Matter of M-M-L-J-: BIA Says Equitable Tolling Cannot Overcome the One-Motion Rule for Motions to Reopen
What the August 18, 2026 BIA decision means for second motions to reopen, ineffective assistance of counsel, changed country conditions, I-130 petitions, and immigrants with final removal orders
By Richard T. Herman, Esq.
Herman Legal Group
Published August 18, 2026
The Board of Immigration Appeals issued a major new precedent on August 18, 2026 that changes how immigrants and their attorneys must evaluate repeat motions to reopen.
In Matter of M-M-L-J-, 29 I&N Dec. 843 (BIA 2026), Interim Decision #4235, the BIA held that the statutory rule generally allowing an immigrant one motion to reopen is a numerical limitation that cannot be overcome through equitable tolling. That is true, the Board held, even when the immigrant alleges ineffective assistance by a former attorney.
The decision draws an important distinction between two rules that are often discussed together. The familiar 90-day filing deadline for most motions to reopen may, in appropriate circumstances, be subject to equitable tolling. But according to M-M-L-J-, equitable tolling does not give a respondent another ordinary statutory motion after the one-motion allowance has already been used.
That makes the first motion to reopen more consequential—and potentially more dangerous to file incompletely—than ever before.
For immigrants who already have a final removal order, however, the decision should not be reduced to the statement that “you only get one chance.” Important statutory and regulatory reopening mechanisms remain, federal circuit law is not uniform, and the Board deliberately left one especially important question unresolved: what happens to qualifying motions based on changed country conditions?
This guide explains the decision, what it changes, what it does not change, and the issues immigration lawyers should examine before concluding that a case can—or cannot—be reopened.
Quick Answer: What Did Matter of M-M-L-J- Hold?
Matter of M-M-L-J- holds that equitable tolling does not overcome the statutory numerical limit on motions to reopen.
Under INA § 240(c)(7), 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7), a respondent generally may file one motion to reopen removal proceedings. The BIA concluded that this numerical restriction is fundamentally different from the 90-day filing deadline: a deadline controls when a motion can be filed, while the number bar controls how many ordinary statutory motions Congress permits.
The BIA therefore held that an immigrant cannot obtain a second ordinary motion to reopen merely by showing that equitable tolling would otherwise be justified, including because former counsel provided ineffective assistance.
But M-M-L-J- does not answer every reopening question. It does not eliminate regulatory exceptions, does not erase contrary controlling circuit precedent, and expressly does not decide whether its interpretation of the statutory number bar applies to motions seeking asylum or related protection based on changed country conditions.
Matter of M-M-L-J- at a Glance
Issue
Answer after M-M-L-J-
Case
Matter of M-M-L-J-, 29 I&N Dec. 843
Decision date
August 18, 2026
Tribunal
Board of Immigration Appeals
Precedent?
Yes — published BIA precedent
General numerical rule
One motion to reopen
90-day deadline equitably tollable?
Potentially, depending on applicable law
Number bar equitably tollable?
No under M-M-L-J- where contrary circuit law does not control
Ineffective assistance creates another motion?
No, according to the BIA
Changed-country-conditions motions?
Expressly left unresolved by M-M-L-J-
Joint motions?
Existing regulatory exception remains; M-M-L-J- did not eliminate it
Sua sponte reopening?
Still exists, but BIA treats it as extraordinary
Special battered-spouse/child/parent rule?
Express statutory exception remains
Immediate significance in Ohio?
High because the Sixth Circuit had not resolved number-bar tolling
In Matter of M-M-L-J-, the Board of Immigration Appeals held that equitable tolling does not overcome the statutory one-motion limit for motions to reopen.
What Happened in Matter of M-M-L-J-?
The respondent was a citizen of Jordan who entered the United States in 2010 as an F-1 student. He later failed to comply with the conditions of his student status and was placed in removal proceedings. After proceedings involving an application for special-rule cancellation of removal, the Immigration Judge ordered him removed, and the BIA dismissed his appeal in March 2020.
After the removal order became final, the respondent repeatedly sought reopening.
His first motion relied on a pending Form I-130 filed by his second wife, who was a lawful permanent resident. His second motion alleged ineffective assistance by former counsel. The BIA denied both in October 2020, including because the ineffective-assistance claim failed to satisfy applicable requirements and failed to establish prejudice. The Sixth Circuit later denied his petition for review.
The respondent later married a third wife, a naturalized U.S. citizen. He filed another motion to reopen based on the I-130 she filed for him. The BIA denied that third motion in October 2025.
He then filed the motion that produced Matter of M-M-L-J-—his fourth motion to reopen. He again relied on the I-130 filed by his U.S.-citizen wife and again alleged ineffective assistance of former counsel. Although he characterized his request as seeking the Board’s sua sponte reopening authority, the BIA concluded that the substance of his argument sought equitable tolling of the statutory time and number limitations.
The Board denied the motion.
The Rule Before M-M-L-J-: Motions to Reopen Have Both a Time Limit and a Number Limit
To understand why the decision matters, it is important to separate two different restrictions.
Before filing, however, lawyers must now ask two independent questions:
Is the motion timely?
and
Has the respondent already used the statutory motion to reopen?
M-M-L-J- makes clear that successfully answering the first question does not necessarily solve the second.
Why the 90-Day Deadline and the One-Motion Rule Are Different
This distinction is the doctrinal heart of Matter of M-M-L-J-.
A statute of limitations tells a litigant when a claim must be brought. Equitable tolling traditionally can extend certain deadlines when extraordinary circumstances prevented timely filing and the litigant acted with the diligence required under the governing law.
A numerical limitation answers a different question: how many times may the litigant invoke the procedure?
The BIA relied heavily on the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning in Garcia Morin v. Bondi and the Supreme Court’s decision in Jones v. Hendrix. The Supreme Court distinguished ordinary statutes of limitations from restrictions on second or successive collateral proceedings, explaining that numerical restrictions embody a legislative judgment about balancing finality against error correction.
The BIA imported that reasoning into immigration reopening law.
In the Board’s view, the number limitation in INA § 240(c)(7)(A) is therefore not merely a procedural clock that equity can pause. It represents Congress’s substantive decision to limit repeat attempts to reopen completed removal proceedings.
That is why M-M-L-J- allows an important distinction:
A respondent may have a persuasive reason for filing late and still lack the right to file another ordinary motion because the one-motion allowance has already been used.
Does Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Still Support a Motion to Reopen?
Yes—but M-M-L-J- significantly changes the analysis when a prior motion to reopen has already been filed.
Ineffective assistance of immigration counsel can still provide a basis for seeking reopening, and the doctrine associated with Matter of Lozada remains important. Herman Legal Group has a separate guide explaining ineffective assistance of counsel in immigration cases.
In fact, the BIA reinforced Lozada only weeks before M-M-L-J- in Matter of L-R-M-C- & V-A-M-M-, 29 I&N Dec. 757 (BIA 2026). The Board held there that a motion relying on ineffective assistance must include a copy of the disciplinary complaint and proof it was filed, or explain why no complaint was filed.
That recent precedent makes the combined message of the two 2026 decisions especially important.
A poorly prepared first motion can create two separate problems. Counsel must satisfy the substantive and procedural requirements of an ineffective-assistance claim, while also recognizing that filing the motion may consume the respondent’s ordinary statutory motion to reopen.
Under M-M-L-J-, ineffective assistance can potentially support equitable tolling of the time deadline, depending on controlling law and the facts. But ineffective assistance does not, under the Board’s new interpretation, equitably restore a statutory motion that has already been used.
That makes competent preparation of the first motion extraordinarily important.
A Critical Practitioner Point: Do Not “Use Up” the First Motion Without a Complete Strategy
Imagine that an immigrant receives a final removal order and later hires an attorney to seek reopening.
The attorney quickly files a motion based on one theory but fails to obtain the complete immigration record, overlooks prior-counsel ineffectiveness, fails to attach the correct relief application, neglects important evidence, or does not investigate another available reopening ground.
The motion is denied.
A second lawyer later discovers a much stronger case.
Before M-M-L-J-, that lawyer might have attempted to argue that equitable tolling should permit another motion because attorney misconduct prevented the respondent from meaningfully pursuing reopening the first time.
The BIA has now sharply restricted that argument.
For that reason, counsel should ordinarily investigate all plausible reopening theories before filing the first statutory motion. That may include reviewing the complete EOIR record, prior USCIS records, prior counsel’s file, immigration and criminal history, prior notices, family petitions, current eligibility for relief, possible Lozada issues, changed circumstances, changed country conditions, and the controlling law of the federal circuit.
The lesson of M-M-L-J- is not simply “file quickly.”
It is file strategically.
The Most Important Unresolved Issue: Changed Country Conditions
This may become the most litigated issue generated by Matter of M-M-L-J-.
The Board included an unusually important reservation in footnote 2. It noted that the respondent was not requesting asylum or related protection based on changed country conditions and therefore stated that it was not deciding whether the number bar applies to those motions.
That matters because the statutory and regulatory texts are not identical.
INA § 240(c)(7)(C)(ii) provides a changed-country-conditions exception to the ordinary time limitation for certain motions seeking asylum or related relief.
The regulations go further.
The current Immigration Court regulation, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(i), expressly states that the time and numerical limitations do not apply to qualifying motions based on material changed country conditions where the evidence was unavailable and could not have been discovered or presented previously.
M-M-L-J- repeatedly reasons that Congress expressly authorized one statutory exception to the numerical cap—the special rule for certain battered spouses, children, and parents—and that courts and the Board should not invent additional equitable exceptions.
Yet the existing regulations expressly address changed-country-conditions reopening.
The Board avoided resolving that tension in M-M-L-J-.
Practitioners therefore should not read M-M-L-J- as holding that a respondent who previously filed a motion can never file a qualifying changed-country-conditions motion. The Board expressly declined to decide that issue.
Nor should practitioners assume the issue is necessarily settled in the respondent’s favor everywhere. Circuit law matters, and the statutory/regulatory interaction may now receive increased scrutiny.
This is an area to watch closely.
Motions to reopen generally face both a 90-day filing deadline and a one-motion numerical limit, but different statutory and regulatory exceptions may apply.
What Exceptions and Other Reopening Mechanisms Remain After M-M-L-J-?
M-M-L-J- is important, but it is not a universal prohibition on every second filing that could result in reopening.
Several distinct mechanisms must still be analyzed.
1. Special Rule for Certain Battered Spouses, Children, and Parents
INA § 240(c)(7)(C)(iv) contains a specific statutory rule for qualifying battered spouses, children, and parents.
The BIA expressly acknowledged that exception in the holding of M-M-L-J-.
Whether a particular respondent satisfies its requirements requires a separate statutory analysis.
2. Changed Country Conditions
As explained above, M-M-L-J- expressly reserved the number-bar question for qualifying changed-country-conditions motions. Current regulations continue to provide special treatment for qualifying asylum, withholding, and Convention Against Torture reopening based on materially changed country conditions.
3. Joint Motions to Reopen
The current Immigration Court regulation expressly provides that ordinary time and numerical limitations do not apply to a motion agreed upon by all parties and jointly filed. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(iv).
Nothing in M-M-L-J- purports to eliminate the existing joint-motion mechanism.
That means a respondent who appears number-barred may still need counsel to evaluate whether DHS would have a basis to join reopening. DHS agreement is discretionary, so a joint motion is not something a respondent can demand. But after M-M-L-J-, the possibility of a joint motion may become even more strategically important.
4. In Absentia Reopening
Removal orders entered when a respondent failed to appear are governed by specialized rules.
The EOIR Practice Manual’s section on in absentia motions explains that a respondent may seek rescission within 180 days based on qualifying exceptional circumstances and may seek rescission at any time in specified circumstances involving lack of proper notice or custody through no fault of the respondent. Different numerical and stay rules apply.
An attorney analyzing a final in absentia order therefore should not mechanically apply the ordinary 90-day reopening framework.
5. Sua Sponte Reopening
Immigration Judges and the BIA retain regulatory authority to reopen proceedings on their own initiative.
But M-M-L-J- emphasized that this sua sponte authority is different from equitable tolling. The Board treats it as an extraordinary remedy for exceptional circumstances, not as a routine mechanism for avoiding the time or number rules.
That limitation has become especially important under recent precedent.
Can a U.S.-Citizen Spouse or Approved I-130 Overcome the Number Bar?
Not by itself.
The respondent in M-M-L-J- relied on an I-130 filed by his naturalized U.S.-citizen third wife. The existence of that family relationship did not permit him to evade the number bar, and the Board declined to reopen sua sponte.
That result follows another significant 2026 precedent, Matter of Yadav, 29 I&N Dec. 438 (BIA 2026). In Yadav, the BIA held that a valid marriage to a U.S. citizen entered after a removal order does not, standing alone, constitute an exceptional situation warranting sua sponte reopening.
This distinction is critical.
An I-130 determines whether a qualifying family relationship exists. It does not by itself:
erase a final removal order;
reopen immigration-court proceedings;
eliminate inadmissibility problems;
establish adjustment eligibility;
automatically stop ICE removal; or
create another statutory motion to reopen.
Herman Legal Group explains the family-petition process in our Form I-130 guide, but a person with both an I-130 and a final removal order generally requires a separate analysis of the removal-order problem.
Matter of M-M-L-J- Creates a Major Circuit-Specific Issue
Another reason this decision requires careful analysis is that immigration law is not completely uniform across the federal circuits.
The BIA acknowledged that the Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits have previously applied equitable tolling to the number limitation “in some fashion.” It cited Zhao v. INS in the Second Circuit, Ramos-Braga v. Sessions in the Seventh Circuit, and Ray v. Gonzales in the Ninth Circuit.
The Board disagreed with the reasoning underlying those decisions, particularly after the Supreme Court’s later reasoning in Jones v. Hendrix. But the BIA also reaffirmed that it follows controlling federal circuit law in cases arising within that circuit.
The result is an important jurisdictional distinction.
Fifth Circuit
The Fifth Circuit held in Garcia Morin v. Bondi that the numerical limitation cannot be equitably tolled. The BIA relied heavily on that reasoning in M-M-L-J-.
Sixth Circuit
The BIA expressly stated that the Sixth Circuit had permitted equitable tolling of time-barred motions but had not decided whether equitable tolling applies to the numerical bar.
Because M-M-L-J- says its rule will govern in circuits that have not yet spoken, the new BIA rule is particularly important in the Sixth Circuit unless and until controlling Sixth Circuit law establishes otherwise.
Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits
The Board itself identified prior precedent in these circuits recognizing number-bar tolling in some form. Attorneys practicing there must examine the precise current circuit rule rather than simply assuming that M-M-L-J- supersedes binding court-of-appeals authority.
Other Circuits
Do not assume.
The BIA announced that it will apply M-M-L-J- in circuits that have not yet spoken, making a current circuit-law review an essential part of analyzing any repeat motion to reopen.
Why M-M-L-J- Matters Especially in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee
The Sixth Circuit covers Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee.
That gives the new decision immediate importance to removal cases arising from Immigration Courts within those states because the BIA specifically identified the Sixth Circuit as having not yet resolved whether the statutory number bar itself can be equitably tolled.
For respondents in Ohio—including cases involving the Cleveland Immigration Court—M-M-L-J- therefore should be part of the analysis before filing a second motion based on ineffective assistance or another equitable-tolling theory.
The same basic concern applies throughout the Sixth Circuit: practitioners must distinguish tolling of the 90-day filing deadline from tolling of the one-motion number bar.
Could a Federal Court Reject the BIA’s Interpretation?
Yes. M-M-L-J- is authoritative administrative precedent, but it is not the final word on what the federal statute means for every court.
The BIA itself acknowledges that controlling circuit precedent governs cases arising within that circuit.
Federal judicial review is also especially significant after the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which ended Chevron deference and requires courts to exercise their independent judgment when interpreting statutes. Herman Legal Group has a detailed guide to Loper Bright and immigration law.
That does not mean M-M-L-J- will be overturned. The Fifth Circuit has already adopted substantially the same interpretation, and the BIA notes that the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Garcia Morin.
But the disagreement between the BIA’s reasoning and preexisting circuit authority creates a significant appellate question:
Is INA § 240(c)(7)(A)’s one-motion rule a substantive limitation that equity cannot alter, or a nonjurisdictional claim-processing rule that can sometimes be equitably tolled?
M-M-L-J- answers that question in favor of finality.
Some federal appellate precedent points the other way.
That legal conflict deserves close attention.
What Does M-M-L-J- Mean for Sua Sponte Reopening?
The Board also clarified an important conceptual point about sua sponte reopening.
Under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23 and the corresponding Board regulation, Immigration Judges and the BIA possess authority to reopen certain cases on their own initiative.
But that authority is separate from equitable tolling.
The Board said that sua sponte reopening remains limited to exceptional circumstances and is not intended as a routine cure for filing defects or a method of circumventing the reopening regulations.
Recent 2026 precedent reinforces that restrictive approach. In addition to Yadav, the BIA held in Matter of Herrera-Nunez, 29 I&N Dec. 695 (BIA 2026) that equities acquired years after a removal order did not establish an exceptional situation warranting sua sponte reopening.
Practitioners therefore should not treat a request for sua sponte reopening as merely a second statutory motion under another name.
Motion to Reopen vs. Motion to Reconsider: Do Not Confuse Them
M-M-L-J- addresses motions to reopen, not motions to reconsider.
The distinction matters.
A motion to reopen generally asks the tribunal to consider new facts or evidence that were material and previously unavailable.
A motion to reconsider generally argues that the prior decision contained an error of fact or law or that a subsequent legal development changes the analysis. EOIR provides a separate practice-manual section on motions to reconsider.
The two procedural vehicles have different deadlines and numerical rules.
Before filing anything after a removal order, counsel should therefore determine whether the client’s problem is genuinely new evidence, an error in the existing decision, attorney misconduct, new eligibility, a changed legal rule, changed country conditions, an in absentia order, or some combination of these.
Choosing the wrong procedural vehicle can have lasting consequences.
Where Should a Motion to Reopen Be Filed?
The answer depends on which tribunal has administrative jurisdiction over the case.
As a general rule, if the Immigration Judge entered the decision and no BIA appeal transferred jurisdiction, the motion is filed with the Immigration Court that has administrative control of the record. If the BIA decided the case and retains the relevant jurisdiction, the motion generally must be filed with the Board.
This jurisdiction question should be resolved before filing because sending the motion to the wrong tribunal does not necessarily preserve a deadline.
Does Filing a Motion to Reopen Stop Deportation?
Usually, no.
The current Immigration Court regulation states that filing an ordinary motion to reopen generally does not automatically stay execution of the removal order. A respondent may need to seek a separate stay.
Special rules exist for certain proceedings, including some in absentia reopening situations. EOIR’s current guidance describes those exceptions and the circumstances in which an automatic stay exists.
For a person who is detained or facing imminent removal, this distinction can be critical. A legally strong motion to reopen and a legally sufficient strategy to prevent removal while the motion is pending are not necessarily the same thing.
What Should Immigration Lawyers Do Differently After Matter of M-M-L-J-?
The decision changes the risk calculation before the first motion is filed.
Counsel should ordinarily determine:
Has any prior motion to reopen already been filed? Obtain the complete procedural history rather than relying solely on the client’s recollection.
Which tribunal has jurisdiction? Determine whether the motion belongs before the Immigration Court or the BIA.
Is the motion timely? If not, identify the precise statutory, regulatory, or equitable basis for overcoming the deadline.
Is the motion number-barred? Analyze M-M-L-J- separately from the time-bar issue.
What circuit’s law controls? Do not assume the national BIA rule displaces contrary court-of-appeals authority.
Was prior counsel ineffective? If so, analyze Lozada and the BIA’s new 2026 requirements in Matter of L-R-M-C- & V-A-M-M- before filing.
Does changed-country-conditions reopening apply? This requires separate statutory, regulatory, evidentiary, and circuit-law analysis.
Was the removal order entered in absentia? Specialized reopening rules may control.
Would DHS consider joining the motion? A qualifying joint motion operates under a different regulatory framework.
Is sua sponte reopening genuinely supportable?Yadav, Herrera-Nunez, and M-M-L-J- demonstrate that post-order family equities ordinarily are not enough.
