your family’s future, we’re here to help. With experienced immigration attorneys in New York and New Jersey – serving clients nationwide and internationally – our team can review your case and advise you on the steps to take now. If you have concerns about birthright citizenship, “birth tourism,” or any immigration matter, don’t go it alone. Contact our office to schedule a consultation. Let us help you understand your options and protect your rights.

USCIS’s new Asylum rule explained: How it affects applicants and pending cases

2026-08-04T08:38:40Z

Imagine you filed an asylum application months or years ago and have been anxiously waiting for your USCIS interview and decision. Now picture USCIS announcing a new policy that changes the process. In late July 2026, DHS introduced an interim final rule that allows USCIS to skip interviews and send some asylum cases straight to immigration court. The goal is to reduce the massive backlog of pending asylum applications. This blog breaks down what the rule does, who it affects, and what applicants need to know to prepare.

What is USCIS’s new rule for reducing the asylum backlog?

Effective immediately (the rule was published July 28, 2026), USCIS will amend its regulations to allow asylum officers to refer certain affirmative asylum cases to the immigration court without first conducting an asylum interview. In plain language, USCIS can now decide that an applicant’s case does not need an interview and send it directly to the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). Before this change, USCIS generally scheduled an in-person interview for every affirmative asylum applicant (those who filed Form I-589 with USCIS) before making a decision or referring them to court. Now, that interview is not guaranteed. According to the Federal Register notice, USCIS will still offer interviews for cases that merit one (for example, strong claims needing testimonial evidence), but it explicitly can refer other cases to an Immigration Judge “based on the record and other relevant evidence”. The rule even removes USCIS’s old requirement to include a written credibility assessment in referral letters, simplifying the process. Why such a drastic change? The asylum backlog has exploded: by the end of FY2025 there were over 1.4 million affirmative asylum cases pending at USCIS. USCIS reports that asylum applicants could wait 7.3 years or longer for a final decision. DHS believes this system “may not be so significant” to require lengthy notice-and-comment delays, and so it issued this procedural rule with an immediate effective date. In short, the new rule is meant to speed up the asylum process by reallocating USCIS resources.

Who Is affected by the new rule?

The rule applies to affirmative asylum applicants– anyone who filed a Form I-589 at USCIS, whether individually or as part of a family. It affects both new applications (filed after July 28, 2026) and pending cases already in USCIS queues. In other words, if you have an asylum case waiting for USCIS decision, this rule kicks in right away. This policy does not apply to defensive asylum cases (asylum sought as a defense in removal proceedings) or to any other visas or statuses. It’s specifically targeted at the USCIS adjudication of asylum. There are no special carve-outs mentioned for minors or particular nationalities – any affirmative asylum case could potentially be referred without interview. However, the rule is not arbitrary. DHS expects officers to use it mainly for cases with clear legal bars or extremely weak claims. For example, applicants who filed later than one year after entry (violating the one-year filing deadline) are likely candidates for referral. DHS estimates about 132,000 future filings per year could be sent to court without interview because of filing bars, other legal bars, or purely discretionary denials. Already, roughly 31% of the 1.43 million pending asylum cases involve late filings (about 444,724 cases) and “may be impacted” by this rule. In practice, this means an applicant who filed late, has a serious criminal conviction, or otherwise lacks a prima facie case might be routed directly to removal proceedings. US citizens’ relatives and others not in asylum proceedings are unaffected. And if your case is already in Immigration Court (defensive asylum), it continues under the court’s rules. But if USCIS referred you without an interview, you’ll find yourself in court just as if USCIS had denied your claim.

How the new asylum process works

Here’s a step-by-step look at how affirmative asylum applications will be handled under the new policy:

File Your Asylum Application (Form I-589): You still start by submitting Form I-589 to USCIS (no changes here). If you’re applying for work authorization (EAD) 150 days after filing, remember other work permit rules are also changing, but that’s separate from the interview rule.
Initial USCIS Review: After USCIS receives your application, an asylum officer will review the file. Under the new rule, the officer checks if the case falls into a category that can be referred without an interview – for example, one-year bar, other ineligibility, or if on the facts there’s little to grant.
Referral vs. Interview:
- Referral Without Interview: If USCIS decides a case should go to immigration court, it will send you a notice (often called an NTA, Notice to Appear) referring the case to EOIR without holding a USCIS interview. Your case then moves to the immigration courts.
- Interview: If USCIS does not refer your case outright, they will schedule the usual asylum interview. This happens at a USCIS asylum office, just like before. After the interview, the officer can grant asylum or deny it (in which case a referral to EOIR follows as usual).
In Immigration Court: Once your case is in EOIR (either by USCIS referral or by USCIS denial after interview), you’ll get a court date. The immigration judge will consider your asylum claim (and any other relief) in a fully adversarial hearing. You can present new evidence and testimony there, but now the Department of Homeland Security will have an attorney opposing your claim.
Timeline Changes: In theory, skipping some USCIS interviews speeds things up. You may reach the court stage sooner than waiting years for a USCIS appointment. However, note that immigration courts also have long backlogs (averaging multiple years for a hearing). DHS argues this trade-off will still shorten total processing time, especially for strong claims that USCIS will prioritize.
Administrative Details: USCIS says they will still issue Requests for Evidence or opportunities to supplement your application when needed. If your case is pending and USCIS skips the interview, they might send an RFE first so you can add missing documents or address issues. In any case, you should keep your application as complete as possible from day one, since USCIS officers may rely solely on the filed materials if no interview is conducted.

Will the new rule really reduce the Asylum backlog?

The government’s rationale is that this rule will make the asylum system more efficient. Under the old process, every affirmative asylum case typically got a full interview, even when the outcome seemed obvious. USCIS observed that many interviews were effectively “duplicative” – for example, asylum seekers barred by law (late filers, aggravated felons, etc.) would still have been interviewed only to be referred for removal afterward. That wasted officer time and delayed resources that could go to potentially grantable cases. DHS argues that by letting officers skip the interview in clear-cut cases, the agency can prioritize its limited resources for cases that merit protection. The Federal Register summary states that eliminating automatic interviews for ineligible cases “may reduce the growth of the affirmative asylum backlog”. The expectation is that meritorious applicants will get decisions faster, and those who pose security or criminal concerns can be sent to court (and possibly detained or removed) more quickly. On paper, the rule could shorten wait times. For example, DHS estimates around 132,000 new asylum applicants per year could be referred without interview under these rules. In those cases, instead of waiting for a USCIS appointment many months away, the applicant goes straight to court where an immigration judge could resolve the case (either granting or ordering removal) faster. Over time, DHS believes this will “increase efficiency” and help stem the growth of the backlog. That said, it’s important to note a downside. If USCIS refers cases that should have been granted, applicants could face longer delays because they’ll go to court instead of having a USCIS interview. In FY2021 about 68% of asylum cases originally referred by USCIS to immigration court were ultimately granted asylum by judges. In other words, a large share of those referrals turned out to be valid asylum claims. Some critics worry that skipping the USCIS interview stage could push legitimate cases into a more adversarial process and keep deserving refugees in limbo even longer. Another concern is that the rule might simply shift the backlog from USCIS to the courts. Immigration judges already have years-long queues, and sending more cases their way might not, in reality, reduce total wait times. And due process advocates argue that each asylum seeker should have a fair chance to tell their story in a non-adversarial setting first. With this rule, that opportunity could vanish for some. In summary, DHS stands by this change as a necessary efficiency measure. But its effectiveness in practice will depend on how USCIS implements it (which cases get flagged for referral) and whether immigration courts can handle the increase. It’s possible the total time from application to final decision might still be long, even if the case moves into a different queue.

What does this mean for current and future Asylum applicants?

If you have already applied for asylum, your case is now under these new rules. USCIS may review your file and decide to refer it to the immigration court without ever setting an interview date. Keep in mind:

Stay Alert for Notices: Watch your mail and USCIS online account. If USCIS plans to skip your interview, they should send you a notice (likely a Notice to Appear in immigration court). Read any USCIS communication immediately and follow instructions or seek help if something is unclear.
Gather and Update Evidence: Because you might not get an interview, it’s more important than ever that your initial application be thorough. Submit as much supporting documentation as you can with your I-589. If you have additional evidence after filing, you can try to submit it or inform USCIS as soon as possible (the new rules suggest USCIS will allow RFEs or supplemental filings to give applicants a chance to present their case).
Prepare for Court: If your case is sent to EOIR, it will be treated as a defensive asylum case even though you filed affirmatively. This means you’ll go to immigration court with a hearing. You can still apply for asylum before the judge, but the government will be opposing you. Make sure you have an attorney or accredited representative to present your case, gather witnesses if needed, and understand the court process.
Maintain Legal Status: If you are in lawful status (like a student or worker) while waiting, ensure you keep that status current. If you are on a work permit based on asylum, note that USCIS has also changed asylum-based EAD rules (those changes mean new initial EADs might be paused in future). This blog isn’t about work permits, but you should be aware that the asylum EAD regulations are in flux.
New Applicants: If you haven’t filed yet but plan to, start as soon as you can. Be mindful of the one-year filing deadline and exceptions to it, since late filing will likely trigger a court referral under the new rule. When you do file, include all relevant evidence up front. And plan for the possibility that USCIS might not interview you; you may need to make your strongest case on paper.
Seek Legal advice: Given these changes, consulting an immigration attorney is more important than ever. A lawyer can help you determine whether your case is at risk of referral, assist in preparing a complete application package, and represent you in court if needed.

Frequently Asked Questions about the new USCIS Asylum rule

Does this change my pending asylum application?

Yes. If your asylum application is pending at USCIS, the agency will now process it under the new rule. USCIS can choose to refer it to immigration court without an interview. Continue to engage with USCIS normally (respond to RFEs, attend scheduled biometrics, etc.), but be prepared for the referral possibility.

Will I still receive an asylum interview?

It depends. USCIS will offer interviews when they decide one is needed. But they are no longer obligated to interview every applicant. If USCIS thinks your case has clear bars or doesn’t merit grant, they may skip the interview entirely.

Can my case be sent directly to immigration court?

Yes. Under the rule, certain cases will go straight to EOIR. If that happens, USCIS will issue a Notice to Appear in immigration court. Your asylum proceedings will then continue before an Immigration Judge.

Does the new rule increase my risk of removal?

Potentially. In immigration court, the government’s goal is to order removal unless you can convince the judge otherwise. Without a USCIS interview, you lose the advantage of the non-adversarial asylum office process. However, you still have full access to the asylum and withholding process in court. To minimize risk, make sure to apply for work authorization (if eligible) to lawfully stay in the U.S. while your case is pending, and attend every court hearing. Legal representation is crucial in court.

What should I do if I receive a notice from USCIS or immigration court?

Read it carefully and act quickly. If USCIS sends any request (like an RFE or interview notice), comply by the deadline. If you get an NTA from USCIS, you have to attend your immigration court hearing. In both cases, consider contacting an attorney immediately to make sure your rights are protected and your case is presented fully.

Should I speak with an immigration attorney?

Yes. Immigration law is complicated, and these new changes make it more confusing. An attorney (or accredited representative) can explain how the rule affects you, help you gather evidence, represent you in court, and ensure you meet all deadlines. The Law Offices of Anne Z. Sedki has experience with asylum cases and can help asylum applicants nationwide.

Final thoughts

The new USCIS rule is a major shift in asylum policy. It’s understandable to feel anxious if you have a case in limbo. The intention is to speed up the system, but it also means you may move from a USCIS interview to a court hearing sooner than expected. Stay organized: keep copies of all documents, respond to USCIS quickly, and don’t miss any deadlines. Every asylum case is different, so apply these changes to your situation with care. Remember that laws and rules can change, and the asylum process often has unexpected turns. This blog is for informational purposes and does not replace legal advice. If you have an asylum application pending or are considering applying, keep informed about updates, and do not hesitate to seek legal help to navigate this evolving process.

The Law Offices of Anne Z. Sedki

At The Law Offices of Anne Z. Sedki, we understand how confusing and stressful immigration updates can be. Our firm, based in New York and New Jersey, serves clients nationwide and worldwide. If you or a loved one have an asylum application pending or need to file one, we are here to help. Our experienced immigration attorneys can review your case under the new rules, advise you on gathering strong evidence, and represent you before USCIS or the immigration court. Don’t go it alone. Reach out to us for a consultation to discuss your asylum options and next steps. Staying ahead of these changes and having the right guidance can make a big difference in your immigration journey. We’re here to give you the clear answers and support you need during this transition.

BIA Removes Advance Parole Protections; Travelers Risk 10-Year Ban

2026-08-19T05:21:50Z

People often rely on Advance Parole – special permission to leave the U.S. temporarily and come back – when urgent travel is needed. Under a 2012 rule (Matter of Arrabally), leaving on approved Advance Parole did not count as a formal “departure” that triggers the inadmissibility bars for unlawful presence. But on August 13, 2026, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reversed that policy in Matter of Delcarmen-Lara. The BIA now holds that any exit on Advance Parole is treated like any other departure. In practical terms, if you leave the U.S. on Advance Parole after Aug. 13, 2026, you can become inadmissible upon return if you accrued too much illegal presence beforehand.

What did the BIA decide about Advance Parole?

The BIA’s decision makes clear: “A departure from the United States pursuant to a grant of advance parole is a ‘departure’ … within the meaning of” the unlawful-presence ban. In other words, the plain language of the immigration law has no exception for parole travel. Under the new rule, an approved Advance Parole trip is just like any other trip outside the country. This overrules the 2012 Arrabally/Yerrabelly case, which had allowed travelers with accumulated unlawful presence to leave and return on AP without penalty. If you have more than one year of unlawful presence, this new rule means any AP trip will trigger the 10-year bar. If you had between 180 days and one year, the 3-year bar will apply. Under Delcarmen-Lara, the BIA emphasized that Congress did not explicitly exempt Advance Parole in the law, and past policies treating AP differently no longer control. Importantly, the Board said this change is prospective only: travel on AP taken before Aug. 13, 2026, generally will not be retroactively punished. Still, anyone planning a trip after that date must reevaluate their risks.

Who Is most at risk under the new ruling?

Anyone with a history of unauthorized stay could be affected. In particular, immigrants who entered without inspection or who overstayed a visa and then acquired Advance Parole are now at high risk. Many DACA recipients fall in this category. Before the ruling, DACA beneficiaries who entered illegally as children could travel on AP and come back without starting a ban. But the new decision means those trips now trigger bars if the person had accrued unlawful presence. Similarly, Adjustment-of-Status applicants (for example, someone married to a U.S. citizen) who used AP travel to re-enter will face the same rules as others. Even people under other programs (like U or T visas) or Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders – who travel under “authorized travel” – are likely affected, since the BIA’s logic treats any authorized exit as a departure. The bottom line: Simply holding an Advance Parole document no longer guarantees safety. If you have any significant illegal presence in your past, an AP trip can trigger the bars just like a normal exit. For example, someone with 400 days of unlawful presence who left on AP after Aug. 13, 2026, will now face a 10-year ban upon return. The very groups who relied on AP as a safe harbor – such as DACA recipients and other long-time noncitizens – must now assume that travel can carry serious consequences.

How can travel trigger a 3-year or 10-year bar?