Is a motion to reconsider actually the appropriate procedural vehicle?
Does the client need a stay of removal? Filing the motion alone generally will not provide one.
The most important point is that the first statutory motion should be treated as a scarce procedural asset.
What Matter of M-M-L-J- Does Not Hold
Because this decision is new, overly broad summaries are likely to appear.
M-M-L-J- does not hold that:
every second filing seeking reopening is automatically prohibited;
equitable tolling of the 90-day deadline no longer exists;
ineffective assistance of counsel can never support reopening;
changed-country-conditions reopening is categorically number-barred;
DHS can no longer agree to a joint motion;
in absentia reopening rules disappeared;
sua sponte authority has been eliminated;
an immigrant can never reopen after previously filing a motion; or
federal courts must accept the BIA’s statutory interpretation in jurisdictions with contrary controlling precedent.
Those distinctions are central to understanding what the case actually decided.
Frequently Asked Questions About Matter of M-M-L-J-
What is Matter of M-M-L-J-?
Matter of M-M-L-J-, 29 I&N Dec. 843 (BIA 2026) is a published Board of Immigration Appeals precedent issued August 18, 2026. It holds that equitable tolling does not overcome the statutory numerical limitation on motions to reopen in jurisdictions where contrary controlling circuit precedent does not govern.
How many motions to reopen can an immigrant file?
The general statutory rule permits one motion to reopen, subject to specialized statutory and regulatory provisions. M-M-L-J- holds that an immigrant does not receive one ordinary statutory motion before the Immigration Court and another before the BIA.
Is a motion to reopen normally due within 90 days?
Yes. The ordinary deadline is generally 90 days after the final administrative removal order, although statutory, regulatory, and equitable exceptions may apply.
Can equitable tolling excuse the 90-day deadline?
Potentially. M-M-L-J- specifically distinguishes equitable tolling of the filing deadline from tolling of the number bar. Whether a deadline is tolled depends on applicable circuit law and the facts of the particular case.
Can equitable tolling allow a second motion to reopen?
Under M-M-L-J-, not in a jurisdiction where the BIA’s new interpretation controls. The Board held that the number limitation is not subject to equitable tolling. Contrary controlling circuit precedent may require a different analysis.
Can ineffective assistance of counsel justify a second motion?
Ineffective assistance may still support reopening and may support equitable tolling of a filing deadline under applicable law, but M-M-L-J- says ineffective assistance does not itself equitably overcome the one-motion statutory number bar.
What are the current requirements for an ineffective-assistance motion?
In addition to the traditional Matter of Lozada framework, the BIA’s July 2026 decision in Matter of L-R-M-C- & V-A-M-M- requires the motion to include a copy of the disciplinary complaint and proof it was filed, or an explanation for why no bar complaint was filed.
Does M-M-L-J- prohibit a second motion based on changed country conditions?
The BIA expressly did not decide that question. Current regulations state that qualifying changed-country-conditions motions are exempt from the ordinary time and numerical limitations, making this an important area for future litigation and circuit-specific analysis.
Can DHS agree to reopen a case even if the respondent already filed a motion?
Current EOIR regulations provide a separate exception for qualifying jointly filed motions. DHS must agree; the respondent cannot unilaterally create a joint motion.
Can marriage to a U.S. citizen overcome the number bar?
Not by itself. M-M-L-J- involved an I-130 filed by the respondent’s naturalized U.S.-citizen wife, but the Board still denied reopening. Matter of Yadav separately holds that a post-removal-order marriage to a U.S. citizen does not itself create the exceptional situation required for sua sponte reopening.
Does an approved I-130 cancel a removal order?
No. An approved I-130 establishes a qualifying family relationship; it does not by itself cancel or reopen a removal order.
Can the BIA reopen a case sua sponte?
Yes, the BIA and Immigration Judges retain regulatory sua sponte authority, but current BIA precedent treats that authority as extraordinary and not as a general workaround for time or numerical restrictions.
Does Matter of M-M-L-J- apply in Ohio?
Yes, it is particularly important in Ohio. The BIA expressly said that the Sixth Circuit had not resolved whether equitable tolling applies to the numerical bar, and the Board announced that its rule applies in circuits that have not yet spoken on the issue.
Does Matter of M-M-L-J- apply in the Second, Seventh, or Ninth Circuit?
The analysis is more complicated. The BIA acknowledged prior cases in each of those circuits applying equitable tolling to the number bar in some fashion. Current controlling circuit law must therefore be researched before determining whether M-M-L-J- controls a particular case.
Does filing a motion to reopen automatically stop ICE from removing someone?
Generally no. Ordinary motions to reopen do not automatically stay removal, although specialized exceptions exist and a stay can sometimes be requested.
Is a USCIS motion to reopen the same thing as an EOIR motion to reopen?
No. Matter of M-M-L-J- concerns reopening removal proceedings under the INA and EOIR’s Immigration Court/BIA framework. USCIS motions and appeals operate under a separate administrative framework.
The Larger Meaning of Matter of M-M-L-J-
M-M-L-J- is ultimately a decision about finality.
The Board adopted the view that Congress gave noncitizens a meaningful opportunity to seek reopening but deliberately placed a numerical limit on repeat attempts to reopen completed removal proceedings. By characterizing the one-motion rule as substantive rather than simply procedural, the BIA substantially reduces the ability to use equitable tolling as a remedy after that opportunity has already been consumed.
That matters most in the hardest cases: where an earlier lawyer made serious mistakes, where new family-based eligibility later develops, where an immigrant acquires an approved I-130 after a final removal order, or where a later attorney discovers a better reopening argument after another lawyer has already filed an unsuccessful motion.
But the case also leaves substantial questions alive.
Existing regulations continue to recognize specialized reopening mechanisms. Federal circuits do not speak with one voice. The changed-country-conditions question was expressly reserved. Joint motions remain in the regulations. Sua sponte authority remains, even though the BIA increasingly construes it narrowly.
For practitioners, that means a conclusion that a case is “number-barred” should often be the beginning of the analysis rather than the end.
Bottom Line
Matter of M-M-L-J- makes the first motion to reopen more important than ever.
The BIA has held that equitable tolling cannot transform the statutory one-motion allowance into a second ordinary motion merely because the respondent suffered ineffective assistance or otherwise has an equitable argument for reopening.
But the decision is not a universal prohibition on subsequent reopening.
Attorneys must separately analyze controlling circuit law, changed country conditions, the special battered-spouse/child/parent provisions, in absentia rules, joint motions, sua sponte authority, motions to reconsider, jurisdiction, and any need for a stay of removal.
And because M-M-L-J- itself leaves one of the most important issues unresolved—how its statutory reasoning interacts with qualifying changed-country-conditions motions—the law in this area is likely to continue developing.
For anyone with a final removal order, especially someone who has already filed a motion to reopen, the complete procedural history should be reviewed before another filing is made.
Herman Legal Group represents immigrants in removal proceedings, BIA matters, motions to reopen, and complex post-order immigration cases. To discuss a particular matter, schedule a consultation with Herman Legal Group.
This article provides general information about U.S. immigration law and is not legal advice. Motions to reopen are highly fact-specific, and the applicable rules can depend on the procedural history, type of removal order, federal circuit, current statutes and regulations, and the relief sought.
F-1 Visa Rules Change September 15, 2026: D/S Ends, New 4-Year Admission Rule, I-539 Extensions & What Students Must Do
By Richard T. Herman, Esq. | Immigration Attorney and Founder, Herman Legal Group
Updated: August 13, 2026
Quick Answer
Beginning September 15, 2026, the United States is scheduled to make one of the biggest changes to F-1 student status in decades.
Under a final Department of Homeland Security rule, most F-1 students entering or reentering the United States will no longer be admitted for “Duration of Status,” or D/S. Instead, they will receive a specific Admit Until Date on Form I-94, generally tied to the length of their academic program but limited to a maximum four-year academic admission period at one time, followed by an applicable departure period.
That does not mean every F-1 student must leave the United States after four years.
Students who legitimately need more time to complete a degree, pursue authorized practical training or continue an approved educational program may be able to obtain an additional period of F-1 status by filing an extension of stay with USCIS, generally on Form I-539. In some circumstances, a student may instead depart the United States and seek a new period of admission.
The rule does much more than eliminate D/S. It also:
changes the normal F-1 post-completion departure period from 60 days to 30 days for students admitted under the new fixed-period system;
creates a much larger role for Form I-539 extensions of stay;
makes international travel more consequential for students currently protected by D/S;
restricts some school transfers and changes of educational objective;
imposes particularly strict rules on graduate-level transfers and program changes;
restricts pursuing a second program at the same or a lower educational level;
imposes a new aggregate limit on certain English-language-training programs; and
makes the expiration date on Form I-94 far more important to questions of lawful status and unlawful presence.
The practical change can be summarized in one sentence:
F-1 students will no longer be able to assume that a valid Form I-20, by itself, determines how long they are authorized to remain in the United States. The expiration date on Form I-94 will become critical.
DHS states in the final rule that the changes are scheduled to take effect September 15, 2026, although the agency has also acknowledged that the effective date remains subject to congressional review and could be changed by further notice.
What Is “Duration of Status,” and Why Is It Ending?
For decades, most F-1 students have been admitted to the United States for Duration of Status, commonly shown as “D/S” on Form I-94.
The changes to F-1 status are significant, particularly because the F-1 duration of status ends 2026.
Rather than assigning each student a fixed immigration expiration date, D/S generally allowed an F-1 student to remain in the United States while pursuing a full course of study, participating in authorized practical training such as OPT, and otherwise maintaining valid F-1 status.
DHS explains in the final rule ending Duration of Status that it wants greater ability to periodically review whether F students, J exchange visitors and I foreign-media representatives remain eligible for their classifications.
For students, however, the most important question is not the government’s policy rationale. It is much more practical:
What date controls how long I can lawfully remain in the United States?
Under the new system, the answer will increasingly be the Admit Until Date on Form I-94.
What Changes for F-1 Students on September 15, 2026?
The answer depends heavily on whether you are already inside the United States in valid F-1 D/S status or whether you enter or reenter the country after the new rule takes effect.
If You Enter the United States on or After September 15, 2026
The period will generally correspond to the student’s academic program, but the academic portion of a single F-1 admission ordinarily cannot exceed four years.
That makes the phrase “four-year F-1 rule” somewhat misleading.
A student admitted for a two-year master’s program might receive an admission period tied to that two-year program.
A student entering for a five-year Ph.D. program ordinarily cannot receive the entire five years in a single admission because the new system generally caps a single academic admission period at four years.
The Ph.D. student does not necessarily have to leave the United States permanently at the four-year point. The student may instead need to obtain an extension of stay or another authorized period of admission.
Is F-1 Status Now Limited to Four Years?
No.
This is one of the most important misconceptions about the new rule.
The rule generally limits the length of one period of admission or extension. It does not impose a four-year lifetime limit on F-1 status.
A student enrolled in a legitimate five-, six- or seven-year Ph.D. program may still be able to complete the degree in F-1 status. The difference is that the student may have to affirmatively obtain additional immigration authorization rather than relying indefinitely on D/S.
That distinction will be especially important for:
Ph.D. candidates;
students conducting long-term research;
students whose dissertations take additional time;
students who experience medical or academic delays;
students pursuing OPT after a lengthy academic program; and
students whose program timelines change after entry.
I Am Already in the United States and My I-94 Says D/S. What Happens to Me?
This may be the most important transition question.
Your D/S does not simply disappear on September 15, 2026.
Students who are properly maintaining F-1 status when the rule takes effect receive transition protection.
In general, an eligible student already admitted for D/S may continue under that admission through the applicable program end date on Form I-20 or qualifying employment-authorization period, subject to the transition provisions and their outside limit.
The final DHS rule establishes an outside transition date of approximately four years after September 15, 2026, with the prior 60-day departure period applying to qualifying students who remain under their pre-rule D/S admission.
Example: Current Undergraduate Student
Suppose Maria:
is in valid F-1 status;
is physically present in the United States on September 15, 2026;
has an I-94 showing D/S; and
has a Form I-20 ending May 20, 2028.
Maria does not have to file Form I-539 merely because September 15 arrives.
Assuming she continues maintaining F-1 status and remains within the transition provisions, she can generally continue under her existing D/S admission for the applicable authorized period.
Example: Current Ph.D. Student
Suppose Arjun:
is in valid F-1 D/S status on September 15, 2026;
has an I-20 ending in May 2031; and
does not travel internationally.
His existing D/S protection does not necessarily continue indefinitely simply because the I-20 extends into 2031. The new transition rules contain an outside limit.
A student in this situation should identify the immigration deadline years in advance rather than discovering the issue near the end of a dissertation.
The September 15 Travel Issue: What Happens If a Current D/S Student Leaves the United States?
International travel becomes more consequential under the new rule.
A student may remain protected under the D/S transition rules while physically present in the United States. But if that student departs and seeks readmission after the new rule takes effect, CBP will generally admit the student under the new fixed-period system rather than returning the student to D/S.
That means a vacation, family visit, wedding, conference or other international trip can change the student’s immigration clock.
Consider a current F-1 student whose I-94 says D/S and whose academic program will continue for several more years.
Before traveling internationally after September 15, the student should understand:
what period of admission CBP may grant upon return;
whether the new I-94 will expire before the I-20;
how the new date affects OPT or STEM OPT;
whether an I-539 extension may eventually become necessary; and
whether travel changes the student’s eligibility for a transition provision.
This does not mean F-1 students should automatically avoid international travel.
It does mean that travel should no longer be treated as immigration-neutral.
After every international entry, students should retrieve their most recent I-94 from CBP and confirm the classification and Admit Until Date.
What Is the Difference Between an F-1 Visa, an I-20 and an I-94?
This distinction becomes increasingly important under the new system.
An F-1 visa generally allows a student to travel to a U.S. port of entry and request admission.
A Form I-20 documents the student’s academic program and SEVIS information.
A Form I-94 records the actual admission granted by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
Under D/S, the I-94 commonly said “D/S” rather than providing a fixed expiration date.
Under the new system, the I-94 will generally contain a specific Admit Until Date.
That date can become more important than the expiration date printed on the visa stamp and may not necessarily match the program end date on the I-20.
What If My Degree Takes Longer Than My I-94 Allows?
A student who needs additional time may generally have two possible routes:
File an extension of stay with USCIS, or
Depart the United States and seek a new period of admission, when appropriate.
The student must also coordinate closely with the Designated School Official because the immigration filing may depend on an updated Form I-20 and an updated SEVIS record.
This is a significant cultural change for the F-1 system.
Students have long been accustomed to resolving many program-extension issues primarily through their DSO and SEVIS.
Under a fixed-period system, extending the I-20 may no longer be enough.
A student could have permission from the university to continue studying but still need separate immigration approval from USCIS.
Can I Continue Studying While My F-1 Extension Is Pending?
Generally, a student who timely files a qualifying extension of stay can continue pursuing a full course of study while USCIS adjudicates the application.
That protection is important because USCIS adjudication may extend beyond the expiration date shown on the prior I-94.
Employment, however, is more complicated.
Different rules apply depending upon whether the student is engaged in:
on-campus employment;
Curricular Practical Training;
employment based on severe economic hardship;
post-completion OPT; or
STEM OPT.
A pending I-539 does not automatically create authorization to begin new employment.
Students should analyze the status-extension issue and employment-authorization issue separately.
How Does the New Rule Affect OPT?
The final rule does not eliminate Optional Practical Training.
Students can still qualify for OPT under the existing framework.
What changes is the relationship between OPT and the student’s authorized period of stay.
Suppose an F-1 student’s I-94 expires before the end of the requested OPT period.
Under the new system, the student may need:
Form I-765 requesting employment authorization; and
Form I-539 requesting an extension of F-1 stay.
The filings may be connected, but they serve different legal purposes.
The I-765 concerns authorization to work.
The I-539 concerns authorization to remain in F-1 status.
Students planning to transition from graduation into OPT therefore need to coordinate their I-20, I-94, I-765 and potentially I-539 timelines.
For additional background, HLG’s guide to possible changes affecting OPT explains the broader policy environment surrounding international-student employment.
Special OPT Transition Rule Through March 18, 2027
The final rule contains temporary transition relief for certain students.
Qualifying F-1 students who remain covered by the transition provisions and timely file for post-completion OPT or STEM OPT on or before March 18, 2027 may not need a separate I-539 extension for the requested practical-training period.
That relief is important, but it should not be assumed to apply to every student.
The answer may depend on:
whether the student remained under D/S;
whether the student traveled internationally after September 15;
whether the student reentered under a fixed admission period;
when the I-765 was filed;
the program end date;
the EAD period requested; and
the expiration date on the student’s I-94.
A student who leaves the United States and returns under the new fixed-period system may be situated differently from a student who remained continuously in the United States under the D/S transition rules.
What About STEM OPT?
The rule does not eliminate the 24-month STEM OPT extension.
Qualifying students can continue using the STEM OPT program.
The existing automatic extension of employment authorization for eligible students with timely filed STEM OPT applications also remains significant.
However, students must distinguish between two separate questions:
Am I authorized to work?
and
Am I authorized to remain in the United States?
Under D/S, those questions often appeared closely connected.
Under the new fixed-period system, a STEM OPT applicant may need to pay closer attention to both the EAD timeline and the I-94 timeline.
Does the New Rule Eliminate H-1B Cap-Gap Protection?
No.
The final rule does not eliminate the basic F-1 cap-gap protection available to qualifying students transitioning from F-1 status to H-1B status.
Eligible students may continue to receive automatic extensions of status and, where applicable, employment authorization during the cap-gap period.
Students planning the common F-1 → OPT → H-1B route can also review HLG’s F-1 to H-1B guide.
The F-1 Grace Period Is Changing From 60 Days to 30 Days
One of the biggest changes in the final rule has received much less attention than the four-year admission limit.
For students admitted under the new fixed-period system, DHS generally reduces the normal post-completion departure period from 60 days to 30 days.
That can materially affect students deciding whether to:
leave the United States;
change immigration status;
transfer to a new eligible program;
pursue another authorized immigration option; or
make other post-graduation plans.
There is an important transition distinction.
A student who remains covered by a pre-September 15 D/S admission may generally retain the 60-day departure period associated with that admission.
A student who later enters or reenters under the new fixed-period system will generally be subject to the new 30-day framework.
As a result, two students graduating from the same university on the same date could have different immigration deadlines because their admission histories are different.
New Restrictions on Changing Schools and Majors
The final rule does much more than replace D/S with an expiration date.
It also changes when students may transfer schools or change educational objectives.
Undergraduate and Other Below-Graduate-Level Students
Students below the graduate level generally cannot transfer schools or change their educational objective during the first academic year at the school that issued the initial Form I-20, unless an authorized exception applies because of qualifying extenuating circumstances.
This could affect a student who arrives at one university and quickly discovers that:
the program is not a good fit;
the student wants a different major;
another university offers better financial aid;
family circumstances require relocation;
the school experiences serious disruption; or
the student wants to pursue a different educational level.
A change that makes academic sense may now require a separate immigration analysis.
Graduate Students Face Much Stricter Transfer Rules
The restrictions are particularly important for master’s and doctoral students.
Graduate-level students generally face much stricter limitations on changing educational objectives or transferring institutions during their programs unless an authorized exception applies.
This could become a major issue when:
a Ph.D. adviser leaves the university;
research funding disappears;
a laboratory closes;
a student’s research interests change;
a student develops a conflict with an adviser;
a better doctoral program becomes available; or
personal circumstances require moving to another part of the country.
Historically, transferring a SEVIS record could resolve many of these situations.
Under the new framework, graduate students should obtain immigration guidance before committing to a transfer or program change.
Can I Get a Second Master’s Degree in F-1 Status?
The rule also imposes a significant restriction on pursuing multiple degrees at the same educational level.
A student who completes a program in the United States in F-1 status after the rule takes effect generally cannot use F-1 status to begin another program at the same or a lower educational level.
Examples include:
bachelor’s → master’s: generally possible;
master’s → Ph.D.: generally possible;
bachelor’s → second bachelor’s: generally restricted;
master’s → second master’s: generally restricted;
master’s → bachelor’s: generally restricted.