The rules are straightforward: an immigrant who has accumulated more than 180 days of unlawful presence and then departs triggers a three-year inadmissibility bar. If the unlawful presence reaches one year or more before departing, the bar is ten years. Under Delcarmen-Lara, a departure on Advance Parole now counts as such a departure. So, if you had 200 days of illegal status before traveling, your AP exit will bring a 3-year bar. If you had 400 days (over one year), your AP exit will trigger the 10-year bar. These calculations can be tricky. “Unlawful presence” generally means any day spent in the U.S. without valid status (for example, after a visa expires or after an illegal entry). Time in DACA, TPS, or other lawful programs does not count against you. There are also special rules: for instance, if someone’s illegal stay was due to severe abuse under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), the bar may not apply. But in most cases, any gap without legal permission adds up. Be especially careful: even a few months of past visa overstay could become a bar if you leave on AP now. It helps to think of the timeline: identify when you entered, when (if ever) your lawful status ended, and whether you spent more than 180 days (or a year) without status before leaving. The BIA’s new rule means that every departure matters, even if it was authorized in advance. In short, the protective “cushion” that AP once provided for these bars has been removed.

What does this mean for people with pending immigration cases?

Travel plans for families and visa applicants now need extra caution. If you have a green-card application or visa petition pending, an AP departure could complicate your case. For example, a family-based applicant who married a U.S. citizen might have had plans to travel on AP during their process. Under the new rule, that trip could now trigger a bar and force the applicant to seek a waiver. Even returning citizens or LPRs bringing family may need to double-check travel. The key point is that an otherwise legitimate adjustment-of-status strategy – leaving on AP and coming back to finish processing – is no longer automatically safe. For DACA recipients, this is especially disruptive. Many DACA holders had envisioned using AP for family or educational trips knowing they would not face bars. Now, they must treat those trips the same as anyone else. If a DACA recipient leaves with AP and has more than 180 days of pre-DACA presence, she could come back inadmissible and need a waiver. In other words, pending cases can be derailed by travel that was once considered routine. Some immigrants may choose to shift strategies. For instance, instead of using AP, an applicant might opt for consular processing abroad. In that route, a visa interview is set at a U.S. embassy. Importantly, applicants can file a provisional unlawful-presence waiver (Form I-601A) before leaving, which waives the bar when they depart for the interview. That approach has its own challenges (current travel bans and visa suspensions can slow consular work), but it avoids the surprise of an AP departure triggering a hidden bar. If you are mid-process on a family or employment case, talk to your lawyer about whether to adjust plans in light of Delcarmen-Lara.

Can you still travel on Advance Parole?

Yes, USCIS continues to grant Advance Parole for eligible applicants (such as adjustment-of-status applicants, DACA recipients, and certain other categories). Having an Advance Parole document means you are legally authorized to return – but it does not magically protect you from the bars anymore. The BIA confirmed that “departure” includes an exit on AP, and since the statute has no carve-out, even a fully-approved AP trip can produce inadmissibility. Before you travel, think carefully. Get your AP document and make sure it’s valid, but do a separate risk check. Review your immigration history: did you ever have any period without legal status exceeding 180 days? If yes, your trip could be risky. Examples of high-risk travel include:

Entry without Inspection (EWI): If you originally crossed the border without inspection, you likely already have unlawful presence from the moment you entered. An AP trip will execute the 10-year ban if you were in the U.S. one year or more, which many EWI applicants are.
Visa Overstay: If you entered lawfully on a visa but stayed past its expiry for a long time, only the days after expiry count as unlawful presence. But those days can still add up above 180 or 365.
Pending Removal Order: If you have any removal/deportation order (even if it was closed), traveling can “activate” it. USCIS has long said that leaving on AP effectively executes a removal order. That could mean you’d return not as an applicant but as someone who waived in with AP.

If any of these apply, be extremely cautious. There are situations when travel might still be worth it (urgent medical care, death in the family, etc.), but the risks are now real. When in doubt, it’s wise to consult a qualified immigration attorney before booking anything. They can evaluate your unlawful presence and advise whether a trip will trigger a bar.

What should you do if you already traveled or are planning to travel?

If You Already Traveled: First, check the date of your trip. Trips taken on Advance Parole before Aug. 13, 2026 are protected by the old rule and should not count as departures. If your trip was after that date, then by the new rule you may have triggered a ban. Determine how many days of unlawful presence you had before departing. If it exceeded 180 days, you may now face a 3- or 10-year bar. In that case, talk to an attorney about remedies. Depending on your situation, you may file for the available waivers (Form I-601 or I-212) to overcome the ban. Note that under current policy, the bar “clock” can keep running even after you re-enter, which might help shorten the waiting period for a waiver. If you returned after traveling and later learned you triggered the bar, do not ignore it. A future visa or status application will catch it, and you’ll need a waiver to fix it. If you haven’t left yet but are scheduled to, reconsider. Contact a lawyer before you go. Similarly, if you plan an upcoming AP trip, treat it as potentially dangerous. You might need to delay travel or seek a waiver first. If You Are Planning to Travel: The safest course is to prepare. Review your full immigration timeline (entries, visa status periods, authorized stays). Calculate any unlawful presence. If you find it’s above the thresholds, plan alternative routes. For example, if you have a U.S. citizen spouse or parent, you might file a provisional unlawful presence waiver (I-601A) before leaving on your immigrant visa interview trip. That way, the ten-year ban is waived at the consulate, and you can skip risking it entirely by AP. In any event, we strongly encourage consulting an immigration attorney. They can advise whether travel is worth the risk and can guide you through waiver processes if needed. Don’t assume your AP document alone makes you safe – the new BIA ruling has shifted the ground under nearly all travel plans.

The Law Offices of Anne Z. Sedki

At The Law Offices of Anne Z. Sedki, we help immigrants navigate exactly these kinds of changes. With offices in New York and New Jersey and clients nationwide (and even worldwide), we are ready to advise you. Whether you need help understanding how the new BIA decision affects your case, calculating your unlawful presence, or pursuing a waiver, we have the experience to guide you. Don’t wait until it’s too late – if you have traveled on Advance Parole or are thinking of it, contact us for a personalized consultation. We’ll review your history, explain the risks, and help you make the best plan for your situation.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I travel on Advance Parole after the new BIA ruling? Yes, you can still be granted Advance Parole and use it to travel, but any travel after Aug. 13, 2026 may trigger the inadmissibility bars if you had unlawful presence. Trips taken before that date remain safe. After Aug. 13, do not assume AP travel is risk-free – check your status and talk to a lawyer first.
Does Advance Parole still protect me from the 10-year bar? No. The new BIA decision means that leaving on AP is treated exactly like any other departure. If you had one year or more of unlawful presence before your trip, a 10-year bar will now attach. Advance Parole no longer provides immunity from that bar.
Can DACA recipients travel with Advance Parole? DACA recipients can still apply for AP for qualifying reasons (education, employment, humanitarian), but travel is no longer automatically safe. Many DACA holders entered without inspection and had unlawful presence before DACA. Under the old rule their AP trips were exempt, but now those trips will trigger the bar if enough unlawful presence existed. In short, DACA or not, the bar applies the same way to AP travel now.
How does Advance Parole affect the 3-year bar? If you accrued more than 180 days of unlawful presence before departing on AP, that departure will now trigger a 3-year ban. Under the old rule it didn’t count, but now there is no exception. So crossing the 180-day threshold and leaving on AP means you would be inadmissible for three years upon return.
How does Advance Parole affect the 10-year bar? Similarly, if you accrued one full year of unlawful presence prior to traveling on AP, that departure will trigger the 10-year ban. Advance Parole no longer stops the 10-year ban from applying. Any AP trip taken after Aug. 13, 2026 with one year of illegal stay becomes subject to the ten-year inadmissibility period.
What happens if I already traveled using Advance Parole? If your AP trip happened before Aug. 13, 2026, the BIA’s new rule does not apply to you. That travel is grandfathered in. If you traveled on AP after that date, then your trip counts as a departure. You should determine how many days of unlawful presence you had before leaving: if it was over 180 days, you may have triggered a ban. In that case, you may need to apply for a waiver. It’s wise to consult an attorney about your situation, because you may qualify for a Form I-601 waiver to overcome the ban.
Can an immigration waiver overcome the 10-year bar? Yes. U.S. immigration law allows certain waivers for the 3- and 10-year bars under INA §212(a)(9)(B)(v). Typically, an I-601 waiver (or I-212 if still in the U.S.) can be granted if you show that a U.S. citizen or LPR spouse or parent would suffer extreme hardship if you are excluded. These waivers require proof of hardship and are not guaranteed, but they can remove the 3- or 10-year bar. If you believe you may need a waiver, consult an attorney early to plan ahead.

DHS Finalizes Elimination of “Duration of Status” for F, J, and I Visa Holders

2026-07-29T08:47:52Z

Table of Contents

DHS Finalizes Elimination of “Duration of Status” for F, J, and I Visa Holders

Key Takeaways

What Was the “Duration of Status” (D/S) Policy?

What Has DHS Changed and Why?

Who Is Affected by the New Rule?

What Does This Mean for Maintaining Lawful Status?

What Should Current Visa Holders Do Now?

What Could Happen If You Don’t Comply with the New Rule?

Frequently Asked Questions

Final Thoughts

The Law Offices of Anne Z. Sedki

When F‑1 students, J‑1 exchange visitors, and I‑visa media representatives enter the U.S., they have long been admitted “for Duration of Status” (D/S), meaning they could stay as long as they maintained their visa conditions.

This summer, DHS announced a final rule replacing that open-ended system with fixed admission periods. The change takes effect September 15, 2026. Starting then, F, J, and I visa holders (and their dependents) will receive a specific “Admit Until Date” on their I‑94 records instead of D/S. They must track that date carefully and file for extensions if needed to avoid falling out of status.

Below, we break down the key points of this new rule, who it affects, and what it means for students and exchange visitors planning their stay in the U.S.

Key Takeaways

Effective date: The final rule was published July 17, 2026, and goes into effect on September 15, 2026 (60 days after publication).
End of D/S: “Duration of Status” is eliminated for F-1 students, J-1 exchange visitors/scholars, I-visa media reps, and their dependents. They will be admitted for a fixed period instead of open-ended status.
Fixed periods: For new F and J admissions, the period will match the program length up to a 4-year cap (measured from program start) plus applicable grace days. I‑visa media reps will get up to 240 days (90 days for PRC passport holders).
Grace period: The F-1 post-completion grace period is cut from 60 days to 30 days. Nonimmigrants must depart or change/extend status within that 30-day window.
Extensions required: If a student’s program lasts longer than their fixed admission, they must file a USCIS extension-of-stay (Form I-539) before the I‑94 expires. USCIS may collect fingerprints or other biometrics for these applications.
Unlawful presence: Once the fixed admission period ends, the individual will begin accruing unlawful presence if they remain in the U.S. without an approved extension. This could trigger three- or ten-year bars if departure is delayed beyond a short grace period.
Who’s affected: New and continuing F-1 and J-1 visa holders and their F-2/J-2 dependents, plus I-visa media reps, even if already in the U.S. under D/S. (The rule’s application may vary for those already here.)

These changes represent a major restructuring of the F, J, and I visa programs. Families and employers that sponsor these visa holders, as well as schools and program sponsors, should prepare now for the transition to fixed admission dates and formal extension applications.

What Was the “Duration of Status” (D/S) Policy?

Under the D/S system, most international students and exchange visitors did not have a specific end date on their I-94. Instead, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) admitted them for “Duration of Status.”

In practice, an F-1 or J-1 stayed valid as long as they followed the rules of their visa—staying enrolled full-time, making normal academic progress, and maintaining a valid SEVIS record. Their I-20 or DS-2019 could be extended by the school or sponsor if their program ran long, without having to apply to USCIS each time.

For over 30 years, this framework allowed a lot of flexibility. For example, an F-1 student who completed a degree and then did authorized OPT or STEM OPT could simply continue without refiling. A J-1 scholar extending their research could just extend their DS-2019 in SEVIS. The key point was that the visa holder’s status dictated how long they could stay, not a printed date.

What Has DHS Changed and Why?

DHS has finalized a rule titled “Establishing a Fixed Time Period of Admission and an Extension of Stay Procedure” that strikes all references to “duration of status” for F, J, and I nonimmigrants.

Effective September 15, 2026, most F-1 students, J-1 exchange visitors (including students, scholars, and J-1 trainees), and I-visa media representatives will get an Admit Until Date (AUD) on their I-94. In other words, the government will set a firm expiration date for their authorized stay, instead of tying it to program requirements.

Why the change? DHS determined that the D/S framework lacked sufficient oversight. Officials argued that fixed admission periods bring F, J, and I categories in line with other visas, making it clearer when status ends. The final rule aims to tighten compliance: once the fixed period expires, the individual must either extend or leave. Under the old system, some critics said students or visitors could stay indefinitely by extending I-20s or DS-2019s without timely filing. The new policy closes that loophole.

Admission periods: For newly arriving F and J visitors, DHS will generally grant up to four years of stay per admission (or the program length, if shorter). This four-year clock starts on the program start date (not the arrival date), and excludes the pre-arrival and post-completion grace days. If an F-1 student’s degree is longer than four years, they would need to extend their stay after four years. For I visa media reps, a fixed period of up to 240 days will be set (with PRC passport holders limited to 90 days). As before, extensions are available if someone needs more time.

Grace periods: The rule also shortens the usual F-1 post-completion grace period from 60 days to 30 days. That means an F-1 student who finishes coursework or authorized training must depart or take legal action within 30 days, not 60. These changes ensure that everyone’s allowed stay ends on a predictable date.

DHS did not change the basic eligibility rules for F-1 or J-1 status. The academic program lengths, course requirements, and visa qualifications stay the same. This is a change to admission mechanics and compliance, not to who can qualify for a visa.

Who Is Affected by the New Rule?

F‑1 Students (and F‑2 dependents): All new and continuing F‑1 nonimmigrant students will fall under the new fixed-period system starting September 15, 2026. This includes undergraduates, graduates, scholars in study programs, and their spouses/children (F-2).
J‑1 Exchange Visitors (and J‑2 dependents): All J‑1 categories are included – students, professors, researchers, short-term scholars, trainees, au pairs, etc., and their J-2 dependents. Existing J-1 participants in the U.S. at the effective date will also be subject to the new rules (for example, when re-entering or extending).
I‑Visa Media Representatives: Persons in I-visa status (journalists, reporters from foreign press) are included. Their admission periods will be capped (generally 240 days, 90 for PRC nationals) and they must extend if needed.

This rule applies nationwide, including students attending schools in New York, New Jersey, or any other state. The Law Offices of Anne Z. Sedki serves clients all across the country (NY and NJ included) on these issues.

In practice, almost anyone with an active F-1, J-1, or I visa (or dependent status) in the U.S. will need to pay attention. If you hold one of these visas, check how long your Form I-94 admission is, and anticipate that it may be shorter under the new rule than your academic program or training period. Schools and sponsors should warn affected students and visitors so they can plan ahead.

What Does This Mean for Maintaining Lawful Status?

Under D/S, students often worried only about maintaining enrollment or valid documentation. With fixed periods, the actual expiration date on your I-94 becomes critical. If you stay beyond that date without authorization, you will accrue unlawful presence (even if your I-20/DS-2019 is still valid). This can have serious consequences, such as triggering bans on re-entry.