This could be particularly important for international students who historically used a second master’s degree to acquire a new specialization, change careers, obtain additional practical training or maintain lawful student status while pursuing longer-term employment options.
The rule applies prospectively, which means programs completed before the effective date are treated differently from programs completed afterward.
Students considering a second degree should analyze the rule before enrolling or transferring a SEVIS record.
What About Day 1 CPT and Repeated Master’s Programs?
The same-level degree restriction could have significant consequences for some students pursuing consecutive master’s programs, including students considering programs associated with so-called Day 1 CPT.
The final rule does not simply say that CPT is prohibited.
Instead, the more fundamental issue may arise earlier: whether the student is eligible to pursue another program at the same educational level in F-1 status at all.
For example, a student who completes a master’s degree after September 15, 2026 and then wants to begin another master’s program may face a same-level educational restriction before CPT eligibility is even considered.
Students considering a second master’s program should therefore evaluate both:
whether F-1 status is available for the new program; and
whether any proposed CPT complies with the separate CPT requirements.
What About English-Language Students?
Students engaged in stand-alone English-language training face another new restriction.
The final rule establishes an aggregate 24-month limit for certain English-language-training programs.
Changing schools does not necessarily restart the clock.
Nor should students assume that leaving the United States briefly and returning will automatically allow another full 24-month period.
Students pursuing long-term ESL or other language programs should therefore calculate their cumulative participation carefully.
What Happens to F-2 Spouses and Children?
F-2 dependents are also affected.
A spouse or child in F-2 status generally cannot receive a period of authorized stay beyond the authorized stay of the principal F-1 student.
That means families must begin paying much closer attention to every family member’s I-94.
Do not assume the F-2 spouse or child’s record automatically matches the principal student’s record.
After international travel, families should check each person’s I-94 individually.
Why the I-94 Becomes One of the Most Important Documents an F-1 Student Has
Under D/S, many international students rarely looked at their electronic I-94 after entering the United States.
That habit needs to change.
Under the new system, the I-94 expiration date may affect:
whether an extension of stay is required;
whether the student can continue studying;
whether employment can continue;
when unlawful presence may begin;
whether international travel is advisable;
whether a change of status can be filed inside the United States; and
whether future visa or green-card applications may be affected.
After every entry into the United States, check it.
If the I-94 contains an error, address the problem promptly rather than waiting until an immigration filing reveals it months or years later.
What Happens If an F-1 Student Misses the I-94 Expiration Date?
This may be the most serious long-term consequence of replacing D/S.
Under the old D/S system, determining when unlawful presence began for some F-1 students could be complicated because there was no specific expiration date on the I-94.
The fixed-period system creates a much clearer deadline.
Remaining beyond an authorized admission period can result in unlawful presence beginning to accrue.
That matters because unlawful presence can create serious immigration consequences, particularly when a person later departs the United States.
An overstay can also affect:
future visa applications;
eligibility to extend or change nonimmigrant status;
readmission to the United States;
adjustment of status in some circumstances; and
long-term immigration strategy.
Students should therefore treat the I-94 expiration date with the same seriousness that H-1B, L-1, O-1 and other fixed-status nonimmigrants have long treated their I-94 expiration dates.
What Happens If USCIS Denies My F-1 Extension?
This is another reason students should not treat Form I-539 as a routine administrative filing.
A timely filed extension may allow a student to remain while USCIS decides the application.
But if USCIS denies the extension after the student’s prior authorized period has already expired, the consequences can become immediate.
The final rule generally does not create a fresh 30-day grace period simply because USCIS denied the extension.
Depending on the circumstances, unlawful presence may begin accruing after the denial.
A student can therefore have a legitimate academic reason to continue a degree and still face a serious immigration problem if the extension filing is late, incomplete or denied.
DHS is ending Duration of Status (D/S) for most new F-1 admissions beginning September 15, 2026, replacing D/S with fixed Form I-94 admission periods.
Can I Travel While My F-1 Extension Is Pending?
Possibly, but travel during a pending extension requires careful analysis.
A departure does not necessarily destroy every pending F-1 extension application automatically.
However, whether USCIS continues adjudicating the case can depend on the timing of the trip, the student’s existing admission period, the I-20 presented on return and the period of admission requested at the port of entry.
A student who leaves the United States while an I-539 is pending should therefore understand the consequences before traveling.
What If I Finish My Degree Earlier Than My I-20 or I-94 Expiration Date?
Students should not assume that a later date printed on an immigration document always permits them to remain until that date.
If a student completes a program earlier than expected, the DSO may be required to update the SEVIS record and shorten the program end date.
That can affect when the student’s departure period begins.
This issue can arise when a student:
graduates early;
completes dissertation requirements sooner than expected;
ends a research program;
withdraws;
stops practical training; or
otherwise finishes the qualifying educational activity earlier than anticipated.
The student’s immigration timeline may therefore change when the underlying academic program changes.
Seven Common F-1 Scenarios Under the New 2026 Rule
Scenario 1: Current Student With D/S Who Does Not Travel
You are in the United States on September 15, 2026 in valid F-1 status and your I-94 says D/S.
Likely result: You generally remain covered by the transition provisions rather than automatically receiving a four-year expiration date.
Scenario 2: Current D/S Student Travels During Winter Break
You leave the United States after the rule takes effect and return to continue your program.
Likely result: CBP will generally admit you under the new fixed-period system. Check the new I-94 immediately after returning.
Scenario 3: New Five-Year Ph.D. Student Arrives After September 15
Your I-20 reflects a program expected to last five years.
Likely result: A single academic admission will generally not cover the entire five-year program. You should plan in advance for an extension or later new period of admission.
Scenario 4: Student Needs an Extra Semester
Your thesis, dissertation or other academic requirements will not be completed before your authorized stay expires.
Likely result: Work with your DSO and determine whether a timely I-539 extension is required.
Scenario 5: Student Graduates and Wants OPT
Your current fixed admission period will not cover the entire requested OPT period.
Likely result: You may need both an I-765 and an I-539 unless a transition provision applies.
Scenario 6: Master’s Student Wants Another Master’s Degree
You complete a master’s program after the rule takes effect and want to begin another master’s program.
Likely result: The same-level educational restriction may prevent continued F-1 status for the second master’s program.
Scenario 7: Ph.D. Student Wants to Transfer Universities
Your adviser moves, research funding ends or you receive a better offer from another university.
Likely result: The graduate-transfer restriction may prevent the transfer unless you qualify for an authorized exception.
What Should F-1 Students Do Before September 15, 2026?
Students do not need to panic, but they should become much more deliberate about their immigration records.
1. Download Your Current I-94
Determine whether your record shows D/S or a fixed expiration date.
2. Review Your Form I-20
Confirm the:
program start date;
program end date;
educational level;
school;
major;
OPT or STEM OPT recommendation, if applicable; and
travel endorsement.
3. Compare Your I-20, I-94 and EAD
These documents do not necessarily expire on the same date.
4. Review International Travel Plans
Travel after the effective date may move a student from D/S transition protection into the new fixed-period system.
5. Review Upcoming OPT and STEM OPT Deadlines
Students filing during the transition period should determine whether an I-539 is required.
6. Think Before Changing Schools or Degree Programs
An academic decision can now have immigration consequences that did not previously exist in the same form.
7. Calendar Your Immigration Deadline Early
Do not begin analyzing an extension only a few weeks before the I-94 expires.
Frequently Asked Questions About the New F-1 D/S Rule
Is F-1 Duration of Status ending in 2026?
Yes, for admissions under the new system. Beginning September 15, 2026, most F-1 students entering or reentering the United States are scheduled to receive a fixed admission period rather than D/S. Eligible students already in the United States under D/S receive transition protection.
Does my existing D/S automatically expire on September 15, 2026?
No. Students already in valid F-1 D/S status may qualify for the transition rules. They are not automatically assigned a new four-year expiration date simply because the effective date arrives.
Does the new F-1 rule mean every student must leave after four years?
No. Four years is generally the maximum academic portion of one period of admission or extension, not a lifetime maximum for studying in the United States.
Will my F-1 I-94 now have an expiration date?
For students admitted under the new system, generally yes. That Admit Until Date becomes critical.
What happens if my I-20 is valid longer than my I-94?
You may need an extension of stay even though the school considers your academic program ongoing.
A student who timely files a qualifying extension may generally continue pursuing a full course of study while USCIS decides the case.
Can I work while my I-539 is pending?
It depends on the employment category. Study authorization, immigration status and employment authorization are related but legally separate issues.
Does the rule eliminate OPT?
No.
Does the rule eliminate STEM OPT?
No.
Do I need an I-539 for OPT?
Possibly. Students whose existing authorized stay does not cover the requested OPT period may need both an I-765 and an I-539, although transition relief applies in certain cases.
Does the rule eliminate H-1B cap-gap?
No.
Is the F-1 grace period still 60 days?
Not for every student. The new fixed-period system generally provides a 30-day post-completion departure period, while certain students who remain under their earlier D/S transition admission may retain the prior 60-day period.
Can I travel internationally after September 15, 2026?
Yes, if otherwise eligible, but reentry can move a current D/S student into the new fixed-period admission system.
Can I transfer schools during my first year?
Students below the graduate level generally face new first-academic-year transfer restrictions unless an exception applies.
Can a Ph.D. student transfer universities?
Graduate students face substantially stricter transfer restrictions under the new rule.
Can I change my major?
It depends on your educational level, timing and circumstances. The new rule imposes restrictions that did not previously exist in the same form.
Can I pursue a second master’s degree in F-1 status?
Students who complete a master’s program after the new rule takes effect may face restrictions on beginning another program at the same educational level.
Do degrees completed before September 15, 2026 count against the new same-level rule?
The final rule generally treats the new educational-level restrictions prospectively rather than applying them to programs completed before the effective date.
What happens if I overstay my F-1 I-94?
A fixed I-94 expiration date creates a clearer point after which unlawful presence and other immigration consequences can arise.
What happens if USCIS denies my F-1 extension after my I-94 has expired?
The consequences can be immediate, and students should not assume they automatically receive a new grace period after denial.
The Bigger Change: F-1 Status Is Becoming More Like Other Temporary Visa Categories
For decades, F-1 status was unusual because a student’s ability to remain in the United States depended heavily on maintaining a qualifying educational program rather than watching a fixed I-94 expiration date.
That is changing.
International students will increasingly have to ask the same questions that H-1B, L-1, O-1 and other temporary nonimmigrants already ask:
What does my I-94 say?
When does it expire?
Do I need an extension before that date?
For many students, nothing catastrophic will happen on September 15.
Current D/S students receive important transition protection. OPT and STEM OPT continue. Students can still pursue degrees that legitimately take longer than four years.
But the margin for misunderstanding an immigration deadline is becoming much smaller.
A student may have a perfectly legitimate academic reason to remain enrolled and still face an immigration problem if the correct extension is not filed.
A university’s decision to extend an I-20 will not necessarily answer every question about how long the student is legally authorized to remain in the United States.
That makes coordination among the student, DSO and immigration counsel more important than ever.
Need Help With the New F-1 Rules, OPT, Travel or an I-539 Extension?
Herman Legal Group has represented international students, professionals, universities, families and employers in U.S. immigration matters for more than three decades.
Students affected by the September 2026 changes may need help determining:
whether they remain protected under the D/S transition rules;
whether international travel could change their period of admission;
whether Form I-539 is required;
how an I-539 interacts with OPT or STEM OPT;
whether a transfer or program change is permitted;
how to move from F-1 to H-1B status;
how to address a status violation or reinstatement issue; and
what longer-term employment or permanent-residence options may be available.
Important: This article reflects the DHS final rule and implementation information available as of August 13, 2026. The rule is presently scheduled to take effect September 15, 2026. DHS has indicated that it will provide additional notice if the effective date changes. Immigration rules and implementation guidance can change, and individual cases require individual analysis.
Advance Parole Can Now Trigger the 10-Year Bar: Matter of Delcarmen-Lara Changes Immigration Travel Rules
By Richard T. Herman, Esq. Published: August 13, 2026 | Updated: August 13, 2026
Quick Answer
Yes. As of August 13, 2026, travel on advance parole can trigger the advance parole 10 year bar.
In Matter of Delcarmen-Lara, 29 I&N Dec. 830 (BIA 2026), the Board of Immigration Appeals held that leaving the United States pursuant to advance parole is a “departure” for purposes of the unlawful-presence bar in INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II).
The BIA expressly overruled Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly, 25 I&N Dec. 771 (BIA 2012), the precedent immigration lawyers had relied on for approximately 14 years.
What this means
If a person:
accumulated one year or more of unlawful presence in the United States;
later leaves the United States using advance parole; and
seeks admission again within 10 years,
the advance-parole trip can now trigger the 10-year inadmissibility bar.
The implications of the advance parole 10 year bar are significant for many immigrants.
The decision does not mean every person with advance parole is subject to the 10-year bar. The critical question is whether the traveler accumulated sufficient unlawful presence before leaving the United States.
Anyone with DACA, TPS, a pending I-485, or another basis for advance parole who has a possible history of unlawful presence should obtain individualized immigration advice before traveling internationally.
What Is Matter of Delcarmen-Lara?
Matter of Delcarmen-Lara is a precedential decision issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals on August 13, 2026.
The official BIA holding states:
A departure from the United States pursuant to a grant of advance parole is a “departure” within the meaning of section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The Board then expressly overruled Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly.
This is one of the most consequential immigration travel decisions in years because it changes the legal consequences of a form of international travel used by many immigrants, including some DACA recipients, TPS beneficiaries and adjustment-of-status applicants.
What Changed on August 13, 2026?
The easiest way to understand Delcarmen-Lara is to compare the old rule with the new one.
Before Matter of Delcarmen-Lara
For approximately 14 years, the governing BIA precedent was Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly.
Under Arrabally, leaving the United States pursuant to advance parole was not treated as the type of “departure” that triggered the three- or 10-year unlawful-presence bars.
That rule was enormously important for immigrants who had accumulated unlawful presence but later qualified for advance parole.
After Matter of Delcarmen-Lara
The BIA has now rejected that interpretation.
An advance-parole trip can constitute a departure under INA §212(a)(9)(B).
That means an immigrant can possess a valid government-issued advance parole document and still face serious immigration consequences because of the act of leaving the United States.
Why Can Advance Parole Trigger the 10-Year Bar?
The underlying statute is INA §212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II).
Generally, a person who has been unlawfully present in the United States for one year or more and then departs may become inadmissible for 10 years.
For years, Arrabally created an important distinction: departure under advance parole did not trigger that particular bar.
The BIA has now eliminated that distinction for future application of the rule.
The Most Important Point: Advance Parole Is Not a Guarantee That Travel Is Safe
An approved advance parole document may look like government permission to travel.
Legally, however, it is not a guarantee that leaving the United States will have no immigration consequences.
That distinction is now critical.
Advance parole authorization does not necessarily mean that:
you have no unlawful presence;
departure cannot trigger an inadmissibility ground;
you remain eligible for adjustment of status;
you have no prior removal-related problem;
no other ground of inadmissibility applies;
CBP must parole you into the United States; or
your immigration strategy will remain unchanged after travel.
Think of advance parole as permission to seek parole upon return, not as an immigration-law clearance certificate declaring that international travel is risk-free.
After Matter of Delcarmen-Lara, anyone with a complicated immigration history should separate two questions:
Question 1: Can USCIS issue me advance parole?
and
Question 2: What legal consequences could occur if I actually use it?
Those are no longer the same question.
Who Is Most Affected by Matter of Delcarmen-Lara?
The ruling is particularly important for immigrants who may have accumulated unlawful presence before receiving another immigration benefit or protection.
1. DACA Recipients With Prior Unlawful Presence
Some Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients obtain advance parole for humanitarian, educational or employment-related travel.
DACA itself presents complicated unlawful-presence issues because age, the date DACA was granted, gaps in deferred action and other periods can affect the calculation.
A DACA recipient should not assume that an approved Form I-131 means an international trip is safe under the new BIA precedent.
2. TPS Beneficiaries
Temporary Protected Status beneficiaries may also have complex immigration histories predating TPS.
A person may have entered without inspection, overstayed, accumulated unlawful presence, been placed into removal proceedings, or experienced periods when different protections applied.
The interaction between TPS, travel authorization, parole, unlawful presence and adjustment of status can be highly fact-specific.
That makes TPS travel another area where Delcarmen-Lara requires careful pre-travel analysis.
3. People With Pending I-485 Adjustment-of-Status Applications
Many applicants with a pending Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, obtain advance parole while waiting for USCIS to decide their green card application.
But an advance parole document should not be interpreted as a USCIS finding that departure poses no other immigration risk.
Now Delcarmen-Lara adds another travel-related issue that adjustment applicants must evaluate.
4. Immigrants Who Entered Without Inspection
For some immigrants who originally entered the United States without inspection, advance-parole travel has historically played a significant role in future adjustment-of-status strategies.
But Delcarmen-Lara means lawyers and immigrants must analyze two separate legal questions:
what effect a parole entry may have on adjustment eligibility under INA §245(a); and
whether the departure itself triggers inadmissibility under INA §212(a)(9)(B).
A favorable answer to one does not automatically resolve the other.
This distinction is extremely important after August 13, 2026.
5. Anyone With a Prior Removal Order
People who have previously been placed into immigration court proceedings or ordered removed require even more careful analysis.
The unlawful-presence bar may be only one issue.
Other provisions of immigration law can impose separate consequences for prior removal, departure, attempted reentry or unlawful reentry.
If you have ever had an immigration court case, do not evaluate advance-parole travel by looking only at your Form I-131 approval.
Does Matter of Delcarmen-Lara Apply Retroactively?
The BIA declined to apply its new interpretation retroactively in Delcarmen-Lara itself and stated that the new rule applies prospectively.
That is a crucial part of the decision.
The Board recognized that Arrabally had been controlling precedent for many years and that immigrants had relied upon it when deciding whether to travel.
The BIA described overruling Arrabally as a significant change in the law concerning departure and potential eligibility for adjustment of status.
Therefore, someone who previously traveled on advance parole under the old rule should not automatically assume that the old trip now triggers a 10-year bar.
At the same time, prior travel histories can involve other immigration consequences. Anyone relying on a previous advance-parole entry as part of an adjustment or waiver strategy should have the complete history reviewed.
What Is Unlawful Presence?
“Unlawful presence” is a technical term under U.S. immigration law.
Do not calculate unlawful presence merely by counting the number of years you have lived in the United States.
What Is the Difference Between the 3-Year and 10-Year Bars?
Under INA §212(a)(9)(B), unlawful presence can create different consequences depending on its duration.
Generally:
More than 180 days but less than one year of unlawful presence can trigger a three-year bar after departure.
One year or more of unlawful presence can trigger a 10-year bar after departure.
There are exceptions, exclusions and waiver provisions.
Matter of Delcarmen-Lara is especially important because it addresses whether leaving under advance parole counts as the departure necessary to trigger §212(a)(9)(B).
The BIA now says that it does.
Example: How the New Advance-Parole Rule Could Work
Consider a hypothetical DACA recipient.
She came to the United States as a child. At some point after turning 18, she accumulated more than one year of unlawful presence before receiving DACA.
Years later, USCIS approves advance parole so she can visit an ill family member abroad.
Under the old Arrabally framework, the advance-parole trip generally was not treated as a departure triggering §212(a)(9)(B).
After Matter of Delcarmen-Lara, that assumption is no longer valid for future travel.
Her departure may trigger the 10-year unlawful-presence bar.
Whether it actually does will depend upon her precise dates, age, immigration history and any applicable exceptions.
That is why individualized analysis before departure is essential.
Can an Unlawful-Presence Waiver Help?
Possibly.
U.S. immigration law provides waivers for certain unlawful-presence grounds when statutory requirements are met.
Depending on the waiver, applicants may need to demonstrate extreme hardship to a qualifying U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse or parent, along with other statutory and discretionary requirements.
The better strategy is to identify a potential inadmissibility problem before leaving the United States, rather than discovering it after departure.
What Should I Do If I Already Have Approved Advance Parole?
Do not panic, and do not assume either that travel is forbidden or that travel is safe.
Instead, have an immigration lawyer conduct a pre-travel review.
At minimum, the review should examine:
every U.S. entry;
every U.S. departure;
your age during each period of possible unlawful presence;
visa and I-94 expiration dates;
DACA periods;
TPS periods;
asylum applications;
pending adjustment applications;
prior immigration-court proceedings;
removal or deportation orders;
prior voluntary departures;
family- or employment-based immigrant petitions;
possible waiver eligibility; and
the immigration objective the advance-parole trip is intended to accomplish.
Because that article predates Delcarmen-Lara, travelers should treat this August 13, 2026 update as controlling for the new advance-parole/unlawful-presence issue.
Advance Parole After Matter of Delcarmen-Lara: Before and After
Issue
Before August 13, 2026
After Delcarmen-Lara
Does advance-parole travel count as a departure under §212(a)(9)(B)?
Generally no under Arrabally
Yes
Is Arrabally and Yerrabelly still controlling?
Yes
No — expressly overruled
Can prior unlawful presence become important when using advance parole?
Yes, but Arrabally protected against this departure trigger
Yes — critically important
Does advance parole itself create unlawful presence?
No
No
Does every advance-parole traveler trigger a 10-year bar?
No
No
Should travelers with possible unlawful presence obtain legal review before departure?
Advisable
Strongly advisable
Frequently Asked Questions About Advance Parole and the 10-Year Bar
Can advance parole trigger the 10-year bar in 2026?
Yes. On August 13, 2026, the BIA held in Matter of Delcarmen-Lara that departure under advance parole is a “departure” for purposes of INA §212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II). If a traveler previously accumulated one year or more of unlawful presence, the trip may trigger the 10-year bar.
What case changed the advance-parole rule?
Matter of Delcarmen-Lara, 29 I&N Dec. 830 (BIA 2026). The Board of Immigration Appeals issued the precedential decision on August 13, 2026.
Did the BIA overrule Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly?
Yes.Delcarmen-Lara expressly overruled Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly, 25 I&N Dec. 771 (BIA 2012).
Does advance parole now automatically trigger a 10-year bar?
No. A traveler must first have accumulated the amount of unlawful presence required by INA §212(a)(9)(B). Advance parole does not itself create unlawful presence.
Can DACA recipients still travel on advance parole?
DACA recipients may still have a basis to request advance parole under applicable USCIS rules, but whether actually using advance parole is safe requires separate analysis. A DACA recipient who accumulated unlawful presence before departure may face a new §212(a)(9)(B) issue under Delcarmen-Lara.
Does advance parole guarantee reentry into the United States?
No. Advance parole generally allows a traveler to present at a port of entry and request parole. It does not guarantee parole, admission or freedom from all grounds of inadmissibility.
Does Delcarmen-Lara apply to advance-parole trips taken before August 13, 2026?
The BIA determined that its change should apply prospectively and declined to impose the new interpretation retroactively in the case before it. People with previous advance-parole travel should nevertheless have their individual immigration histories reviewed before relying upon that travel in a current immigration case.
What if my advance parole has already been approved?
Approval does not necessarily mean using it is safe. If you have possible unlawful presence, a prior removal order or another complicated immigration history, obtain an individualized legal assessment before departing.
Can an I-601 or I-601A waiver overcome the unlawful-presence bar?
Some immigrants may qualify for an unlawful-presence waiver, depending on the specific ground of inadmissibility, immigration process, qualifying relatives, hardship evidence and other requirements. Waiver eligibility must be analyzed individually.
Does Delcarmen-Lara affect adjustment of status?
It can. If travel triggers inadmissibility under §212(a)(9)(B), that inadmissibility may affect eligibility to adjust status unless an exception or waiver applies.
Is unlawful presence the same as unlawful status?
No. They are related but legally distinct concepts. An immigrant can, in some circumstances, lack lawful immigration status without accruing unlawful presence during the same period.
Should I cancel an upcoming international trip?
Not automatically. The correct answer depends on your individual history. Do not depart solely on the assumption that an approved advance parole document makes travel safe.
Key Takeaways From Matter of Delcarmen-Lara
1. The law changed on August 13, 2026.
The BIA issued Matter of Delcarmen-Lara, 29 I&N Dec. 830.
2. Advance-parole travel can now count as a departure for the unlawful-presence bars.
3. Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly has been expressly overruled.
4. Advance parole does not itself create unlawful presence.
The risk depends on unlawful presence accumulated before departure.
5. Not everyone with advance parole will trigger a bar.
6. DACA recipients, TPS beneficiaries and adjustment applicants with complicated histories should pay particular attention.
7. The BIA applied the new rule prospectively.
8. An approved advance parole document does not mean DHS has determined that international travel is safe for every immigration purpose.
Richard Herman’s Practical Take
For more than three decades, I have advised immigrants that international travel can change an immigration case in ways that are difficult—or sometimes impossible—to reverse after the person leaves the United States.
Matter of Delcarmen-Lara makes that warning much more important.
The danger is the intuitive meaning of the words “advance parole.”
A person receives a government document authorizing travel and naturally thinks: The government gave me permission to leave, so leaving must be safe.
That is no longer a safe assumption.
After August 13, 2026, an immigrant can potentially possess a valid advance parole document and simultaneously have an immigration history that makes using that document legally dangerous.
The correct question is therefore no longer merely:
“Do I have permission to travel?”
It is:
“What happens to my immigration case the moment I leave the United States?”
Answer that question before boarding the plane—not at the airport on the way home.
The BIA’s August 13, 2026 decision in Matter of Delcarmen-Lara changed the immigration consequences of advance-parole travel for some people with prior unlawful presence.
Need an Advance-Parole Risk Review Before You Travel?
If you have DACA, TPS, a pending I-485, advance parole, prior unlawful presence, a prior removal order or a complicated immigration history, Herman Legal Group can review the potential consequences of international travel before you depart.
Richard T. Herman has practiced U.S. immigration law for more than 30 years and is the founder of Herman Legal Group, The Law Firm for Immigrants.
Supreme Court TPS Ruling: What Mullin v. Doe Means for TPS Holders, Employers, and Immigration Lawyers
By Richard T. Herman, Esq.
Quick Answer
In Mullin v. Doe, the U.S. Supreme Court held that federal courts generally cannot review non-constitutional challenges to DHS decisions ending, extending, or designating countries for Temporary Protected Status, or TPS. The Supreme Court TPS ruling does not automatically deport every TPS holder. But it makes broad court challenges to TPS terminations much harder and shifts the focus to individual immigration options: green cards, asylum, withholding of removal, cancellation of removal, employment sponsorship, and other case-specific relief.
For TPS holders from Haiti, Syria, Venezuela, Honduras, El Salvador, Ukraine, Afghanistan, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Nepal, Somalia, South Sudan, Yemen, Burma, and other affected countries, the message is urgent: do not wait for another nationwide lawsuit to protect you. You need an individualized immigration strategy now.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Mullin v. Doe is about judicial review.
The Court interpreted 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(5)(A), which says there is “no judicial review” of TPS designation, termination, or extension determinations.
That means TPS holders may have far fewer opportunities to stop DHS from ending TPS through broad Administrative Procedure Act lawsuits.
The ruling affects Haiti and Syria first, but its logic may reach other TPS countries.
The Supreme Court TPS ruling has significant implications for families and employers as well.
TPS holders should immediately review whether they qualify for a family-based green card, employment-based green card, asylum, withholding of removal, CAT protection, cancellation of removal, or another immigration option.
Employers with TPS-authorized workers should review Form I-9 reverification rules carefully, but should avoid premature termination, document abuse, or discriminatory practices.
What Is Temporary Protected Status?
Temporary Protected Status, often called TPS, is a humanitarian immigration protection for people already in the United States who cannot safely return to their home country because of war, natural disaster, or extraordinary temporary conditions.
TPS can provide two critical protections:
Protection from removal while TPS remains valid.
Eligibility to apply for work authorization through an Employment Authorization Document, or EAD.
But TPS is not the same as a green card. It does not automatically lead to lawful permanent residence. A TPS holder who wants permanent status must qualify through a separate immigration path, such as marriage to a U.S. citizen, family sponsorship, employment sponsorship, asylum-related protection, or another legal remedy.
“There is no judicial review of any determination of the Attorney General with respect to the designation, or termination or extension of a designation, of a foreign state under this subsection.”
Today, that authority is exercised by the Secretary of Homeland Security.
Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion read that language broadly. The Court said the word “determination” includes not only the final decision to end TPS, but also many of the procedural steps leading to that decision.
That matters because TPS lawsuits often argued that DHS failed to follow required procedures, failed to consult properly with other agencies, ignored country conditions, or acted arbitrarily under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Supreme Court rejected the idea that plaintiffs could avoid the TPS judicial-review bar by labeling the challenge as procedural rather than substantive.
In practical terms, the Court said: if the lawsuit is really about how DHS decided to end TPS for a country, federal courts usually cannot review that claim unless it raises a viable constitutional issue.
Why This Decision Is Bigger Than Haiti and Syria
Most people will first read Mullin v. Doe as a Haiti and Syria case. That is understandable. Hundreds of thousands of Haitian TPS holders and thousands of Syrian TPS holders have lived, worked, paid taxes, raised children, and built lives in the United States.
But the deeper issue is broader.
According to the American Immigration Council, approximately 1.3 million people had TPS in the United States as of March 2025. KFF reports that TPS holders came from 17 countries, with the largest populations from Venezuela, Haiti, El Salvador, Ukraine, and Honduras.
That means Mullin is not just about one administration, one country, or one lawsuit. It is about who gets to decide the fate of the TPS program: DHS, Congress, or the federal courts.
The Supreme Court’s answer was clear: for non-constitutional claims, Congress sharply limited the role of the courts.
Why Congress Wrote TPS This Way
Congress created TPS in the Immigration Act of 1990. Before TPS, humanitarian protection often came through executive discretion, including Extended Voluntary Departure.
When Congress created TPS, it built a formal statutory system. DHS must review country conditions, consult with appropriate government agencies, and decide whether a country should be designated, extended, or terminated.
But Congress also wrote a powerful jurisdictional limit into the statute.
That limit reflects a hard separation-of-powers choice. Decisions about whether a foreign country is safe enough for return often involve diplomacy, foreign affairs, national security, humanitarian assessment, and rapidly changing conditions abroad. Congress placed those country-wide decisions mainly in the Executive Branch.
The Supreme Court did not decide whether ending TPS for Haiti or Syria is wise, humane, or consistent with actual country conditions. It decided a narrower legal question: did Congress allow courts to review these DHS determinations through ordinary statutory and APA claims?
The Court’s answer was no.
What the Dissent Said
Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, disagreed.
The dissent viewed “determination” more narrowly. In that view, the statute prevents courts from second-guessing the final country-wide TPS decision, but it does not prevent courts from reviewing whether DHS followed mandatory procedures before reaching that decision.
That difference matters.
The majority said procedural decisions merge into the final TPS determination and are therefore barred from review.
The dissent said Congress required certain procedures for a reason, and courts should be able to enforce those procedures even if they cannot decide whether TPS should ultimately continue.
For immigration lawyers, that is the core divide in Mullin: not whether TPS is important, but whether courts can enforce the process Congress created.
Does Mullin v. Doe Eliminate All TPS Lawsuits?
No.
The Court’s ruling is strongest against non-constitutional claims, especially APA claims challenging DHS’s reasoning, consultation, country-condition review, or procedural steps.
The Court did not fully resolve every possible constitutional claim. The Haitian plaintiffs raised an equal protection claim, arguing that the TPS termination was racially motivated. The Court assumed, without fully deciding, that such a claim could be considered, but concluded that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the preliminary record.
Justice Thomas wrote separately and suggested that even constitutional claims may be barred. No other Justice joined that part of his reasoning.
So constitutional litigation is not entirely over. But after Mullin, TPS plaintiffs face a much steeper climb.
What TPS Holders Should Do Now
TPS holders should not assume that a future court order will preserve their status.
The most important step is a personal immigration review. A lawyer should evaluate:
Family-based green card options, including marriage to a U.S. citizen or sponsorship by a U.S. citizen adult child.
Employment-based immigration options, including PERM labor certification, national interest waiver, extraordinary ability, or employer sponsorship.
Whether TPS travel history, parole, inspection, or admission creates an adjustment-of-status opportunity.
Asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture.
Cancellation of removal if the person is placed in immigration court and meets the statutory requirements.
Whether any spouse, parent, or child has U.S. citizenship, lawful permanent residence, military service, disability, medical hardship, or other equities.
Employers should treat Mullin v. Doe as both an immigration issue and a workforce compliance issue.
Many TPS holders work in health care, manufacturing, logistics, construction, food service, hospitality, elder care, and other labor-sensitive sectors. If TPS work authorization ends, employers may face sudden staffing disruption.
But employers must be careful.
Under USCIS Form I-9 rules, employers must reverify employment authorization no later than the date work authorization expires. USCIS explains reverification in its Handbook for Employers. USCIS also maintains specific guidance on automatic EAD extensions for TPS beneficiaries.
Employers should:
Track TPS-related EAD expiration dates.
Monitor USCIS, DHS, Federal Register, and E-Verify updates.
Avoid taking adverse action before work authorization actually expires.
Allow employees to present any valid I-9 document they choose.
Avoid asking for extra documents because an employee is from Haiti, Syria, Venezuela, Honduras, El Salvador, or another TPS country.
Train HR managers on anti-discrimination rules and document abuse.
Coordinate immigration counsel, employment counsel, and HR before making workforce decisions.
The Department of Justice’s Immigrant and Employee Rights Section warns that employers may not request more or different documents, reject valid-looking documents, or treat workers differently because of citizenship, immigration status, or national origin. See the DOJ’s IER frequently asked questions.
Does an Expired TPS EAD Mean the Worker Must Be Fired Immediately?
Not always.
TPS work authorization can be complicated because some EADs are automatically extended by Federal Register notices or USCIS guidance. Employers should check the worker’s TPS country, EAD category, expiration date, and any applicable automatic extension before acting.
TPS-based EADs often use category A12 or C19. USCIS provides country-specific updates on its Temporary Protected Status page.
Employers should not guess. They should verify the current rule before removing an employee from payroll.
What About Green Cards and TPS?
TPS does not itself create a green card path. But many TPS holders may have independent green card options.
Some may qualify through marriage to a U.S. citizen.
Some may have U.S. citizen children who are now 21 or older.
Some may qualify through employment sponsorship.
Some may qualify for humanitarian relief.
Some may have traveled with TPS authorization or parole, which may matter for adjustment of status.
Some may need consular processing and waivers.
Every case turns on the person’s full immigration history. Entry without inspection, prior removal orders, unlawful presence, criminal history, misrepresentation, and prior immigration filings can all change the strategy.
Some immigration lawyers hoped that after Loper Bright, courts would more aggressively review immigration agency decisions.
Mullin is a reminder that the end of Chevron deference does not mean every immigration decision is reviewable.
After Loper Bright, courts interpret statutes independently. But if the statute clearly says courts lack jurisdiction, then independent interpretation may lead to the same result: the courthouse door is closed.
That is what happened in Mullin. The Court was not deferring to DHS’s interpretation of TPS. It was interpreting Congress’s jurisdictional limit.
The Bottom Line
Mullin v. Doe is not only a TPS case. It is a judicial-review case.
It tells TPS holders, employers, advocates, and lawyers that broad APA litigation may no longer be the safety net it once appeared to be.
For TPS holders, the practical lesson is urgent: build an individual plan.
For employers, the lesson is compliance: prepare for reverification, but do not discriminate.
For Congress, the lesson is responsibility: if the country wants a different TPS system, a more durable humanitarian program, or a pathway for long-settled TPS holders, Congress must write it.
The Supreme Court answered one question clearly.
Who decides?
Congress drew the line.
The Court enforced it.
FAQs About the Supreme Court TPS Decision
What did the Supreme Court decide in Mullin v. Doe?
The Supreme Court held that the TPS statute bars federal courts from reviewing most non-constitutional claims challenging DHS decisions to terminate, extend, or designate TPS for a foreign country.
Does Mullin v. Doe end TPS for everyone?
No. The decision directly involved Haiti and Syria, but its reasoning may affect other TPS lawsuits and future TPS terminations.
Can TPS holders still fight deportation?
Yes. TPS holders may still have individual immigration defenses or applications, including adjustment of status, asylum, withholding of removal, CAT protection, cancellation of removal, family petitions, employment petitions, waivers, or other relief.
Does TPS lead to a green card?
TPS does not automatically lead to a green card. A TPS holder must qualify through a separate immigration category, such as family sponsorship, employment sponsorship, asylum-related protection, or another lawful pathway.
Can employers keep TPS workers after TPS ends?
Only if the worker still has valid employment authorization through TPS, another immigration status, an automatic EAD extension, or another valid I-9 document. Employers should confirm current USCIS and Federal Register guidance before taking action.
Should employers reverify all workers from TPS countries?
No. Employers should not single out workers based on nationality, accent, immigration status, or perceived TPS status. Reverification must follow Form I-9 rules and anti-discrimination requirements.
What should a TPS holder do first?
A TPS holder should gather all immigration records and schedule a legal review. Important documents include passports, I-94s, TPS approvals, EADs, travel permits, prior court records, old applications, family immigration records, marriage records, children’s birth certificates, and criminal records if any.
Is Haiti still dangerous?
The U.S. Department of State currently lists Haiti as Level 4: Do Not Travel, citing risks including crime, kidnapping, terrorism, unrest, and limited health care.
Is Syria still dangerous?
The U.S. Department of State currently lists Syria as Level 4: Do Not Travel, citing terrorism, unrest, kidnapping, crime, and armed conflict.
Can Herman Legal Group help TPS holders review options?
Yes. Herman Legal Group helps TPS holders evaluate green card eligibility, family petitions, employment sponsorship, removal defense, asylum-related protection, waivers, and emergency immigration strategies.
Supreme Court Rejects Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order: U.S.-Born Children of Undocumented and H-1B Parents Remain Citizens
By Richard T. Herman, Esq.
Quick Answer
Yes. A child born in the United States to an undocumented mother is a U.S. citizen at birth. A child born in the United States to a mother on H-1B status is also a U.S. citizen at birth.
On June 30, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Trump v. Barbara that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully present or lawfully but temporarily present are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and are therefore citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.
The bottom line is simple: birth on U.S. soil still generally means U.S. citizenship.
Key Takeaways
Children born in the United States to undocumented parents are U.S. citizens at birth.
Children born in the United States to H-1B, F-1, J-1, L-1, E-2, B-1/B-2, or other temporary visa parents are U.S. citizens at birth.
Trump’s executive order tried to deny citizenship recognition to U.S.-born children when the mother was undocumented or temporarily present and the father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.
The Supreme Court rejected that theory and reaffirmed the broad constitutional rule of birthright citizenship.
The ruling protects the child’s citizenship, but it does not automatically give lawful immigration status to undocumented parents.
Families with questions about birthright citizenship Supreme Court decision, citizenship, immigration status, documentation, removal defense, or family-based immigration can schedule a consultation with Herman Legal Group.
What Did the Supreme Court Decide in Trump v. Barbara?
In Trump v. Barbara, the Supreme Court answered one of the most important immigration questions in modern American law:
Can a president deny U.S. citizenship to children born in the United States because their parents are undocumented or only temporarily present?
The Court’s answer was no.
The Court held that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. This aligns with the recent birthright citizenship Supreme Court decision.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion of the Court, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed that the executive order could not stand, but he relied on statutory grounds rather than the Court’s constitutional reasoning. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented.
The birthright citizenship Supreme Court decision underscores the importance of citizenship rights in modern America.
The birthright citizenship Supreme Court decision highlights the ongoing debate surrounding immigration and citizenship in America.
What Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Executive Order Tried To Do
The order attempted to deny federal recognition of U.S. citizenship to certain children born in the United States.
Under the order, a U.S.-born child would not have been recognized as a citizen if:
The child’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States, and the father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident; or
The child’s mother was lawfully but temporarily present in the United States — including on a work visa, student visa, tourist visa, or Visa Waiver Program admission — and the father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.
In real life, that would have meant:
A baby born in Cleveland to two undocumented parents would not have been recognized as a U.S. citizen.
A baby born in Columbus to two H-1B workers would not have been recognized as a U.S. citizen.