A few key points:

Check your I-94 “Admit Until Date”: The stamp or electronic record will show a concrete end date. From that day forward, you are no longer authorized unless you have extended your stay. Keep it in your calendar!
Extensions of Stay (EOS): If your studies or exchange program last longer than the I-94 admits you, file Form I-539 before the end date. After the fixed period ends, you will have to use the new USCIS extension process. File early — USCIS processing can take months. Timely extension filings allow F-1 students to continue studying and J-1s to continue authorized activities while the case is pending.
Grace Period Compliance: Students no longer have 60 days automatically after program end. If your I-94 expires (plus the 30-day grace) and you do nothing, you fall out of status. Plan any moves or transitions (like OPT, another program, or travel) well in advance.
Change of Level or School: Under D/S, students often changed majors or schools via SEVIS updates. The new rule still allows transfers and changes of educational level within status, but USCIS may require you to also extend your I-94 if the new program would go beyond your current admission period. Consult your DSO about timing any SEVIS transfers.
Unlawful Presence: For the first time, F, J, and I nonimmigrants will start accruing unlawful presence as soon as their admission expires, unless they have an approved extension. In other categories, unlawful presence triggers bars at 180 days or one year overstay. The same will apply here. So if a student’s I-94 ends and they stay another 6 months without legal status, they could face a 3-year ban. Another 6 months beyond that would lead to a 10-year bar.

In short, monitor the clock. Under the new policy, falling out of status could happen quietly if you miss the date. It’s not enough that your school’s paperwork is valid — your admission date on the I-94 is what DHS will use.

What Should Current Visa Holders Do Now?

Review Your Records: Log into your CBP I-94 and note the “Admit Until Date” on your current record. Compare it to your SEVIS end date. If the I-94 is shorter than your program end date, start planning for an extension now.
Plan Extensions Early: If your program or training will run past the I-94 date (including any 30-day grace), file Form I-539 in advance. This gives USCIS time to process and keeps you in status while pending. Remember that biometrics (fingerprints/photos) may be required with this filing.
Talk to Your School or Sponsor: International offices at universities, and J-1 program sponsors, should be discussing these changes. Ask your school’s DSO or RA about how this affects your specific case. They may help adjust your I-20/DS-2019 end date or ensure you know the steps for extensions. Many campuses are already preparing guidance and webinars on the new rule.
Avoid Out-of-Status Travel: If you travel internationally after the rule’s effective date, you will return with a new fixed admission period on your I-94. Make sure to coordinate travel with your remaining authorized time; accidentally re-entering with an expired SEVIS record or without an extension approval can trigger unlawful presence immediately.
Use Grace Period Wisely: If you complete your program, remember you now have only 30 days to depart or change/extend status. Use that time to wrap up affairs or file any post-completion OPT, Academic Training, or new program petitions.
Seek Legal Advice: These rule changes are complex. If you have any doubt, consult an immigration attorney or a trusted advisor at your school. The Law Offices of Anne Z. Sedki (in New York/NJ) can answer questions about maintaining status under the new rule. Early planning can prevent a lot of headache down the road.

The bottom line: Be proactive. Don’t assume you can continue indefinitely without USCIS filings. Mark your calendar for any fixed dates, and act before they arrive.

What Could Happen If You Don’t Comply with the New Rule?

Failure to follow the new rules could have serious consequences:

Accrual of Unlawful Presence: Once your I-94 Admit Until Date passes, staying in the U.S. without an approved extension means you are unlawfully present. Even a few days of overstay can be risky. If you pass 180 days unlawfully present, then leave, you trigger a 3-year ban. If you reach 1 year of unlawful presence, you face a 10-year bar. This is stricter than the old system, which generally only counted unlawful presence after a status violation was formally found.
Violation of Status: Falling out of status can also mean losing eligibility for benefits. For instance, if you leave the U.S. after overstaying, you may be denied re-entry or future visas. Overstaying can even end OPT or Academic Training prematurely.
Problems with Future Applications: Any immigration application (like a future green card petition or nonimmigrant extension) will have to account for gaps in lawful status. A gap can require a waiver or lead to denial.
Removal (Deportation) Risks: In extreme cases, knowingly staying past your authorized date can expose you to removal proceedings. The new rule clarifies that no exception (like the old flexible D/S) applies after the date passes.

The rule change is meant to prevent “status abuse,” but it means everyone must be more diligent. The Department of Homeland Security has stressed that the fixed-period framework will eliminate confusion about when status expires. If you don’t take the new admission date seriously, you may inadvertently break the law.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Does this affect me if I’m already in the U.S. now? Yes. If you are in F, J, or I status on September 15, 2026, the new rule will apply to you. You won’t immediately get a new I-94 unless you depart and re-enter, but if you stay beyond your current admission or need to change/extend, the new rules kick in. For example, if you complete your program in 2027, you’ll have only a 30-day grace, not 60.
Q: Can I still extend my stay after program end? Yes, but you must use the new USCIS extension procedure (Form I-539) and submit before your fixed Admit Until Date expires. Don’t wait until the last minute – USCIS processing times can be long.
Q: What if my program is longer than 4 years? If your degree exceeds four years, DHS will not admit you beyond four years without intervention. You would need to file for an extension before hitting that cap to cover the remainder of your program.
Q: How are OPT and Academic Training handled? Authorized practical training is still allowed, but it must fit within your fixed admission. If your OPT would extend beyond the I-94 date, you must extend your stay first. Conversely, if you file a timely extension, you can continue working while the extension is pending. (If you depart the U.S., be careful: re-entry will cut your I-94 to match your I-20 end date plus 30-day grace.)
Q: Should I talk to an immigration lawyer?Absolutely. This rule is a major shift. Consulting an attorney can help you understand how it applies to your exact situation — especially if you have concerns about maintaining status or planning an international move. The attorneys at Anne Z. Sedki can assist nationwide (including New York and New Jersey) with immigration strategy under the new regulations.

Final Thoughts

The elimination of the “Duration of Status” policy is a landmark change. It means that F, J, and I visa holders can no longer be “self-managing” their admission period solely through school or sponsor paperwork. Instead, the U.S. government will set a firm end date that everyone must obey. This adds paperwork and deadlines, but also clarity: everyone will know exactly when their authorized stay expires.

Staying legal will require planning. The good news is that USCIS emphasizes that students and scholars may continue their studies, training, or work while an on-time extension is pending. But to take advantage of that, you must act early. Keep your I-20/DS-2019 updated, file any extensions on time, and watch the calendar.

These changes are intended to prevent surprise violations and ensure everyone’s status is properly authorized. It may feel daunting, but being informed is the first step.

Disclaimer: This blog is for informational purposes and not legal advice.

If you have questions about how the new fixed admission periods affect your particular case, or if you need help filing extensions or planning your next steps, consider reaching out.

The Law Offices of Anne Z. Sedki

Navigating immigration policy changes is challenging. At The Law Offices of Anne Z. Sedki, our attorneys help students, scholars, and professionals understand new rules and stay in compliance.

We serve clients in New York, New Jersey, and nationwide. If you need guidance on maintaining status under the new Duration-of-Status rule — or any other visa or immigration issue — our team is here to help. Contact us today to schedule a consultation and protect your lawful stay.

The future may be complicated, but you don’t have to go it alone. We’re ready to work with you to keep your dreams on track in the U.S.

USCIS Rescinds 2022 Public Charge Rule and Restores a Stricter Policy

2026-07-21T07:13:41Z

Table of Contents

USCIS Rescinds 2022 Public Charge Rule and Restores a Stricter Policy

What is the new public charge rule from USCIS?

Key differences: 2022 rule vs. new rule

When does the new rule take effect?

Who is affected by the new public charge regulation?

Public charge factors USCIS will consider under the new rule

How the stricter public charge policy impacts green card applications

What applicants should do now to prepare

Final thoughts

The Law Offices of Anne Z. Sedki

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced a major change to the “public charge” rule. Under this new policy, immigration officers regain broader authority to consider an applicant’s use of government benefits when deciding green card and visa cases.

This could affect many would-be permanent residents, so it’s important to understand how the new public charge rule works. We’ll explain what the updated policy says, how it differs from the 2022 Biden-era rule, who it applies to, and what steps applicants should take to prepare.

What is the new public charge rule from USCIS?

The Department of Homeland Security (USCIS) has issued a final rule rescinding the 2022 public charge regulation. The 2022 rule – implemented under the Biden administration – had narrowly defined “public charge” to include mostly cash welfare and long-term institutional care. Under that rule, programs like SNAP (food stamps), Medicaid, and housing assistance generally could not be considered against an applicant. In contrast, the new policy restores the broader standard used during Trump’s first administration. DHS will again look at an immigrant’s entire situation on a case-by-case basis. In practical terms, USCIS officers will review all relevant facts of a case, not just the limited benefits covered in 2022. As CBS News explains, the final rule “restores the broader discretion USCIS had during the first Trump administration,” allowing officers to consider factors such as an applicant’s age, health, family status, assets, financial resources, education, skills and whether they have received means-tested government benefits. In other words, officers will make “individualized, fact-specific public charge inadmissibility determinations, based on the totality of the alien’s circumstances”. Put simply, the new rule represents a return to the old, broader approach. USCIS now has authority to ask about and weigh many kinds of benefits and conditions when deciding if someone might become a public charge.

Key differences: 2022 rule vs. new rule

Here are the main differences between the old (2022) policy and the new one:

Scope of benefits considered: Under the 2022 rule, officers were only supposed to count “public cash assistance for income maintenance” (like TANF or SSI) and long-term institutional care. Non-cash programs (Medicaid, SNAP, housing vouchers, etc.) were off-limits. The new rule removes those restrictions. Now, as the final rule makes clear, officers can consider “means-tested taxpayer-funded benefits” of any kind. In practice, this means food stamps, Medicaid, housing subsidies and similar programs can again factor into the analysis if received by an applicant.
Factors and standards: The 2022 rule strictly limited officers to a set list of factors (five statutory factors plus two additional ones) and did not allow any other evidence. By contrast, the new rule emphasizes a “totality of circumstances” approach. Officers will consider the statutory factors set by law (age, health, family status, financial resources, education/skills, and required affidavits of support) and any other relevant information about the applicant. For example, USCIS says officers will weigh things like current income or employment, assets (savings or property), debts, and the support of any sponsors, in addition to benefits received. The new rule does not list specific positive or negative factors; instead, it tells officers to use their “good judgment and discretion” in evaluating each case. This is a broad contrast to 2022, which rigidly “straitjacketed” the public charge test to only certain categories of benefits.
Definition of “public charge”: The 2022 rule effectively mirrored the old 1999 guidance: someone who relies primarily on government cash assistance or long-term institutional care. The new rule restores the policy that any alien who is likely “at any time” to become dependent on public resources can be found inadmissible. In practical terms, this expands the definition beyond just cash assistance. It means that frequent use of SNAP, Medicaid, housing aid or similar programs could be seen as a sign of dependence. As CBS News notes, officers will even look at whether the person has received any “means-tested” benefits and use that to judge their ability to support themselves.
Impact on forms and filings: USCIS has announced that the new policy will take effect on September 18, 2026. Importantly, USCIS will revise the Green Card application (Form I-485) to reflect the new rule. Any adjustment applications filed on the old form on or after that date will be rejected. In practice, there will be a short gap between publication and enforcement: USCIS says it won’t start applying the new framework for 60 days after it’s finalized, to give time to update forms and guidance.

In summary, the new public charge rule is much broader than the 2022 version. It lets USCIS consider more kinds of benefits and more aspects of each applicant’s situation.

When does the new rule take effect?

USCIS formally published the final rule on July 20, 2026. According to the agency, the policy will take effect on September 18, 2026. Practically speaking, USCIS will not immediately apply the new public charge framework on July 20. Instead, the rule specifies a 60-day delay so that USCIS can update its forms and procedures (this pushes the “operational” date into September). What does this mean for applications? Essentially:

Any green card applications postmarked or submitted on or after September 18, 2026 will be reviewed under the new rule. USCIS will require a new Form I-485. If you file on or after the effective date with the old form, USCIS will reject it.
For applications already filed before the new rule goes into effect, USCIS has said it will only count benefits received after the rule is operational (except for certain cash benefits). In other words, any SNAP, Medicaid, or housing aid the applicant used before the rule’s effective date generally will not count against them. (Cash welfare and long-term care benefits used before the effective date can still be reviewed, since those were always part of the test.)

In short, expect the new public charge framework to govern all filings dated mid-September 2026 and beyond. Applicants who file earlier in 2026 should be aware of these transition rules and ensure they use the correct forms.

Who is affected by the new public charge regulation?

The public charge ground of inadmissibility applies to most people applying for immigrant visas or green cards. That means:

Immigrant visas: Applicants abroad seeking permanent residency at a U.S. consulate will face the public charge test at their interview with a consular officer.
Adjustment of status applicants: People already in the U.S. applying to adjust status to permanent resident (Form I-485) will be screened by USCIS officers under this rule.

The rule does not apply to U.S. citizens, green card renewals, or naturalization (citizenship) applications. It also does not apply to most nonimmigrant visas (like tourist, student, or H-1B work visas) when they are first issued, although DHS has proposed a separate rule for nonimmigrant extension/changes of status. In practice, any permanent-residence applicant must consider this test. Some categories of immigrants are exempt from the public charge ground by law. Refugees and asylees, for example, are not subject to public charge. The same goes for certain humanitarian categories: Special Immigrant Juveniles (trafficked children), victims of human trafficking (T visas), victims of certain crimes (U visas), and self-petitioners under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) are exempt. (These exemptions will continue unchanged.) In short: if you are applying for a green card or immigrant visa and you are not in one of the exempt groups above, the public charge test will apply to your case under the new rule. This is the case whether you’re applying in New York, New Jersey, or anywhere else in the world.

Public charge factors USCIS will consider under the new rule

USCIS will evaluate each applicant’s case holistically. In general, immigration law requires officers to look at certain minimum factors (age, health, family status, financial resources/assets, and education/skills). Under the 2022 rule those were the only factors listed. With the new rule’s broad discretion, officers will still consider those statutory factors, and more. According to USCIS guidance, officers will examine all relevant evidence in the “totality of the circumstances.” Key considerations include:

Age and health. Younger and working-age applicants are generally favored, while very old or incapacitated applicants may raise concerns (unless they have strong support or assets). Chronic health problems may negatively impact self-sufficiency.
Family status. Single applicants with no dependents generally have a lower risk. Supporting a large family or having dependents can be seen as a higher risk if it strains finances.
Financial situation. Income from work or assets like savings, property or investments are positive. Lack of steady income or high debt can be negative. USCIS will examine pay stubs, tax returns, bank statements, etc.
Education and skills. Applicants with college degrees or professional skills (and especially a job offer in the U.S.) are viewed as more self-sufficient. Lower education or language barriers could hurt an applicant’s ability to support themselves.
Receipt of public benefits. Critically, officers will now look at any means-tested public benefit use by the applicant. This includes SNAP (food stamps), Medicaid or other government-paid health care, public housing or rental assistance, and similar programs. Under the new rule, use of these benefits can be counted as evidence of reliance on government support. (USCIS has clarified that benefits received solely by family members are not automatically the applicant’s benefits – but they may still be considered insofar as they affect the household’s finances.)
Affidavit of support and sponsorship. If you are a family- or employment-based applicant, your sponsor must typically submit Form I-864 (Affidavit of Support). A legally enforceable affidavit from a financially strong sponsor is a “heavily weighted positive factor” that can offset other negative factors. Conversely, a missing or insufficient sponsor could be a negative.