A baby born in Cincinnati to an F-1 student mother and an H-1B father would not have been recognized as a U.S. citizen.
A baby born in Detroit to a tourist visa mother and a temporary visa father would not have been recognized as a U.S. citizen.
The Supreme Court rejected that approach.
What Is Birthright Citizenship?
Birthright citizenship is the rule that a person born in the United States is generally a U.S. citizen at birth.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Federal law uses the same basic language. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), a person born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a national and citizen of the United States at birth.
For more than a century, this rule has been understood to cover nearly all children born on U.S. soil, including children of noncitizen parents.
Are Children Born to Undocumented Parents U.S. Citizens?
Yes. A child born in the United States to undocumented parents is a U.S. citizen at birth.
The Supreme Court held that undocumented immigrants who are physically present in the United States are subject to U.S. law and U.S. sovereign authority. They can be arrested, prosecuted, sued, taxed, subpoenaed, removed, and regulated. Because they are subject to U.S. jurisdiction, their U.S.-born children are also born subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
That is why the Court rejected the argument that undocumented parents fall outside the Citizenship Clause.
So, if a child is born in the United States to an undocumented mother and undocumented father, the child is a U.S. citizen at birth.
If a child is born in the United States to an undocumented mother and a father on H-1B, F-1, J-1, B-2, TPS, parole, or another noncitizen status, the child is also a U.S. citizen at birth.
Are Children Born to H-1B Parents U.S. Citizens?
Yes. A child born in the United States to H-1B parents is a U.S. citizen at birth.
H-1B status is lawful but temporary. Trump’s executive order specifically targeted children born to mothers who were lawfully but temporarily present in the United States, including those here on work visas.
The Supreme Court held that this limitation is not in the Constitution.
A child born in the United States to parents on H-1B, H-4, L-1, L-2, F-1, J-1, E-2, O-1, TN, B-1/B-2, or another temporary visa is a U.S. citizen at birth, unless one of the narrow traditional exceptions applies.
Those narrow exceptions include children of foreign diplomats and children born in territory under hostile enemy occupation.
For families navigating temporary work visas, green cards, and long-term immigration planning, Herman Legal Group’s employment-based immigration lawyers can help evaluate options.
Why Did the Court Rely on United States v. Wong Kim Ark?
Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents. After a trip abroad, the federal government denied that he was a U.S. citizen. The Supreme Court held that he was a citizen because he was born in the United States and subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
The Trump administration argued that Wong Kim Ark protected only children of parents who were permanently domiciled in the United States. The Supreme Court rejected that narrow reading.
The Court explained that Wong Kim Ark confirmed a broad rule: children born in the United States are citizens at birth, with only narrow exceptions.
That precedent now remains the central constitutional foundation for modern birthright citizenship.
What Does “Subject to the Jurisdiction” Mean?
The key phrase in the Fourteenth Amendment is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
The Trump administration argued that this phrase excluded children of undocumented immigrants and temporary visa holders because their parents supposedly lacked permanent allegiance to the United States.
The Supreme Court rejected that argument.
The Court explained that “subject to the jurisdiction” means subject to the sovereign authority and laws of the United States. People physically present in the United States are generally subject to U.S. law, even if they are undocumented, visiting temporarily, studying, working, or waiting for immigration relief.
That is why a tourist who violates U.S. law can be arrested. An H-1B worker must follow U.S. law. An undocumented immigrant can be placed in removal proceedings. A foreign student can be prosecuted for a crime. A temporary visitor can be sued in court.
They are not outside U.S. jurisdiction. They are under it.
And because they are under U.S. jurisdiction, their U.S.-born children are citizens at birth.
What Status Does a Child Have If Born to an Undocumented Mother?
A child born in the United States to an undocumented mother is a U.S. citizen at birth.
This remains true even if the father is also undocumented.
This remains true if the father is on a temporary visa.
This remains true if neither parent has a green card.
The child should be eligible for a U.S. birth certificate, Social Security number, U.S. passport, and all other proof of citizenship normally available to U.S.-born citizens.
Parents should keep certified copies of the child’s birth certificate, hospital records, passport records, Social Security records, and any correspondence with federal or state agencies.
What Status Does a Child Have If Born to a Mother on H-1B?
A child born in the United States to a mother on H-1B status is a U.S. citizen at birth.
This remains true if the father is also on H-1B.
This remains true if the father is on F-1, H-4, L-1, E-2, J-1, B-2, or another temporary status.
This remains true even though the parents are not lawful permanent residents.
The child’s citizenship comes from birth in the United States and subjection to U.S. jurisdiction, not from the parents’ immigration status.
Parent Status Examples After Trump v. Barbara
Parent Situation
Is the U.S.-Born Child a Citizen?
Mother undocumented, father undocumented
Yes
Mother undocumented, father on H-1B
Yes
Mother undocumented, father on F-1
Yes
Mother on H-1B, father on H-1B
Yes
Mother on H-1B, father on H-4
Yes
Mother on F-1, father on F-1
Yes
Mother on tourist visa, father on tourist visa
Yes
Mother on J-1, father on J-2
Yes
Mother on L-1, father on L-2
Yes
Mother on E-2, father on E-2
Yes
Mother undocumented, father green card holder
Yes
Mother on H-1B, father U.S. citizen
Yes
Child of foreign diplomat
Usually no
Child born during hostile enemy occupation
Usually no
What This Decision Means for Immigrant Families
This decision gives immediate reassurance to immigrant families.
Children born in the United States to undocumented or temporary-status parents remain U.S. citizens. Their citizenship cannot be erased by executive order.
But the ruling does not fix the parents’ immigration status.
A U.S. citizen child does not automatically protect a parent from removal, detention, inadmissibility, unlawful presence bars, prior removal orders, criminal grounds, or other immigration problems.
A U.S. citizen child generally cannot petition for a parent’s green card until the child turns 21. USCIS explains that to petition for a parent to live in the United States as a green card holder, the petitioner must be a U.S. citizen and at least 21 years old. Families considering this path should review USCIS guidance on bringing parents to live in the United States as permanent residents and seek individualized legal advice.
The decision does not give undocumented parents legal status.
The decision does not cancel removal proceedings.
The decision does not erase unlawful presence.
The decision does not waive prior deportation orders.
The decision does not guarantee that a parent can adjust status in the United States.
The decision does not mean a U.S. citizen child can immediately sponsor a parent.
The ruling protects the citizenship of U.S.-born children. Parents still need a separate immigration strategy.
Why This Case Matters
This case matters because birthright citizenship is not just an immigration rule. It is part of America’s constitutional identity.
The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted after the Civil War to repudiate Dred Scott v. Sandford, the infamous Supreme Court decision holding that Black people could not be citizens. The Citizenship Clause was designed to stop the government from creating hereditary classes of people born in America but excluded from full membership.
Trump’s executive order tried to make a child’s citizenship depend on the immigration status of the parents.
The Supreme Court said the Constitution does not work that way.
The Constitution does not say citizenship belongs only to children of citizens. It does not say citizenship belongs only to children of green card holders. It does not say citizenship depends on whether a parent has H-1B, F-1, B-2, TPS, parole, or no status at all.
It says: born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction.
Richard T. Herman’s Bottom Line
The Supreme Court drew a constitutional line that no president can cross.
Trump’s executive order tried to turn American-born children into immigration orphans — born here, living under our laws, but denied recognition as Americans by the federal government.
The Court said no.
A president can set enforcement priorities. A president can direct agencies. A president can ask Congress to change the law. But a president cannot rewrite the Fourteenth Amendment by executive order.
Children born here are not paperwork problems. They are citizens.
Frequently Asked Questions
Are babies born in the U.S. to undocumented parents still citizens?
Yes. A baby born in the United States to undocumented parents is a U.S. citizen at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Are babies born in the U.S. to H-1B parents citizens?
Yes. A baby born in the United States to H-1B parents is a U.S. citizen at birth. H-1B is temporary status, but the Supreme Court held that children born to temporarily present parents are still subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
What if both parents are undocumented?
The child is still a U.S. citizen if born in the United States, unless a narrow exception applies.
What if both parents are on H-1B?
The child is still a U.S. citizen if born in the United States.
What if the mother is on H-1B and the father is on F-1?
The child is still a U.S. citizen if born in the United States.
What if the mother is undocumented and the father is on H-1B?
The child is still a U.S. citizen if born in the United States.
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the injunction against enforcement of the order and held that children born in the United States to unlawfully or temporarily present parents are citizens at birth.
Does a U.S. citizen child protect undocumented parents from deportation?
No. A U.S. citizen child’s citizenship does not automatically give lawful status to the parents. Parents may still need family-based immigration, waivers, asylum, cancellation of removal, consular processing, or other legal strategies.
Can a U.S. citizen child sponsor parents for a green card?
Usually not until the child turns 21. USCIS states that a U.S. citizen must be at least 21 years old to petition for a parent to become a lawful permanent resident.
Need Help Understanding Birthright Citizenship, Family Immigration, or Parent Status?
Herman Legal Group helps immigrants, families, workers, students, and employers understand fast-changing immigration law and build stronger immigration strategies.
If you have questions about birthright citizenship, documentation, family petitions, unlawful presence, removal defense, waivers, or long-term immigration planning, schedule a consultation with Herman Legal Group or call 1-800-808-4013.
Resource Directory: Birthright Citizenship After Trump v. Barbara
For readers who want to review the decision, the executive order, the constitutional text, or practical documentation steps for a U.S.-born child, here are the key resources.
AILA summary of Executive Order 14160
A legal-practice summary from the American Immigration Lawyers Association explaining the executive order and its intended effect.
Constitutional Text, Statutes, and Foundational Cases
Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship Clause
The constitutional text stating that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens.
8 U.S.C. § 1401(a)
The federal statute recognizing that a person born in the United States and subject to U.S. jurisdiction is a U.S. citizen at birth.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark
The landmark 1898 Supreme Court decision confirming birthright citizenship for a child born in San Francisco to noncitizen parents.
Dred Scott v. Sandford
The infamous pre-Civil War decision that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to repudiate.
Family-based immigration lawyers
Help with marriage-based green cards, parent-child petitions, fiancé visas, consular processing, waivers, and family immigration strategy.
H-1B immigration lawyer
Guidance for H-1B workers, employers, families, and children born in the United States to temporary visa parents.
Deportation and removal defense
Help for parents facing removal proceedings, ICE detention, bond issues, immigration court, or post-order strategy.
Book a consultation with Herman Legal Group
Schedule a consultation with Richard Herman or a Herman Legal Group attorney to discuss birthright citizenship, family immigration, removal defense, H-1B family planning, or documentation issues.
USCIS Appeals Dorcas v. USCIS Decision to First Circuit After Ending Immigration Hold Policies
USCIS Appeals Dorcas v. USCIS Decision
Updated June 13, 2026
In a major development affecting thousands of immigration applicants, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has formally appealed the Rhode Island federal court decision in Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS. This case is significant as it involves the USCIS Appeals Dorcas Decision.
On June 12, 2026, USCIS filed a Notice of Appeal seeking review of the district court’s decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
The appeal follows Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr.’s June 5, 2026 decision in Dorcas v. USCIS, which vacated several USCIS policies that had paused, delayed, re-reviewed, or otherwise restricted adjudication of immigration benefit requests involving nationals from countries subject to heightened screening and travel restrictions. The implications of this decision include the USCIS Appeals Dorcas Decision that may set a precedent for future cases.
Just days after the ruling, USCIS announced in Court Order on Hold Policies that it was implementing the court’s order, ending the challenged hold policies, and resuming adjudication of affected immigration benefit requests. Later that same day, USCIS filed its appeal.
This case highlights the critical nature of the USCIS Appeals Dorcas Decision and its potential impact on immigration policies.
For background on the underlying litigation, see our earlier analyses:
Together, these developments create one of the most important immigration law stories of 2026 and could affect thousands of pending immigration cases nationwide.
Quick Answer
Did USCIS Appeal the Dorcas Decision?
Yes.
On June 12, 2026, USCIS filed a Notice of Appeal seeking review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Is the Rhode Island Court Order Still in Effect?
Generally yes.
The filing of an appeal does not automatically suspend or overturn the district court’s decision.
Unless the government obtains a stay, the court’s June 5 order remains in effect while the appeal proceeds.
Did USCIS Resume Processing Cases?
Yes.
In Court Order on Hold Policies, USCIS announced that it was implementing the court’s order and discontinuing the challenged hold policies.
Key Takeaways
USCIS appealed the Dorcas decision on June 12, 2026.
USCIS also announced on June 12 that it was ending the challenged hold policies.
The district court’s order generally remains in effect unless a stay is granted.
The appeal will be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
The litigation may affect green card applications, asylum cases, citizenship applications, employment authorization requests, refugee benefits, and other immigration filings.
The case could eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
What Is Dorcas v. USCIS?
The lawsuit challenged several USCIS policies that allegedly suspended, delayed, or subjected immigration benefit requests to additional review based on nationality and security-screening concerns.
The challenged policies included:
Benefits Hold Policy;
Global Asylum Hold Policy;
Comprehensive Re-Review Policy;
Country-Specific Factors Policy.
Plaintiffs argued that USCIS exceeded its authority by effectively freezing adjudications through internal policies that lacked authorization under federal law.
On June 5, 2026, Chief Judge McConnell largely agreed and vacated the challenged policies in Dorcas v. USCIS.
Later that same day, USCIS filed a Notice of Appeal asking the First Circuit to review and potentially reverse the district court’s decision.
These actions indicate that USCIS intends to comply with the court’s order while simultaneously challenging the ruling on appeal.
Does the Appeal Automatically Reinstate the Immigration Hold Policies?
No.
This is one of the most important points for applicants to understand.
The filing of an appeal does not automatically restore the vacated policies.
Unless the government obtains a stay from either the district court or the First Circuit, the June 5 order generally remains effective.
For now, USCIS’s official position remains reflected in Court Order on Hold Policies, which states that the agency is implementing the district court’s ruling.
Who May Be Affected?
The litigation may affect individuals whose immigration cases were delayed, suspended, re-reviewed, or subjected to additional scrutiny under the challenged policies.
The underlying litigation particularly focused on policies affecting nationals from countries subject to enhanced screening measures and travel restrictions.
What Happens Next?
The appeal will likely proceed through several stages:
1. Appellate Briefing
Both sides will submit legal briefs addressing the district court’s decision.
2. Amicus Briefs
Advocacy organizations, employers, universities, labor groups, and other stakeholders may participate.
3. Oral Argument
The First Circuit may schedule oral argument.
4. Appellate Decision
The court may affirm, reverse, modify, or remand the case.
5. Possible Supreme Court Review
Given the significance of the issues involved, Supreme Court review remains possible.
Richard Herman’s Analysis
The appeal was expected.
The Rhode Island decision struck down policies that were central to the Administration’s immigration screening and adjudication framework.
If your immigration case may have been delayed, suspended, re-reviewed, or otherwise affected by the policies challenged in Dorcas v. USCIS, the immigration attorneys at Herman Legal Group can evaluate your situation and discuss your options.
Richard T. Herman is a nationally recognized immigration attorney, author, speaker, policy advocate, and founder of Herman Legal Group, the Law Firm for Immigrants. For more than 30 years, he has represented immigrants, families, entrepreneurs, investors, multinational employers, physicians, engineers, students, artists, athletes, and professionals navigating the complexities of U.S. immigration law.
Richard is widely recognized for his work in immigration law, immigrant entrepreneurship, economic development, federal court litigation, and immigration policy. He has built a national reputation for helping clients solve complex immigration challenges while serving as a leading voice on how immigration strengthens America’s economy, workforce, innovation ecosystem, and communities.
National Recognition & Professional Credentials
Richard has earned recognition from some of the legal profession’s most respected organizations, including:
Richard’s immigration law analysis and economic development work have been featured by The New York Times, The Washington Post, NPR, WBUR, CBS News, Forbes, Business Insider, USA Today, and numerous other national and international media organizations.
Selected appearances include:
The New York Times (2025) – As Trump Squeezes the Immigrant Work Force, Employers Seek Relief https://www.nytimes.com/
Forbes – Featured in The Immigrant Connection discussing immigrant entrepreneurship and economic growth https://www.forbes.com/
Author of Immigrant, Inc.
Richard is co-author of the acclaimed book:
Immigrant, Inc.: Why Immigrant Entrepreneurs Are Driving the New Economy (and How They Will Save the American Worker)
The book helped shape national discussions about immigrant entrepreneurship, innovation, workforce development, economic growth, and urban revitalization. Its themes have been cited in academic scholarship, economic development research, public policy discussions, and U.S. Supreme Court amicus briefs.
Richard’s work has been cited and discussed in academic journals, economic development research, public policy publications, and U.S. Supreme Court filings.
Civic Leadership, Nonprofit Service & Economic Development
Richard is widely regarded as a pioneer of immigration-based economic development in America’s Rust Belt. His work has focused on helping communities attract talent, support entrepreneurs, revitalize neighborhoods, strengthen local economies, and create American jobs.
Throughout his career, Richard has served in leadership, advisory, and board roles for organizations dedicated to immigrant integration, economic development, access to justice, entrepreneurship, international engagement, and civic advancement.
His leadership includes:
Co-founder of Global Cleveland
Founding advisor to Global Detroit
Co-founder of TiE Ohio
Former Civil Rights Director of LULAC Ohio
Former Trustee of the Legal Aid Society of Cleveland
Former Trustee of the Cuyahoga County Bar Association
Board and advisory involvement with nonprofit, economic development, and international affairs organizations throughout Ohio and the Midwest
Richard has delivered keynote presentations, university lectures, economic development forums, chamber of commerce programs, and policy discussions throughout the United States.
Most notably, Richard was selected by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Partnership for a New American Economy (PNAE) to speak at chambers of commerce, economic development organizations, and business forums nationwide regarding the economic benefits of immigration. Through these engagements, he helped educate civic and business leaders on how welcoming immigrants can strengthen local economies, create American jobs, attract investment, address workforce shortages, and improve regional competitiveness.
Richard has written extensively on immigration law, immigrant entrepreneurship, economic development, workforce strategy, public policy, and global competitiveness.
Herman Legal Group serves clients nationwide and around the world in family immigration, employment immigration, investor visas, citizenship and naturalization, removal defense, federal court litigation, waivers, asylum, humanitarian relief, and complex immigration matters.
This is the version I would deploy across HLG immediately. The next step is to create a dedicated Richard Herman Authority Hub page and link to it from every article. That page can then house the full media archive, board service, awards, publications, speaking engagements, videos, interviews, academic citations, and major case highlights while keeping individual blog posts clean and fast-loading.
USCIS Confirms Court Order Vacating Immigration Hold Policies: What Applicants Need to Know Now
Updated June 13, 2026
On June 12, 2026, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services issued a significant announcement titled Court Order on Hold Policies that may affect thousands of immigration applicants whose cases were delayed, frozen, or subjected to enhanced review over the past several months.
The most important language appears in the middle of the announcement.
USCIS states:
“With entry of final judgment this order is effective immediately, and pursuant to the court-ordered vacatur, applies agency-wide.”
The agency then makes an even more significant statement:
“Thus, the vacatur applies to PM 602-0192, PM 602-0194, and PA 2025-26, which should be treated as if they are not in effect.”
For immigration lawyers, employers, universities, healthcare systems, and affected applicants, those two sentences may be among the most important immigration policy developments of 2026.
Why?
Because USCIS is acknowledging that three major policies that had been used to freeze, delay, or subject immigration applications to enhanced review must now be treated as though they do not exist.
The announcement affects policies linked to:
the June 2025 travel ban;
the December 2025 expanded travel ban;
nationality-based adjudication holds;
affirmative asylum adjudication pauses;
enhanced vetting procedures;
re-review requirements for previously approved immigration benefits;
In practical terms, USCIS is telling adjudicators throughout the agency that the policies invalidated by the Rhode Island federal court can no longer serve as the basis for delaying or withholding immigration decisions. This is USCIS Court Order Vacating Immigration Hold Policies
Key Takeaways
USCIS has acknowledged that PM-602-0192, PM-602-0194, and PA-2025-26 must be treated as though they are not in effect.
The court’s vacatur is effective immediately.
USCIS states that the order applies agency-wide.