USCIS instructs officers to weigh positive and negative factors together. No single factor automatically results in denial. An applicant “must at least demonstrate the ability to support [themselves]” and not become primarily dependent on aid. The new rule simply gives officers wider range to consider things. As the rule notes, under this broader review “officers will more accurately assess an alien’s likelihood at any time of becoming a public charge”.

How the stricter public charge policy impacts green card applications

In practice, this tougher public charge test means that some applicants who previously would have had no problem may now face extra scrutiny. Any green card seeker who has recently used means-tested public benefits may be more closely examined. Immigration attorneys anticipate more Requests for Evidence (RFEs) on the topic of financial responsibility. Applicants may be asked to provide updated job letters, tax returns, bank statements and sponsor affidavits to prove they are self-sufficient. It’s important to put this in context, though. During the period of 2020–2024, formal public-charge denials were extremely rare. DHS reported only 41 to 95 denial decisions per year on adjustment applications. Even under the Trump-era public charge rule (2019–2020), very few cases were ultimately denied; most applications with benefit use were eventually approved once applicants posted a bond or provided more documentation. That said, the new policy could deter some immigrants from using benefits, even those they qualify for. Experts worry that qualified families may fear accessing food, health, or housing assistance, concerned it might jeopardize their case. The Biden administration’s 2022 rule explicitly sought to avoid such “chilling effects,” but the Trump administration argues the stricter rule is needed to protect taxpayer resources. Time will tell how USCIS implements these changes in the field. For now, applicants should be prepared for a more thorough financial review. If you are using any public benefits, recognize that those benefits could factor into your green card case. However, recall that the law still requires a case-by-case decision. Citizenship attorneys often point out that if you can demonstrate steady work, income, and family or sponsor support, the outcome can still be favorable. The new rule does not ban immigrants from getting a green card – it just raises the bar for demonstrating self-sufficiency.

What applicants should do now to prepare

If you are planning to apply for a green card or immigrant visa in the coming months, here are some steps to consider:

Gather evidence of self-sufficiency. Collect pay stubs, tax returns, bank statements, and any documentation of savings or property. An updated letter from your employer describing your income and position can help. If you have assets (like a car, home equity or investments), make a list. These show that you have the means to support yourself.
Secure a strong sponsor if required. If your category requires an Affidavit of Support (Form I-864), make sure your sponsor meets the income requirements. A sponsor with a high income or substantial assets can help outweigh concerns about your finances. Verify that the affidavit is complete and properly signed, and gather supporting documents (IRS transcripts, W-2s, etc.) for your sponsor.
Review your benefit use. Be aware of any current benefits you’re receiving. While the new rule allows these to be considered, the law also considers when the benefits were used. If you applied for a green card before Sept 18, 2026, USCIS will only look at benefits received after that date (except for cash welfare). If possible, delay or limit new means-tested benefit enrollment until after your green card case is decided.
Stay informed and use the right forms.Watch for USCIS updates. By September 2026, the agency will release a new I-485 form that reflects the rule change. Do not file with an old form after the rule’s effective date or USCIS will reject your application. Also check for any new policy guidance or instructions from USCIS or the Department of State about public charge.
Consult an immigration attorney. Given the complexity and the high stakes, it’s wise to seek legal advice. An experienced attorney (for example, in our Garden City, NY or New Jersey office) can review your case specifics, help prepare strong evidence, and flag any issues before you file. Every applicant’s situation is different, and professional guidance can make a big difference in how you address the public charge test.

Remember: changes in the rule do not mean you are automatically in trouble. Many applicants who use certain benefits can still qualify for green cards, especially if they have other strong factors. The key is to proactively address any concerns and present a complete picture of your situation.

Final thoughts

The new public charge rule marks a significant shift in U.S. immigration policy. It underscores a philosophy that immigrants should prove they will be self-supporting. For many immigrants and families, this may feel daunting. But it is important to stay calm and prepared. USCIS still evaluates each case individually. Having a well-documented, realistic application goes a long way. If you or your family are applying for a green card, don’t panic over this rule change. Instead, use it as an opportunity to double-check your application package, gather strong supporting evidence, and clarify any areas of concern in advance. And remember that hardships like unemployment or illness are understood — the test is about likelihood and support, not penalizing people for past events beyond their control. We also want to emphasize that this blog is for informational purposes and does not replace legal advice. Immigration law is always evolving, and each person’s situation is unique. If you have questions about how the new public charge policy affects your case, or if you’re preparing a green card application, it’s best to talk to a qualified immigration attorney.

The Law Offices of Anne Z. Sedki

At The Law Offices of Anne Z. Sedki, our team of experienced immigration lawyers is here to help you navigate these changes. Based in New York and New Jersey (we serve clients nationwide and worldwide), we have helped thousands of families and individuals through complex immigration processes. We understand how stressful this new public charge policy can be, and we can guide you on how to document your case effectively. If you’re concerned about the public charge rule or any other immigration issue, reach out for a personalized consultation. Whether it’s answering your questions, reviewing your financial documents, or representing you in an adjustment or visa interview, we can provide the support you need. The path to a green card may have gotten a little more complicated, but you don’t have to walk it alone. Contact The Law Offices of Anne Z. Sedki today, and let us help you build the strongest possible application under the new rules.

USCIS further extends TPS work permits for Haiti, Syria & others

2026-07-15T03:57:07Z

Not long ago, we told you that Haiti’s and Syria’s TPS beneficiaries got an extra two weeks of work authorization through July 10, 2026. We have new news: USCIS has again extended those deadlines—and added several other countries—while litigation continues. Think of it as another short reprieve in a marathon court fight. This update means many TPS holders can breathe a bit easier for now. Let’s dive into what’s changed and what it means for affected workers and employers.

What’s the new TPS EAD extension?

USCIS just announced that for certain TPS holders, Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) will now remain valid beyond July 10. Specifically, DHS and USCIS have set new expiration dates per the ongoing court orders. Nationals of Haiti, Syria, Burma (Myanmar), Somalia, Yemen, Ethiopia, and South Sudan get extra time.

Haiti TPS EADs are now valid through July 24, 2026.
TPS EADs for Burma, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Ethiopia, and South Sudan are now valid through July 17, 2026.

In practical terms, if you have a valid TPS-based work permit from one of those countries, USCIS has automatically extended it until the dates above. Employers should treat those EADs as valid through July 17 or July 24 (see below) despite what the card says.

Which countries are included?

The automatic extension covers TPS holders from the following designated countries:

Haiti
Syria
Burma (Myanmar)
Somalia
Yemen
Ethiopia
South Sudan

These match the jurisdictions where federal courts have kept injunctions in place after the Supreme Court’s decision on June 25, 2026 (Mullin v. Doe). Because the TPS termination plans for these countries are still being litigated, DHS gave another brief extension while the courts continue to sort it out. (Notably, other TPS countries – like El Salvador, Honduras, Nepal, Nicaragua, etc. – are not part of this update, since those designations are ongoing with separate timelines.)

What’s the new expiration date?

Every extended EAD now has one of two new “valid through” dates:

July 17, 2026 – for TPS work permits from Burma, Somalia, South Sudan, Syria, Yemen, and Ethiopia.
July 24, 2026 – for TPS work permits from Haiti.

The July 17 date applies uniformly to all listed expiration dates for those six countries, and July 24 for Haiti. (USCIS guidance tells employers to use those dates on Form I-9 and E-Verify for all these beneficiaries.) Importantly, those dates are not final. They’re placeholders while the lower courts keep hearing the cases. USCIS has described them as “limited relief” until the courts act further. We could see the dates change again, or the programs wind down – so stay tuned.

Who qualifies for the extended work authorization?

The extension applies to anyone who: (1) currently has TPS for one of the above countries and (2) holds a valid TPS-based EAD that would have expired on or before the new dates. In practice, that means:

Your TPS nationality is Haiti, Syria, Burma (Myanmar), Somalia, Yemen, Ethiopia, or South Sudan; and
You already had a TPS EAD issued under category A-12 (initial TPS grant) or C-19 (renewal) for one of those countries; and
That EAD’s original expiration date fell in the window covered by these orders (for example, an EAD dated Feb. 3, 2026, for Haiti, or Sept. 30, 2025, for Syria).

If all of the above are true, USCIS has automatically extended your work authorization through the new date. You do not need to file a new I-765 renewal just because of this extension.

How can I check if my EAD is extended?

You should consult the country-specific TPS pages on the USCIS website, or official updates on I-9 Central and E-Verify. USCIS posted alerts for each country (Haiti, Syria, etc.) on July 10, 2026. Those alerts list exactly which EAD expiration dates are extended and what to enter on the I-9 form. For example, one USCIS notice instructs employers that for TPS holders from Burma, Ethiopia, Somalia, South Sudan, Syria, and Yemen:

In Section 1 of Form I-9, write “as per court order” under document expiration;
In Section 2, put July 17, 2026 with a note like “TPS EAD extension”.

For Haiti, the instruction is the same except you put July 24, 2026 in Section 2. If your employer uses E-Verify, use those same dates in the E-Verify case. If your EAD’s country and dates match those USCIS lists, that’s how you know it was covered by the extension. If you’re unsure, you can also check with USCIS customer service, an immigration attorney, or an authorized representative.

Next steps for TPS holders (and employers)

Even with this extension, uncertainty remains. Here are some practical points:

Keep using your EAD. If your current EAD is extended, you can legally continue working through the new date (July 17 or 24). Employers should accept it for Form I-9 and should not terminate employment because of the old printed date.
Stay informed. This is a moving target. The lower courts may issue rulings soon. USCIS could set yet another extension, or (worst case) end TPS if the injunctions lift. Watch the USCIS website and trusted sources for updates.
Prepare for contingencies. Think about your long-term plans. If TPS ends, you’ll need another immigration status to stay employed in the U.S. You might explore other visa options (like family-based petitions or work visas), asylum or special visas if eligible, or apply for a green card if possible. Planning ahead can save headaches later.
Employers should verify carefully.Employers can follow USCIS’s guidance: keep a record of the Form I-9 or E-Verify page showing the extended date and court order note. Avoid forcing employees off payroll unless and until the official guidance changes.
Consult an attorney if needed. Given the fast pace of changes, having legal advice can be a big help. Lawyers can assess your specific situation (or that of your employees) and suggest what actions to take next.

Remember, TPS itself remains in effect for these countries until the courts finally resolve the termination cases. This extension simply pushes out the work permit expiration a bit.

The Law Offices of Anne Z. Sedki — Here to help

If you or someone you know is a TPS beneficiary from Haiti, Syria, or any of the affected countries and you have questions about your work permit or legal status, we’re here for you. Our experienced immigration attorneys in New York and New Jersey stay on top of these developments every day. Navigating TPS and its deadlines can be confusing, especially when the rules change quickly. The Law Offices of Anne Z. Sedki has helped countless individuals and families through TPS-related challenges and other immigration issues. Whether it’s understanding the latest USCIS notices or exploring alternatives if TPS ends, we can guide you step by step. Contact us today for a consultation to discuss your case. We can review your status, explain how this extension impacts you, and outline your options moving forward. Our goal is to give you clarity and confidence — not just today, but for the future of your case. Stay safe, stay informed, and remember you’re not alone in this process. We’ll continue monitoring all TPS updates closely, and we’ll keep you updated as soon as there’s more news.

The Law Office of Anne Z. Sedki, LLC

$100K H-1B Fee Extended to 2027 Despite Court Challenge: What Now?

What is the $100,000 H-1B fee and why was it extended to 2027?

Who is actually subject to the $100,000 H-1B fee?

Why did the courts block the $100,000 H-1B fee?

If the fee is extended, do employers have to pay it right now?

What does the 2027 extension mean for H-1B workers, employers, and future applicants?

What happens next with the $100,000 H-1B fee?

What should you do now?

The Law Offices of Anne Z. Sedki

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Is the $100,000 H-1B fee still in effect in 2026?

Has the $100,000 H-1B fee been extended to 2027?

Who has to pay the $100,000 H-1B fee?

Does the $100,000 fee apply to H-1B extensions or transfers?

Does the $100,000 H-1B fee apply to F-1 students changing to H-1B status?

Can the $100,000 fee still be collected while the court case is pending?

What happens if the court ultimately strikes down the $100,000 H-1B fee?

Will employers get the $100,000 H-1B fee back if the fee is ruled unlawful?

Does the $100,000 H-1B fee apply to workers already in the United States?

What should employers and H-1B applicants do while the lawsuit continues?

USCIS Proposal to End the 60-Day Grace Period: What Visa Holders Need to Know Now

What is the 60-day grace period for visa holders?

What is USCIS proposing to change?

Which visa holders would be affected?

What happens if you lose your job without the 60-day grace period?

What should visa holders do if the rule takes effect?

Will USCIS actually end the 60-day grace period?

What this means for you right now

The Law Offices of Anne Z. Sedki

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

1. Is the 60-day grace period ending?

2. Can H-1B workers still use the 60-day grace period?

3. What happens if I lose my H-1B job?

4. How long can I stay in the U.S. after losing my job?

5. Does the proposed rule affect H-1B dependents?

6. Does the proposal affect L-1, O-1, TN and E visas?

7. When would the new rule take effect?

USCIS Neighborhood Investigations for Citizenship: Can It Be Avoided?

What are USCIS “Neighborhood Investigations” for Citizenship?

Why is USCIS using these investigations again?

What can USCIS investigate about a naturalization applicant?

What can cause problems during a Neighborhood Investigation?

Can you avoid a USCIS Neighborhood Investigation?

How to prepare for a USCIS Neighborhood Investigation

What happens if USCIS finds a problem?

How The Law Offices of Anne Z. Sedki Can Help

Frequently Asked Questions

Can USCIS visit my home for citizenship?

Does USCIS interview your neighbors for naturalization?

What does USCIS ask neighbors?

Can USCIS investigate my previous addresses?

Can USCIS investigate my employer for citizenship?

Can a neighbor cause my citizenship application to be denied?

How do I prepare for a USCIS home visit?

Federal Judge Lifts Freeze on Immigrant Visas for 75 Countries; Ban Called Unlawful

What was the 75-country immigrant visa freeze?

Why did the federal judge rule the freeze unlawful?

What does the decision mean for applicants from the 75 countries?

What happens to visa applications that were previously denied or put on hold?

Does the ruling end all Trump’s immigration restrictions?

What happens next? Can the administration appeal?

The Law Offices of Anne Z. Sedki

Frequently asked questions

What will become of Trump’s birth tourism and birthright citizenship orders?

What did the Supreme Court decide on birthright citizenship?

Executive Order 1: Ending “Birth Tourism”

Executive Order 2: Further limiting birthright citizenship

How will the new EOs affect families and children born in the U.S.?

What Is the likely fate of Trump’s new birthright citizenship EOs?

What should immigrants and families do now?

The Law Offices of Anne Z. Sedki

USCIS’s new Asylum rule explained: How it affects applicants and pending cases

What is USCIS’s new rule for reducing the asylum backlog?

Who Is affected by the new rule?

How the new asylum process works

Will the new rule really reduce the Asylum backlog?

What does this mean for current and future Asylum applicants?

Frequently Asked Questions about the new USCIS Asylum rule

Does this change my pending asylum application?