The affected policies were tied to Presidential Proclamations 10949 and 10998.
The policies impacted applicants from approximately 39 countries.
Green cards, citizenship applications, asylum cases, work permits, and other immigration benefits were affected.
USCIS has indicated that further guidance is forthcoming.
This memorandum established broad adjudication holds and enhanced review procedures affecting immigration benefits involving nationals from designated countries.
The court also vacated USCIS Policy Alert PA-2025-26, which directed officers to treat nationality-based concerns identified in the Presidential Proclamations as discretionary adjudication factors.
Together, these policies formed the backbone of USCIS’s nationality-based hold and enhanced-review framework.
According to USCIS’s own June 12 announcement, all three policies must now be treated as though they are not in effect.
Why the USCIS Announcement Matters More Than the Court Decision Alone
Court decisions are important.
But agency implementation is what ultimately affects applicants.
The June 12 USCIS announcement is significant because it tells field offices, service centers, asylum offices, adjudicators, supervisors, and immigration officers how the agency intends to proceed.
Without this announcement, applicants might have faced uncertainty regarding whether USCIS would narrowly interpret the court’s ruling.
Instead, USCIS acknowledged that:
the judgment is effective immediately;
the order applies agency-wide;
the policies must be treated as though they are not in effect.
Those statements are likely to become central citations in future litigation involving delayed immigration benefits, federal mandamus lawsuits, and Administrative Procedure Act challenges.
Why This May Become One of the Most Important Immigration Cases of 2026
The significance of the Dorcas litigation extends far beyond travel bans.
At its core, the case asks a simple but profound question:
Can USCIS effectively suspend adjudications for large groups of immigrants through internal policy memoranda without clear statutory or regulatory authority?
The Rhode Island federal court answered that question by vacating the challenged policies.
USCIS has now acknowledged that ruling and instructed officers nationwide to treat the policies as though they are not in effect.
For potentially thousands of applicants whose cases were delayed, frozen, or subjected to enhanced review, that development could be transformative.
What Comes Next?
The next questions are equally important:
Which countries were affected?
What immigration benefits were frozen?
How many applicants were impacted?
What hardships did the court identify?
What exactly did the judge say?
Will USCIS quickly adjudicate the backlog?
Should applicants submit expedite requests?
Should applicants file mandamus lawsuits?
What happens during the government appeal, and will it seek and obtain a stay?
Those questions are examined in the next section.
Which Countries, Immigration Benefits, and Applicants Were Affected?
One of the most common questions following USCIS’s June 12, 2026 announcement is:
Who was actually affected by the now-vacated USCIS hold policies?
The answer is broader than many people realize.
The challenged policies did not merely affect visa issuance overseas.
They reached deep into the domestic immigration system and affected green card applicants, citizenship applicants, asylum seekers, workers, physicians, researchers, students, families, and other immigrants already living in the United States.
Many affected individuals had already filed applications, paid filing fees, completed biometrics appointments, attended interviews, and complied with every USCIS requirement.
Yet their cases were delayed, frozen, or subjected to enhanced review because of policies linked to the Administration’s travel-ban framework.
Together, those proclamations formed the basis for PM-602-0192 and PM-602-0194.
The resulting USCIS hold framework ultimately affected nationals from approximately 39 countries, as well as certain individuals traveling on Palestinian Authority-issued or endorsed travel documents.
Countries Subject to Full Restrictions
Nationals of the following countries were subject to the most significant restrictions:
Afghanistan
Myanmar (Burma)
Burkina Faso
Chad
Republic of the Congo
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Haiti
Iran
Laos
Libya
Mali
Niger
Sierra Leone
Somalia
South Sudan
Sudan
Syria
Yemen
These countries formed the core group subject to the most restrictive portions of the travel-ban and enhanced-vetting framework.
Countries Subject to Partial Restrictions
Additional countries were subject to partial restrictions and enhanced scrutiny:
Angola
Antigua and Barbuda
Benin
Burundi
Côte d’Ivoire
Cuba
Dominica
Gabon
Gambia
Malawi
Mauritania
Nigeria
Senegal
Tanzania
Togo
Tonga
Turkmenistan
Venezuela
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Palestinians Were Also Affected
An important point frequently overlooked in discussions of the travel-ban framework is that the challenged policies extended beyond nationals of listed countries.
As a result, some Palestinians were subjected to the same adjudication holds, re-review procedures, and enhanced scrutiny applied to nationals of the designated countries.
For that reason, the affected population should be understood as including:
nationals of the designated countries;
individuals traveling on Palestinian Authority-issued or endorsed travel documents.
This distinction is important because many Palestinians do not appear on the country list itself but were nevertheless affected by the policies challenged in Dorcas.
What Immigration Benefits Were Frozen or Delayed?
A common misconception is that the policies affected only visa issuance abroad.
That is incorrect.
The challenged policies reached deeply into the domestic immigration system.
Green Card Applications
Perhaps the most significant category involved permanent residence applications.
Affected applications included:
Form I-485 Adjustment of Status;
family-based green cards;
employment-based green cards;
humanitarian adjustment applications.
Many applicants had already completed biometrics and interviews before their cases entered extended review.
Employment Authorization Documents (EADs)
The policies also affected work authorization requests.
This included:
Form I-765 applications;
initial EAD applications;
EAD renewals;
work permits linked to pending immigration benefits.
For many applicants, delayed EAD adjudications immediately threatened employment and financial stability.
Naturalization Applications
The hold policies also affected citizenship applicants.
This included:
Form N-400 Naturalization applications;
citizenship interviews;
naturalization adjudications;
oath-related processing.
For lawful permanent residents who had waited years to become eligible for citizenship, additional delays often carried significant consequences.
Affirmative Asylum Applications
One of the most controversial aspects of the litigation involved affirmative asylum adjudications.
The challenged framework reportedly prevented USCIS from issuing decisions in many asylum cases involving affected applicants.
For asylum applicants, delayed decisions can affect:
employment authorization;
family reunification;
long-term stability;
eligibility for permanent residence.
Previously Approved Immigration Benefits
The policies also extended beyond pending cases.
Certain approved immigration benefits were reportedly subjected to re-review procedures.
In some situations, USCIS reopened scrutiny of cases that had already received favorable decisions.
The Rhode Island court viewed these re-review procedures as part of the challenged framework.
Discretionary Immigration Benefits
The court also vacated guidance directing officers to treat nationality-based concerns as negative discretionary factors in adjudications.
As a result, officers may no longer rely upon the vacated guidance as a basis for discretionary decisions.
How Many Cases Were Affected?
One of the most frequently asked questions is:
How many immigration cases were frozen under PM-602-0192 and PM-602-0194?
The honest answer is that no definitive public number currently exists.
USCIS has not released a comprehensive accounting of:
affected adjustment applications;
delayed naturalization cases;
impacted asylum cases;
affected EAD applications;
re-reviewed approved cases.
However, several facts suggest the impact was substantial.
The policies:
operated nationwide;
remained in effect for months;
touched some of the most commonly filed immigration benefits;
affected nationals from dozens of countries;
were challenged by organizations representing millions of immigrants and workers.
As a result, the number of affected applicants may ultimately reach into the hundreds of thousands.
How Did the Delays Harm Applicants?
A central theme of the Dorcas litigation was that the challenged policies created real-world hardship.
The case was not merely about agency procedure.
It was about people.
According to the court, many affected applicants had:
followed immigration laws;
filed applications properly;
paid filing fees;
completed biometrics;
attended interviews;
complied with every USCIS requirement.
Yet many remained unable to obtain decisions.
Employment Consequences
Delayed adjudications threatened:
employment opportunities;
work authorization;
professional licensing;
research positions;
business operations.
Researchers, physicians, scientists, and other professionals faced significant uncertainty because USCIS simply stopped making decisions.
Family Separation
Delayed green card adjudications often affected entire families.
Applicants frequently postponed:
family reunification plans;
international travel;
educational decisions;
employment opportunities.
For many families, uncertainty became the greatest hardship.
Educational and Research Disruption
Universities, laboratories, hospitals, and research institutions also experienced consequences.
Immigration delays can interrupt:
academic programs;
scientific research;
medical training;
healthcare staffing.
These effects extend beyond individual applicants and can impact entire institutions.
Humanitarian Consequences
For asylum applicants and humanitarian beneficiaries, delayed adjudications often create profound instability.
Many applicants remained unable to:
plan for the future;
reunite with family members;
obtain long-term immigration security;
move forward with permanent residence.
Emotional and Psychological Stress
Chief Judge McConnell repeatedly recognized the uncertainty created by indefinite delays.
Perhaps the most memorable line in the decision is:
“Plaintiffs and their members are stuck waiting.”
For many affected immigrants, that phrase accurately captures the practical impact of the challenged policies.
The issue was not denial.
The issue was the absence of any decision at all.
Richard Herman’s Observation
One reason the Dorcas decision has resonated so strongly is that many affected applicants were precisely the people policymakers often tell to “follow the law” and “get in line.”
According to the court, they did.
They filed applications.
They paid fees.
They completed biometrics.
They attended interviews.
They complied with every requirement imposed by USCIS.
Then they waited.
The Rhode Island court repeatedly returned to a simple principle:
Immigration agencies possess broad authority to adjudicate applications.
They do not possess unlimited authority to leave applicants in indefinite limbo after those applicants have complied with the law.
That principle may ultimately become one of the most important legacies of the Dorcas decision.
Coming in Part III
Next, we examine:
the most important judicial findings in Dorcas;
the strongest quotes from Judge McConnell;
why the court rejected USCIS’s legal arguments;
how the decision may affect future immigration litigation;
whether USCIS is likely to appeal;
what happens if the First Circuit grants a stay.
What the Judge Actually Said — And Why the Court Ruled Against USCIS
The Dorcas decision has attracted national attention not merely because the court vacated USCIS policies, but because of the unusually direct language used by Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr.
Throughout the decision, the court repeatedly returned to a simple theme:
People who follow the immigration rules should receive decisions on their applications.
That principle ultimately drove much of the court’s analysis.
“Follow the Law” and “Do Things the Right Way”
One of the most memorable passages appears near the beginning of the opinion.
Judge McConnell wrote:
“If people wish to immigrate to the United States, they ought to ‘follow the law’ and ‘do things the right way.'”
The court then observed that the plaintiffs and their members had done exactly that.
According to the court, affected applicants had:
filed immigration applications;
paid filing fees;
submitted supporting documentation;
completed biometrics appointments;
attended interviews;
complied with USCIS procedures.
Yet many remained unable to obtain decisions because of the challenged policies.
That fact became central to the court’s analysis.
The case was not about individuals attempting to bypass the immigration system.
The case involved individuals who had already entered the system and complied with its requirements.
“Plaintiffs and Their Members Are Stuck Waiting”
Perhaps the most quoted sentence in the opinion is also one of the simplest.
Judge McConnell wrote:
“Plaintiffs and their members are stuck waiting.”
The court viewed this as more than a bureaucratic inconvenience.
Many applicants had already invested years in the immigration process.
Some depended on pending applications for:
work authorization;
permanent residence;
citizenship;
family reunification;
educational opportunities;
professional advancement.
The court repeatedly emphasized that the challenged policies prevented many applicants from receiving the decisions Congress contemplated when creating immigration benefit programs.
The Court Rejected Indefinite Immigration Limbo
A recurring concern throughout the opinion was the concept of indefinite delay.
The court repeatedly noted that immigration statutes generally contemplate adjudication.
USCIS may investigate.
USCIS may request evidence.
USCIS may approve.
USCIS may deny.
But the agency generally must decide.
The court was troubled by policies that effectively prevented decisions from being made.
As a practical matter, many applicants found themselves trapped in what commentators have described as:
“indeterminate legal limbo.”
The court viewed those consequences as real and substantial.
“The Rule of Law Has to Apply to Everyone Equally”
Another significant statement appears early in the opinion.
Judge McConnell wrote:
“The rule of law has to apply to everyone equally.”
That sentence reflects one of the broader themes running throughout the decision.
The case was not merely about immigration.
It was about administrative power.
The court examined whether USCIS could implement sweeping immigration-benefit restrictions through internal memoranda without adequate legal authority.
The court ultimately concluded that the challenged policies could not stand.
Why the Court Found Real Harm
The government argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing and had not shown sufficient injury.
The court disagreed.
The opinion describes numerous harms suffered by affected applicants.
These included:
delayed employment authorization;
interrupted careers;
family separation;
educational disruption;
research interruptions;
delayed citizenship;
prolonged uncertainty.
The court concluded that these harms were neither speculative nor hypothetical.
They were occurring in real time.
That finding may become important in future immigration litigation because standing often represents one of the most significant barriers to federal court review.
Why the Court Viewed the Delays Differently Than Ordinary Processing Delays
Every immigration lawyer knows that USCIS processing delays occur.
The court recognized that reality.
But the court viewed the challenged policies differently.
The issue was not routine case processing.
The issue was whether USCIS had adopted policies that systematically prevented adjudications for broad groups of applicants.
According to the court, the challenged policies went beyond ordinary agency delay.
Instead, they created a framework under which many applicants could remain without decisions for extended and uncertain periods.
That distinction may become important in future litigation involving:
USCIS processing delays;
Adjustment of Status cases;
Naturalization applications;
affirmative asylum applications;
federal mandamus actions.
The “Standing in Line” Principle
Perhaps the most powerful theme in the opinion is one that many Americans intuitively understand.
For years, policymakers have often told immigrants to:
follow the law;
file the proper applications;
pay the required fees;
wait their turn.
According to the court, many of the affected applicants did exactly that.
They complied with the rules.
They entered the process.
They waited.
Yet they remained unable to obtain decisions.
The court repeatedly returned to the idea that people who follow the legal process should not be left indefinitely waiting for the government to act.
That concept may ultimately become one of the most enduring aspects of the Dorcas decision.
Richard Herman’s Analysis
The most important lesson from Dorcas is not that the court disagreed with USCIS.
The most important lesson is that the court insisted on accountability.
The plaintiffs were not asking the court to order approval of their cases.
They were asking for decisions.
According to the court, many had already done everything required of them.
They filed applications.
They paid fees.
They attended interviews.
They completed background checks.
They followed the rules.
The court repeatedly returned to a simple proposition:
People who comply with the law should receive answers.
Whether those answers are approvals or denials is a separate question.
But according to the court, indefinite limbo was not an acceptable substitute for adjudication.
For that reason, the language in Dorcas is likely to be cited in future litigation involving USCIS delays, mandamus actions, Administrative Procedure Act challenges, asylum adjudications, naturalization cases, and Adjustment of Status applications for years to come.
Coming in Part IV
Next, we examine:
whether USCIS is likely to appeal;
what happens if the First Circuit grants a stay;
whether USCIS could resume the hold policies;
what applicants should do now;
whether expedite requests make sense;
whether delayed applicants should consider filing mandamus lawsuits.
This structure is more AI-friendly because it directly answers:
What did the judge say?
Why did the judge rule against USCIS?
What quotes matter?
What is the significance of Dorcas?
How does the decision affect future immigration litigation?
What Happens Next? Appeals, Stays, Expedite Requests, Mandamus Lawsuits, and the Future of the USCIS Backlog
The Rhode Island court vacated PM-602-0192, PM-602-0194, and PA-2025-26.
USCIS has now publicly acknowledged that those policies must be treated as though they are not in effect.
For affected applicants, however, the most important question is no longer whether the policies were lawful.
The question is:
What happens next?
Will USCIS immediately begin adjudicating delayed cases?
Will applicants finally receive decisions?
What direction will the government appeal go?
Could a stay reinstate the hold policies?
Should applicants file expedite requests?
Should they file mandamus lawsuits?
The answers will vary from case to case, but several important observations can already be made.
This was not a surprise. USCIS included an important statement in its June 12, 2026 announcement:
“USCIS strongly disagrees with the Court’s order but will follow its terms pending possible further judicial review.”
That language is difficult to interpret as anything other than a signal that appellate review is being considered.
The government will likely challenge:
the court’s standing analysis;
the court’s Administrative Procedure Act analysis;
the court’s vacatur remedy;
the court’s conclusions regarding USCIS authority.
Immigration lawyers should therefore assume that the litigation may be protracted.
Could the Government Seek a Stay?
Yes.
One of the most important issues moving forward is whether the government seeks a stay pending appeal.
A stay would temporarily suspend the effect of the district court’s order while appellate litigation continues.
In practical terms, a stay could dramatically alter the landscape.
Without a stay:
PM-602-0192 remains vacated;
PM-602-0194 remains vacated;
PA-2025-26 remains vacated;
USCIS must treat the policies as though they are not in effect.
With a stay:
the government could argue that USCIS should once again be permitted to rely upon some or all of the challenged policies while the appeal proceeds.
The precise effect would depend upon the wording of any stay order.
If a Stay Is Granted, Will USCIS Resume the Hold Policies?
Not necessarily.
This is an important point.
Even if the First Circuit grants a stay, USCIS would still have discretion regarding how aggressively it implements the challenged policies.
Several practical realities may discourage a complete return to the prior framework:
Administrative Burden
The litigation has already generated significant public scrutiny.
Reinstating the policies may create additional operational complications.
Resource Constraints
USCIS now faces pressure to address delayed cases.
Restarting the hold process could further complicate agency operations.
Litigation Risk
Even if a stay is granted, additional lawsuits could follow.
The government may therefore seek narrower approaches rather than full reinstatement.
For these reasons, a stay would create uncertainty, but it would not automatically guarantee a return to the exact conditions that existed before the district court’s ruling.
Thousands of Cases May Now Be Ready for Adjudication
Perhaps the most important practical consequence of the decision is the backlog.
The challenged policies remained in effect for months.
During that time:
adjustment applications accumulated;
naturalization applications accumulated;
asylum cases accumulated;
work authorization requests accumulated;
discretionary cases accumulated.
Some cases may now be ready for immediate adjudication.
Others may require additional review.
Still others may remain subject to ordinary background checks unrelated to the vacated policies.
The critical point is that many applicants who previously received little movement may now begin seeing activity.
That could include:
Requests for Evidence;
interview scheduling;
approval notices;
denial notices;
transfer notices;
updated case status information.
Applicants should therefore closely monitor their USCIS accounts and correspondence.
Should Applicants Submit Expedite Requests?
For some applicants, the answer may be yes.
USCIS maintains an expedite process that remains available in appropriate circumstances.
The Dorcas decision itself does not automatically create eligibility for expedited processing.
However, applicants whose cases were delayed and who now face significant hardship should carefully evaluate whether they satisfy one of the existing expedite criteria.
Who May Have Strong Expedite Arguments?
Potential examples include:
Physicians and Healthcare Workers
Healthcare staffing shortages may strengthen government-interest arguments.
Researchers and Scientists
Projects involving grant deadlines, public health, or critical research may support expedite requests.
Individuals Facing Severe Financial Harm
Applicants who risk losing employment or significant income may have stronger arguments.
Humanitarian Cases
Medical emergencies, family crises, or other urgent circumstances may support expedited review.
Cases Delayed by Agency Error
If an applicant can demonstrate that a case was improperly delayed because of a now-vacated policy, that argument may deserve careful consideration.
Every case is different.
Applicants should consult experienced counsel before relying on an expedite strategy.
Should Applicants File a Mandamus Lawsuit Now?
This may be the most important strategic question arising from the decision.
A federal mandamus action seeks a court order compelling USCIS to act on a delayed application.
The answer depends heavily on the facts.
Arguments for Filing Now
Some applicants have already experienced substantial delays.
The Dorcas ruling strengthens the argument that USCIS cannot indefinitely avoid adjudicating applications.
Applicants with lengthy delays may wish to move aggressively.
Advantages may include:
forcing agency attention;
obtaining a decision sooner;
preserving legal rights;
avoiding additional uncertainty.
Arguments for Waiting
Other applicants may benefit from patience.
USCIS may now begin adjudicating many delayed cases voluntarily.
Filing litigation immediately could:
create unnecessary legal expense;
prove unnecessary if the case is adjudicated soon;
complicate ongoing administrative review.
Some applicants may wish to observe agency behavior over the next several weeks before deciding whether litigation is necessary.
Does Waiting Carry Risk?
Yes.
Waiting carries both potential benefits and potential risks.
Potential Benefit
USCIS may begin rapidly adjudicating cases now that the challenged policies have been vacated.
If that occurs, litigation may become unnecessary.
Potential Risk
If the government obtains a stay, the legal landscape could change quickly.
Applicants who delay action may lose valuable time.
This does not mean every applicant should immediately file suit.
It does mean that applicants should think strategically about timing rather than simply assuming the situation will resolve itself.
What Should Applicants Do Right Now?
For most affected applicants, the best immediate strategy is relatively straightforward.
Step 1: Monitor Your Case
Review your USCIS online account regularly.
Watch for:
Requests for Evidence;
interview notices;
case transfers;
approval notices;
status changes.
Step 2: Gather Evidence of Harm
If delays have caused hardship, begin documenting:
financial losses;
employment consequences;
medical issues;
family hardship;
research disruptions.
That evidence may become important for expedite requests or litigation.
Step 3: Evaluate Expedite Eligibility
Review the USCIS expedite criteria and determine whether your circumstances may qualify.
Step 4: Consult Experienced Counsel
Applicants with significant delays should discuss:
expedite requests;
congressional inquiries;
Ombudsman assistance;
mandamus litigation;
Administrative Procedure Act claims.
Step 5: Stay Informed
Additional guidance from USCIS and further court proceedings are likely.
The legal landscape may continue evolving rapidly.
Richard Herman’s Analysis
The biggest unanswered question is not whether the policies were unlawful.
The court has already answered that question.
The biggest unanswered question is operational:
How quickly will USCIS move?
The agency now faces the difficult task of processing applications that may have been delayed for months.
Some applicants may see movement quickly.
Others may continue experiencing delays.
The June 12 announcement represents an important victory for affected immigrants.
But for many applicants, the ultimate measure of success will be simple:
Receiving a decision.
Whether that decision is an approval or a denial, most applicants simply want the government to finally act.
That issue—more than the litigation itself—will determine the real-world significance of the Dorcas decision.
Coming in Part V
Next, we examine:
frequently asked questions;
who benefits most from the ruling;
whether previously denied cases can be reopened;
how the decision affects asylum applicants;
how the decision affects green card applicants;
what employers should know;
what immigration lawyers should be doing now.
Frequently Asked Questions About the Dorcas Decision and the USCIS Hold Policies
The June 12, 2026 USCIS announcement and the Rhode Island federal court’s decision in Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS have generated significant confusion.
Many applicants are asking the same questions:
Does this help my case?
Will USCIS finally make a decision?
Can previously denied cases be reopened?
Does the ruling help asylum applicants?
Does it affect green card applications?
What should employers do?
Below are answers to the most common questions.
Does the Dorcas Decision Automatically Approve My Immigration Case?
No.
The decision does not require USCIS to approve any application.
The court did not order approvals.
The court ordered USCIS to stop relying on the challenged policies and to treat those policies as though they are not in effect.
Applicants must still satisfy all substantive eligibility requirements.
USCIS may:
approve applications;
deny applications;
request additional evidence;
schedule interviews;
conduct ordinary background checks.
What USCIS generally may not do under the vacated policies is continue relying upon PM-602-0192, PM-602-0194, and PA-2025-26 as the basis for delaying adjudications.
Does This Decision Help Green Card Applicants?
Potentially yes.
The decision may be particularly significant for applicants whose:
Form I-485 Adjustment of Status applications;
employment-based green card cases;
family-based green card cases;
humanitarian adjustment cases
were delayed under the challenged policies.
Many applicants reported extended delays despite having already completed biometrics, interviews, and other requirements.
Does This Decision Help Citizenship Applicants?
Potentially.
Naturalization applicants were among the groups reportedly affected by the challenged policies.
The decision may help applicants whose:
Form N-400 applications;
citizenship interviews;
naturalization adjudications
were delayed because of nationality-based review procedures or related hold policies.
Does This Decision Help Asylum Applicants?
Potentially yes.
One of the most controversial aspects of the litigation involved affirmative asylum adjudications.
The challenged policies reportedly prevented USCIS from issuing decisions in many asylum cases.
The Rhode Island court’s ruling may therefore have important implications for applicants whose asylum cases were affected by those policies.
Does the Decision Help Applicants Seeking Work Permits?
Potentially.
The challenged framework affected:
Form I-765 applications;
initial work permits;
EAD renewals;
employment authorization connected to pending immigration applications.
For applicants whose work authorization was delayed because of the challenged policies, the decision may help move cases toward adjudication.
Were Palestinians Affected by the USCIS Hold Policies?
Yes.
An important point frequently overlooked is that the challenged framework extended beyond nationals of the 39 designated countries.
The December 2025 Presidential Proclamation also applied restrictions to certain individuals traveling on:
Palestinian Authority-issued travel documents;
Palestinian Authority-endorsed travel documents.
As a result, some Palestinians were subjected to enhanced review, adjudication holds, and related procedures challenged in Dorcas.
Can Previously Denied Cases Be Reopened?
Possibly.
The answer depends on why the application was denied.
Applicants should carefully review:
denial notices;
Requests for Evidence;
Notices of Intent to Deny;
interview records.
If a denial appears directly connected to a now-vacated policy, applicants should discuss potential options with experienced counsel.
Possible remedies may include:
Motions to Reopen;
Motions to Reconsider;
appeals;
refiling;
federal litigation.
The appropriate strategy will depend upon the specific facts.
If My Case Was Frozen, Will USCIS Automatically Restart It?
Not necessarily.
Some cases may move quickly.
Others may remain subject to:
ordinary background checks;
security reviews unrelated to the vacated policies;
staffing limitations;
general processing delays.
Applicants should not assume that USCIS will immediately issue decisions in every affected case.
However, the court’s ruling removes a significant obstacle that previously prevented adjudication.
What If USCIS Already Approved My Case?
Many applicants ask whether the decision affects approved cases.
For most individuals, the answer is probably no.
However, one aspect of the challenged framework involved re-review procedures affecting certain approved benefits.
The Rhode Island court vacated those policies as well.
As a result, the decision may provide reassurance to some applicants whose approved benefits had been subjected to additional scrutiny.
What Should Employers Know?
Employers should pay close attention to the ruling.
The challenged policies reportedly affected:
physicians;
researchers;
engineers;
professors;
healthcare workers;
scientists;
technology professionals.
Many employers experienced disruptions when immigration benefits were delayed.
The decision may help reduce uncertainty for organizations relying upon foreign talent.
Employers should nevertheless continue monitoring:
USCIS guidance;
case processing developments;
potential appeals.
What Should Universities and Research Institutions Know?
Universities were among the organizations most affected by the challenged policies.
Delays can impact:
faculty recruitment;
research programs;
grant-funded projects;
student transitions;
postdoctoral appointments.
The Dorcas ruling may help alleviate some of these concerns, particularly if USCIS begins adjudicating delayed cases more quickly.
Does the Decision Mean the Travel Ban Is Gone?
No.
This is one of the most important distinctions.
The Dorcas case challenged USCIS hold policies and adjudication procedures.
The decision did not invalidate Presidential Proclamations 10949 or 10998 themselves.
The litigation focused on how USCIS implemented those proclamations through agency policies.
As a result, applicants should not assume that all travel-ban-related issues have disappeared.
Applicants should therefore continue monitoring developments closely.
Future proceedings may affect how the ruling is implemented.
What Is the Most Important Practical Lesson?
The most important practical lesson is simple:
The court did not order USCIS to approve applications.
The court ordered USCIS to resume adjudicating applications without relying on the challenged policies.
For many immigrants, that distinction is critical.
The goal is not guaranteed approval.
The goal is a fair decision.
For applicants who have spent months waiting for USCIS to act, that may be the most important development of all.
Richard Herman’s Analysis
The Dorcas decision is likely to become one of the most frequently cited immigration cases of 2026.
Not because it guarantees approvals.
Not because it eliminates travel restrictions.
Not because it resolves every delay.
But because it reinforces a basic principle:
People who comply with the immigration process should receive decisions.
According to the Rhode Island court, applicants should not be left indefinitely waiting because of agency-created policies that exceed the agency’s legal authority.
That message is likely to resonate far beyond the specific facts of this case.
It may influence future litigation involving USCIS delays, immigration adjudications, mandamus actions, Administrative Procedure Act challenges, and agency authority for years to come.
Coming in Part VI
Next, we provide:
a comprehensive resource directory;
related USCIS resources;
related HLG resources;
action steps for affected applicants;
a consultation call-to-action;
final conclusions and predictions.
What Applicants Should Do Now
The Rhode Island federal court’s decision in Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS and USCIS’s June 12, 2026 announcement do not automatically resolve every delayed immigration case.
However, applicants whose cases may have been affected by PM-602-0192, PM-602-0194, or PA-2025-26 should consider taking several practical steps immediately.
The goal is simple:
Be prepared if USCIS suddenly begins moving previously delayed cases.
USCIS may consider expedited processing involving:
severe financial loss;
urgent humanitarian reasons;
nonprofit organization interests;
U.S. government interests;
clear USCIS error.
The Dorcas decision does not automatically create expedite eligibility.
However, applicants who have experienced substantial hardship because of delayed adjudication should carefully evaluate whether they satisfy one or more expedite criteria.
Step 4: Consider Congressional Assistance
Congressional casework remains an underutilized resource.
A U.S. Senator or Member of Congress may be able to:
obtain status updates;
identify processing issues;
facilitate communication with USCIS;
elevate concerns regarding delayed adjudications.
Congressional intervention does not guarantee approval.
However, it may provide useful information and sometimes helps move stagnant cases.
Step 5: Evaluate Whether Mandamus Litigation Is Appropriate
For some applicants, litigation may be worth discussing.
Potential options include:
federal mandamus actions;
Administrative Procedure Act lawsuits;
unreasonable-delay litigation.
The proper strategy depends on:
the type of immigration benefit;
the length of the delay;
the applicant’s circumstances;
the government’s actions;
the existence of documented harm.
Applicants should consult experienced immigration counsel before pursuing federal litigation.
Step 6: Stay Informed
The litigation is probably not over.
USCIS has already stated that it:
“strongly disagrees with the Court’s order”
and may seek further judicial review.
Future developments may include:
appeals;
stay requests;
new USCIS guidance;
revised policies;
additional litigation.
Applicants should therefore continue monitoring developments closely.
The significance of Dorcas extends far beyond the 39 designated countries.
The case is not merely about travel bans.
It is not merely about screening procedures.
It is not merely about administrative delay.
At its core, the case concerns a fundamental principle:
When immigrants comply with the law, file applications, pay fees, complete biometrics, attend interviews, and satisfy agency requirements, they should receive decisions.
That principle appears repeatedly throughout Judge McConnell’s opinion.
It also explains why the court repeatedly emphasized that applicants were:
“stuck waiting.”
The decision does not guarantee approval of any immigration application.
USCIS retains authority to:
approve applications;
deny applications;
request additional evidence;
conduct investigations;
perform background checks.
What the court rejected was the notion that applicants could be placed into indefinite limbo through agency-created policies lacking sufficient legal support.
The most important question moving forward is operational rather than legal:
How quickly will USCIS act?
The agency now faces the challenge of processing a potentially substantial backlog of delayed applications.
Some applicants may see movement immediately.
Others may continue experiencing delays.
Appeals may follow.
Stay requests may follow.
New guidance will almost certainly follow.
Nevertheless, one fact remains clear.
As of June 12, 2026, USCIS has formally acknowledged that PM-602-0192, PM-602-0194, and PA-2025-26 must be treated as though they are not in effect.
That alone makes this one of the most consequential immigration developments of 2026.
Need Help With a Delayed USCIS Case?
If your immigration application was delayed, frozen, subjected to enhanced review, or affected by PM-602-0192, PM-602-0194, the travel-ban framework, or related USCIS policies, the immigration attorneys at Herman Legal Group may be able to help.
Every case is different. Before making strategic decisions regarding expedite requests, mandamus litigation, appeals, or refiling, obtain individualized legal advice regarding your circumstances.
Final Conclusion
The Dorcas decision may ultimately be remembered as more than a travel-ban case.
It may be remembered as a case about accountability.
The Rhode Island court repeatedly returned to a simple proposition:
People who follow the rules should receive answers.
For thousands of immigrants who have spent months waiting for USCIS to act, that principle may prove transformative.
About Richard T. Herman, Esq.
Richard T. Herman is a nationally recognized immigration attorney, author, speaker, policy advocate, and founder of Herman Legal Group, the Law Firm for Immigrants. For more than 30 years, he has represented immigrants, families, entrepreneurs, investors, multinational employers, physicians, engineers, students, artists, athletes, and professionals navigating the complexities of U.S. immigration law.
Richard is widely recognized for his work in immigration law, immigrant entrepreneurship, economic development, federal court litigation, and immigration policy. He has built a national reputation for helping clients solve complex immigration challenges while serving as a leading voice on how immigration strengthens America’s economy, workforce, innovation ecosystem, and communities.
National Recognition & Professional Credentials
Richard has earned recognition from some of the legal profession’s most respected organizations, including:
Richard’s immigration law analysis and economic development work have been featured by The New York Times, The Washington Post, NPR, WBUR, CBS News, Forbes, Business Insider, USA Today, and numerous other national and international media organizations.
Selected appearances include:
The New York Times (2025) – As Trump Squeezes the Immigrant Work Force, Employers Seek Relief https://www.nytimes.com/
Forbes – Featured in The Immigrant Connection discussing immigrant entrepreneurship and economic growth https://www.forbes.com/
Author of Immigrant, Inc.
Richard is co-author of the acclaimed book:
Immigrant, Inc.: Why Immigrant Entrepreneurs Are Driving the New Economy (and How They Will Save the American Worker)
The book helped shape national discussions about immigrant entrepreneurship, innovation, workforce development, economic growth, and urban revitalization. Its themes have been cited in academic scholarship, economic development research, public policy discussions, and U.S. Supreme Court amicus briefs.
Richard’s work has been cited and discussed in academic journals, economic development research, public policy publications, and U.S. Supreme Court filings.
Civic Leadership, Nonprofit Service & Economic Development
Richard is widely regarded as a pioneer of immigration-based economic development in America’s Rust Belt. His work has focused on helping communities attract talent, support entrepreneurs, revitalize neighborhoods, strengthen local economies, and create American jobs.
Throughout his career, Richard has served in leadership, advisory, and board roles for organizations dedicated to immigrant integration, economic development, access to justice, entrepreneurship, international engagement, and civic advancement.
His leadership includes:
Co-founder of Global Cleveland
Founding advisor to Global Detroit
Co-founder of TiE Ohio
Former Civil Rights Director of LULAC Ohio
Former Trustee of the Legal Aid Society of Cleveland
Former Trustee of the Cuyahoga County Bar Association
Board and advisory involvement with nonprofit, economic development, and international affairs organizations throughout Ohio and the Midwest
Richard has delivered keynote presentations, university lectures, economic development forums, chamber of commerce programs, and policy discussions throughout the United States.
Most notably, Richard was selected by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Partnership for a New American Economy (PNAE) to speak at chambers of commerce, economic development organizations, and business forums nationwide regarding the economic benefits of immigration. Through these engagements, he helped educate civic and business leaders on how welcoming immigrants can strengthen local economies, create American jobs, attract investment, address workforce shortages, and improve regional competitiveness.
Richard has written extensively on immigration law, immigrant entrepreneurship, economic development, workforce strategy, public policy, and global competitiveness.
Herman Legal Group serves clients nationwide and around the world in family immigration, employment immigration, investor visas, citizenship and naturalization, removal defense, federal court litigation, waivers, asylum, humanitarian relief, and complex immigration matters.
USCIS Ends Most Telephonic Attorney Appearances: What the New Policy Means for Immigrants, Attorneys, and Access to Justice
Updated June 2026
Quick Answer
Beginning May 18, 2026, USCIS generally requires attorneys and accredited representatives to appear in person at adjustment of status interviews, naturalization interviews, affirmative asylum interviews, and certain NACARA interviews.
The new USCIS attorney interview policy is expected to impact many applicants.
Although immigrants continue to have the right to legal representation, the new policy significantly limits remote attorney participation and may increase costs for applicants who rely on counsel located outside their state. Understanding the USCIS attorney interview policy is crucial for navigating these changes.
USCIS generally no longer permits telephonic attorney participation in covered interviews.
Attorneys must typically appear physically at the interview location.
USCIS states that exceptions may exist in “limited circumstances,” but has not clearly defined those circumstances.
The policy may increase legal fees and travel costs for immigrants.Overall, the USCIS attorney interview policy aims to streamline interview processes but raises concerns among immigrant communities.
The change may reduce access to specialized immigration counsel.
Federal regulations continue to recognize the right to representation before DHS.
The policy appears difficult to justify from an efficiency and modernization perspective.
Critics argue that the policy reflects a broader trend toward increasing procedural burdens in immigration adjudications.
What Exactly Changed?
USCIS now generally requires attorneys and accredited representatives to attend covered interviews in person.
The policy affects:
Adjustment of Status Interviews
Including:
marriage-based green cards;
family-sponsored green cards;
employment-based green cards;
diversity visa adjustment cases.
Naturalization Interviews
Including N-400 examinations involving:
criminal history issues;
selective service concerns;
false claims to U.S. citizenship;
unlawful voting allegations;
lengthy absences from the United States.
Affirmative Asylum Interviews
The policy applies to interviews conducted by USCIS asylum offices.
NACARA Interviews
The policy also extends to certain NACARA proceedings.
USCIS announced the change without publishing a detailed explanation of what constitutes the “limited circumstances” under which remote participation may still be permitted.
What Has Not Changed?
Many reports incorrectly suggest that USCIS has prohibited attorneys from participating in interviews.
That is not accurate.
Applicants still have the right to legal representation.
Attorneys may still:
file Form G-28;
receive notices;
prepare clients;
submit evidence;
attend interviews;
raise legal concerns;
advocate on behalf of clients.
The change concerns the method of participation.
In most cases, USCIS now requires physical attendance rather than telephonic participation.
What Are the “Limited Circumstances” Exceptions?
One of the most significant unanswered questions surrounding the new USCIS policy is the meaning of the phrase “limited circumstances.”
USCIS has announced that attorneys and accredited representatives generally may not participate remotely in covered interviews, but the agency has not publicly defined:
what qualifies as a limited circumstance;
how requests should be submitted;
what evidence should accompany a request;
who makes the decision;
whether denials may be appealed;
whether different field offices may apply different standards.
As of this writing, USCIS has provided little public guidance.
That uncertainty leaves applicants and attorneys attempting to predict what situations might justify an exception.
Circumstances That May Support a Remote Participation Request
Although USCIS has not established formal criteria, several situations appear likely to present stronger arguments.
Serious Medical Issues
An attorney suffering from a significant medical condition may have a compelling basis for requesting remote participation.
Examples may include:
recent surgery;
hospitalization;
serious illness;
physician-imposed travel restrictions;
immunocompromised conditions.
Supporting documentation from a treating physician may strengthen the request.
Disability Accommodations
Attorneys with disabilities that substantially impair travel may have a strong argument for remote participation.
The purpose is not to challenge USCIS authority but to emphasize the longstanding importance of meaningful attorney participation.
Offer Alternative Formats
Do not limit the request to telephone participation.
Consider offering:
telephone appearance;
video appearance;
Microsoft Teams;
Webex;
any platform acceptable to USCIS.
Flexibility may increase the likelihood of approval.
What If USCIS Denies the Request?
If USCIS denies remote participation, attorneys should consider preserving the issue.
Potential steps may include:
retaining copies of all requests;
documenting communications with USCIS;
documenting costs associated with compliance;
documenting any hardship imposed on the applicant.
This documentation may become important if future litigation challenges the policy or if USCIS later publishes additional guidance.
Richard Herman’s Analysis
The phrase “limited circumstances” may ultimately become the most important part of the entire policy.
A rigid interpretation could dramatically increase costs and reduce access to counsel.
A flexible interpretation could preserve many of the benefits of remote participation while still allowing USCIS discretion in individual cases.
Until USCIS publishes clear standards, applicants and attorneys should assume that remote participation will be the exception rather than the rule and should submit any exception requests as early and as thoroughly as possible.
The reality is that the strongest exception requests will likely be those that demonstrate both hardship and efficiency—showing not only why physical attendance is difficult, but also why remote participation would allow USCIS to conduct the interview fairly, accurately, and without unnecessary delay.
Immigration Law Has Long Recognized the Importance of Legal Representation
The significance of the policy becomes clearer when viewed against the legal framework governing representation before DHS.
The agency’s representation framework assumes that attorneys play a meaningful role in helping applicants navigate increasingly complex immigration laws.
Whether the case involves:
adjustment of status;
naturalization;
asylum;
waivers;
humanitarian relief;
USCIS has historically facilitated attorney participation rather than discouraged it.
An Important Historical Fact Most Commentators Have Missed
One of the most overlooked aspects of this story is that USCIS previously moved in the opposite direction.
In 2022, USCIS implemented a pilot program allowing remote attorney participation in asylum interviews.
If legal representation did not matter, immigration courts would have little reason to reopen cases because of attorney misconduct or attorney error.
The existence of ineffective-assistance doctrines demonstrates that immigration law recognizes counsel as a meaningful safeguard against erroneous outcomes.
Federal Administrative Law Also Protects Representation
The principle extends beyond immigration law.
The Administrative Procedure Act recognizes representation rights before federal agencies.
For decades, federal administrative law has recognized that legal representation helps promote:
fairness;
accuracy;
procedural integrity;
informed decision-making.
This broader administrative-law framework reinforces the importance of access to counsel in immigration adjudications.
The Real Issue Is Not Whether Representation Exists
Supporters of the policy may correctly note that immigrants still possess the right to counsel.
The more important question is different:
How meaningful is a right if exercising it becomes substantially more expensive?
The policy does not eliminate representation.
It increases the burden of obtaining representation.
That distinction matters.
The Financial Burden Falls on Immigrants
The most immediate effect of the policy is financial.
Before the policy:
attorney preparation could occur remotely;
attorney participation could occur telephonically;
travel expenses were unnecessary.
After the policy:
Applicants may be responsible for:
airfare;
hotels;
transportation;
meals;
attorney travel time;
additional legal fees.
A single interview may now generate hundreds or even thousands of dollars in additional expenses.
Consider a client in Ohio represented by an attorney in California.
Previously, the attorney could prepare the client remotely and attend by telephone.
Now the client may be required to cover:
round-trip airfare;
overnight accommodations;
local transportation;
attorney travel time.
For many families, the additional cost may be significant.
For some, it may be prohibitive.
The Policy Reduces Access to Specialized Counsel
Modern immigration practice has become highly specialized.
Many attorneys focus almost exclusively on:
EB-1A extraordinary ability petitions;
National Interest Waivers;
complex asylum cases;
inadmissibility waivers;
denaturalization defense;
false claims to citizenship;
unlawful voting allegations.
Remote participation allowed applicants to retain the attorney they believed was best qualified, regardless of location.
The new policy may force applicants to choose between:
specialized counsel located elsewhere; or
local counsel who can attend without substantial travel expenses.
For many immigrants, that is a significant change.
Lower-Income Immigrants May Be Affected Most
The burden is unlikely to fall equally.
Wealthier applicants may absorb the added costs.
Middle-income families may struggle but proceed.
Many lower-income immigrants may simply decide they cannot afford attorney attendance.
This creates an access-to-justice concern.
The right technically remains available.
The practical ability to exercise that right becomes more difficult.
Why Asylum Cases Raise Special Concerns
The impact may be particularly significant in affirmative asylum cases.
Asylum interviews frequently involve:
trauma survivors;
language barriers;
credibility determinations;
complex country-condition evidence;
vulnerable applicants.
Attorneys often help:
clarify misunderstandings;
ensure accurate interpretation;
organize evidence;
protect procedural fairness.
Many asylum applicants rely on nonprofit organizations and pro bono counsel operating under limited budgets.
Requiring physical attendance may force some organizations to reduce participation because of travel costs and staffing limitations.
The Efficiency Problem
Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the policy is that it appears difficult to justify from an efficiency perspective.
For decades, government agencies have embraced technology to reduce costs and improve access.
Federal courts routinely conduct proceedings remotely.
Immigration courts increasingly utilize video technology.
USCIS encourages:
online filing;
electronic communication;
digital case management.
Telephonic attorney appearances generally:
reduce travel costs;
improve scheduling flexibility;
increase access to counsel;
conserve resources;
reduce barriers to representation.
The new policy eliminates many of those benefits.
A Policy That Increases Costs for Everyone
The policy shifts costs from the government to applicants.
Instead of a lawyer participating by telephone, clients may now pay for:
airfare;
hotel expenses;
transportation costs;
attorney travel time.
The policy also imposes costs on attorneys.
A lawyer who previously devoted one hour to a telephonic interview may now spend an entire day traveling.
Those hours cannot be spent:
meeting clients;
preparing cases;
attending hearings;
filing motions.
Those costs are often reflected in legal fees.
USCIS May Also Lose Efficiency
Experienced attorneys often make interviews more efficient.
Counsel frequently helps:
organize evidence;
narrow issues;
explain legal questions;
prevent misunderstandings;
facilitate communication.
When counsel cannot attend because travel costs are prohibitive, officers may spend more time addressing confusion, requesting additional evidence, or conducting follow-up review.
The policy may therefore increase administrative burdens rather than reduce them.
What Problem Is USCIS Trying to Solve?
A fair question remains unanswered.
USCIS has not publicly identified evidence demonstrating that telephonic attorney participation was causing:
fraud;
attorney misconduct;
operational failures;
significant delays;
reduced adjudicative quality.
Without a clearly articulated problem, critics may reasonably ask why the agency chose to impose additional costs and burdens on applicants.
Is This Part of a Larger Trend?
Viewed in isolation, the policy may appear minor.
Viewed alongside other recent developments—including expanded vetting, increased scrutiny of immigration benefits, heightened fraud investigations, and broader discretionary review frameworks—some observers see a larger pattern.
The telephonic-attendance policy does not eliminate any legal right.
But it arguably increases the burden of exercising one.
Critics contend that the cumulative effect of these policies is to make immigration benefits more expensive, more procedurally demanding, and more difficult to obtain.
Richard Herman’s Analysis
The most important question is not whether immigrants still have the right to legal representation.
They do.
The more important question is whether that right remains meaningfully accessible.
For decades, Congress, DHS regulations, USCIS procedures, federal administrative law, the Board of Immigration Appeals, and federal courts have all recognized that attorneys help protect against governmental error.
Technology made it possible for immigrants to access qualified counsel regardless of geography.
The new USCIS policy moves against that trend.
It increases costs.
It increases barriers.
It reduces flexibility.
And it may make specialized representation more difficult to obtain.
For some applicants, the change will be inconvenient.
For others, it may determine whether an attorney is physically present during one of the most important interactions they will ever have with the federal government.
Ultimately, the debate is not about whether the right to counsel still exists.
The debate is about whether meaningful access to that right should depend on an immigrant’s ability to pay for an attorney’s airplane ticket.
Frequently Asked Questions About USCIS’s New Attorney Attendance Policy
Does USCIS still allow attorneys at immigration interviews?
Yes. USCIS still allows attorneys and accredited representatives to attend immigration interviews. The policy change does not eliminate the right to legal representation. Instead, USCIS now generally requires attorneys to appear in person rather than participate remotely.
When did the new USCIS attorney attendance policy take effect?
The policy became effective on May 18, 2026. USCIS announced that attorneys and accredited representatives generally may no longer participate remotely in field office interviews, affirmative asylum interviews, and NACARA interviews except in limited circumstances.
What USCIS interviews are affected by the policy?
The policy generally applies to:
Adjustment of Status (I-485) interviews;
Marriage-based green card interviews;
Employment-based green card interviews;
Naturalization (N-400) interviews;
Affirmative asylum interviews;
Certain NACARA interviews.
Can my immigration attorney still participate by telephone?
Possibly, but only in limited circumstances.
USCIS has stated that exceptions may exist, but the agency has not clearly defined:
what circumstances qualify;
how requests should be made;
what evidence may be required;
who decides whether an exception is granted.
Can my attorney participate by video instead of appearing in person?
As a general rule, USCIS now requires in-person attendance. Applicants should not assume that video participation will be approved unless USCIS specifically authorizes an exception.
Why is this policy controversial?
Critics argue that the policy:
increases legal costs;
reduces access to specialized counsel;
requires unnecessary travel;
creates barriers to representation;
undermines efficiency.
Supporters may argue that in-person participation improves consistency and accountability during interviews.
Does the policy eliminate my right to legal representation?
No.
Federal regulations continue to recognize the right to representation before DHS. Applicants may still hire attorneys and accredited representatives to advise them, prepare their cases, submit evidence, and attend interviews.
What regulation protects the right to legal representation before DHS?
The primary regulation is 8 CFR § 292.5(b), which provides that individuals appearing before DHS generally have the right to be represented by an attorney or accredited representative at no expense to the government.
Why is attorney representation important during USCIS interviews?
Attorneys may help:
prepare applicants for questioning;
organize evidence;
clarify legal issues;
address misunderstandings;
protect against inaccurate statements;
respond to officer concerns;
identify potential inadmissibility issues.
In complex cases, attorney participation can significantly affect the outcome.
Will this policy increase immigration legal fees?
In many cases, yes.
Applicants may now be responsible for:
attorney travel time;
airfare;
hotel expenses;
transportation costs;
additional preparation costs.
For some cases, these expenses may increase the overall cost of representation substantially.
Will the policy affect applicants who hire attorneys in other states?
Yes.
The policy may have the greatest impact on applicants represented by attorneys located outside the state where the interview is scheduled.
Previously, telephonic participation allowed applicants to retain specialized counsel regardless of geography.
Now, applicants may need to consider travel expenses when selecting counsel.
Why does this policy affect access to specialized immigration attorneys?
Many immigration attorneys focus on highly specialized areas such as:
EB-1A Extraordinary Ability;
National Interest Waivers;
asylum law;
inadmissibility waivers;
denaturalization defense;
false claims to citizenship;
unlawful voting cases.
Because these attorneys often represent clients nationwide, requiring in-person attendance may make specialized representation more expensive or less accessible.
Did USCIS previously allow remote attorney participation?
Yes.
USCIS previously implemented a pilot program permitting remote attorney participation in certain asylum interviews. The existence of that program has led some observers to question why USCIS reversed course in 2026.
Does the policy affect asylum seekers?
Yes.
The policy applies to affirmative asylum interviews conducted by USCIS.
Many immigration advocates are particularly concerned because asylum interviews often involve:
trauma survivors;
language barriers;
credibility determinations;
vulnerable applicants.
Is the policy part of a broader trend in immigration enforcement?
Some observers believe so.
Critics point to recent developments involving:
increased vetting;
heightened fraud investigations;
expanded discretionary review;
additional interview scrutiny;
more demanding adjudication procedures.
Others view the attorney-attendance policy as a routine procedural change.
Could the policy be challenged in court?
Potentially.
Future challenges could focus on:
administrative law principles;
agency decision-making;
access-to-counsel concerns;
procedural fairness issues.
Whether such challenges will be successful remains uncertain.
Should I hire an attorney for my USCIS interview?
Every case is different.
Attorney representation may be particularly valuable if your case involves:
criminal history;
prior immigration violations;
prior visa denials;
fraud allegations;
false claims to citizenship;
unlawful voting issues;
inadmissibility concerns;
asylum claims;
complex family or employment-based immigration matters.
Applicants facing high-stakes interviews should consider consulting experienced immigration counsel before appearing before USCIS.
Need Help Preparing for a USCIS Interview?
USCIS interviews are becoming more consequential, more discretionary, and more procedurally demanding. If your case involves a green card interview, naturalization interview, asylum interview, prior immigration violations, criminal history, alleged fraud, false claims to citizenship, unlawful voting, or prior denials, experienced legal preparation may be critical.
Herman Legal Group helps immigrants, families, professionals, students, employers, and asylum seekers prepare for high-stakes USCIS interviews nationwide.
Richard T. Herman is a nationally recognized immigration attorney, author, speaker, policy advocate, and founder of Herman Legal Group, the Law Firm for Immigrants. For more than 30 years, he has represented immigrants, families, entrepreneurs, investors, multinational employers, physicians, engineers, students, artists, athletes, and professionals navigating the complexities of U.S. immigration law.
Richard is widely recognized for his work in immigration law, immigrant entrepreneurship, economic development, federal court litigation, and immigration policy. He has built a national reputation for helping clients solve complex immigration challenges while serving as a leading voice on how immigration strengthens America’s economy, workforce, innovation ecosystem, and communities.
National Recognition & Professional Credentials
Richard has earned recognition from some of the legal profession’s most respected organizations, including:
Richard’s immigration law analysis and economic development work have been featured by The New York Times, The Washington Post, NPR, WBUR, CBS News, Forbes, Business Insider, USA Today, and numerous other national and international media organizations.
Selected appearances include:
The New York Times (2025) – As Trump Squeezes the Immigrant Work Force, Employers Seek Relief https://www.nytimes.com/
Forbes – Featured in The Immigrant Connection discussing immigrant entrepreneurship and economic growth https://www.forbes.com/
Author of Immigrant, Inc.
Richard is co-author of the acclaimed book:
Immigrant, Inc.: Why Immigrant Entrepreneurs Are Driving the New Economy (and How They Will Save the American Worker)
The book helped shape national discussions about immigrant entrepreneurship, innovation, workforce development, economic growth, and urban revitalization. Its themes have been cited in academic scholarship, economic development research, public policy discussions, and U.S. Supreme Court amicus briefs.
Richard’s work has been cited and discussed in academic journals, economic development research, public policy publications, and U.S. Supreme Court filings.
Civic Leadership, Nonprofit Service & Economic Development
Richard is widely regarded as a pioneer of immigration-based economic development in America’s Rust Belt. His work has focused on helping communities attract talent, support entrepreneurs, revitalize neighborhoods, strengthen local economies, and create American jobs.
Throughout his career, Richard has served in leadership, advisory, and board roles for organizations dedicated to immigrant integration, economic development, access to justice, entrepreneurship, international engagement, and civic advancement.
His leadership includes:
Co-founder of Global Cleveland
Founding advisor to Global Detroit
Co-founder of TiE Ohio
Former Civil Rights Director of LULAC Ohio
Former Trustee of the Legal Aid Society of Cleveland
Former Trustee of the Cuyahoga County Bar Association
Board and advisory involvement with nonprofit, economic development, and international affairs organizations throughout Ohio and the Midwest
Richard has delivered keynote presentations, university lectures, economic development forums, chamber of commerce programs, and policy discussions throughout the United States.
Most notably, Richard was selected by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Partnership for a New American Economy (PNAE) to speak at chambers of commerce, economic development organizations, and business forums nationwide regarding the economic benefits of immigration. Through these engagements, he helped educate civic and business leaders on how welcoming immigrants can strengthen local economies, create American jobs, attract investment, address workforce shortages, and improve regional competitiveness.
Richard has written extensively on immigration law, immigrant entrepreneurship, economic development, workforce strategy, public policy, and global competitiveness.
Herman Legal Group serves clients nationwide and around the world in family immigration, employment immigration, investor visas, citizenship and naturalization, removal defense, federal court litigation, waivers, asylum, humanitarian relief, and complex immigration matters.
USCIS’s New Signature Rule: Can USCIS Deny Your Immigration Case Over a Signature Mistake?
Updated June 12, 2026
The USCIS Signature Rule 2026 introduces significant changes to the signature requirements for immigration filings.
Key Takeaways
USCIS may now deny, not merely reject, an immigration filing if it later determines that the filing contains an invalid signature.
The new rule takes effect on July 10, 2026.
USCIS may retain filing fees following a denial based on an invalid signature.
Scanned copies of original handwritten signatures generally remain acceptable.
The rule affects family-based petitions, employment-based petitions, adjustment of status applications, naturalization applications, waivers, humanitarian filings, and Form G-28 filings.
Immigration attorneys, employers, petitioners, and applicants should immediately review signature collection procedures.
The Bottom Line
For years, many applicants assumed that once USCIS accepted a filing and issued a receipt notice, signature-related issues were behind them.
That assumption may no longer be safe.
Beginning July 10, 2026, under the USCIS Signature Rule 2026, USCIS may reject or deny an immigration benefit request if the agency later determines that the filing lacks a valid signature. In some situations, USCIS may keep the filing fees, deny the application, and require the applicant to start over.
The new rule raises the stakes for what many previously considered a routine administrative requirement.
For immigrants, families, employers, and attorneys, signature compliance should now be treated as a critical component of every immigration filing.
Understanding the USCIS Signature Rule 2026 is crucial for compliance and successful immigration filings.
What Is the New USCIS Signature Rule?
On May 11, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security published an Interim Final Rule entitled “Signatures on Immigration Benefit Requests.”
The regulation amends existing USCIS rules governing signatures on immigration forms, petitions, and applications.
Historically, USCIS frequently rejected filings during intake if required signatures were missing or defective.
However, questions remained regarding what USCIS could do if a signature issue was discovered after the filing had already been accepted and receipted.
The new rule resolves that uncertainty.
USCIS now expressly states that it may reject or deny a filing if the agency later determines that the filing lacks a valid signature.
In practical terms, a case could survive intake review, receive a receipt notice, enter adjudication, and still be denied months later because USCIS concludes that the signature was invalid.
Why Did DHS and USCIS Issue This Rule?
According to DHS, USCIS has experienced a significant increase in questionable signature practices.
The agency cited concerns involving:
copied signature images;
unauthorized signatures;
improper electronic signature practices;
repeated use of identical signatures across multiple filings;
increased litigation and administrative appeals involving signature disputes.
DHS concluded that stronger enforcement authority was necessary to preserve the integrity of the immigration system and reduce opportunities for fraud.
Why Is This Rule So Important?
The answer lies in the difference between a rejection and a denial.
Rejection
A rejection generally means:
USCIS does not accept the filing;
the case is not adjudicated;
filing fees are often returned;
the applicant may correct the issue and refile.
Denial
A denial generally means:
USCIS adjudicates the filing;
filing fees may be retained;
new filing fees may be required;
priority dates may be affected;
additional delays may occur;
appeals or motions may become necessary.
For applicants pursuing green cards, employment authorization, citizenship, waivers, or humanitarian relief, the consequences can be significant.
Which Immigration Cases Are Affected?
The new signature rule potentially affects nearly every filing submitted to USCIS.
Examples include:
Form I-130 Petition for Alien Relative;
Form I-485 Adjustment of Status;
Form I-765 Employment Authorization;
Form I-131 Travel Documents;
Form I-129 Employment Petitions;
Form I-140 Immigrant Worker Petitions;
Form I-751 Removal of Conditions;
Form N-400 Naturalization Applications;
Form I-601 Waivers;
Form I-601A Provisional Waivers;
asylum-related filings;
humanitarian applications and petitions.
Individuals pursuing permanent residence should also review Herman Legal Group’s guides on:
The rule has important implications for immigration lawyers and law firms.
Attorneys routinely submit:
Form G-28;
Form I-130;
Form I-485;
Form I-129;
Form I-140;
Form N-400;
waiver applications;
humanitarian filings.
USCIS expects attorneys to ensure that clients properly execute all required signatures before filing.
As scrutiny increases, law firms should maintain records demonstrating that the client personally reviewed and signed the forms submitted to USCIS.
Does This Rule Apply to Form G-28?
Absolutely.
Form G-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Accredited Representative, requires signatures from both the attorney and the client.
A defective G-28 may create issues not only regarding representation but potentially regarding the validity of the underlying immigration filing itself.
Given the widespread use of remote representation, immigration law firms should carefully review signature collection and retention procedures.
Are Scanned Signatures Still Acceptable?
Yes.
This is one of the most misunderstood aspects of the rule.
The regulation does not eliminate USCIS’s longstanding acceptance of scanned copies of original handwritten signatures.
USCIS continues to recognize:
scanned copies of original wet-ink signatures;
photocopies of originally signed forms;
faxed copies of originally signed forms.
USCIS guidance regarding signatures is available in the:
For most immigration practitioners, this means that existing remote-signature workflows remain viable if they involve genuine original signatures that are later scanned and transmitted.
What Types of Signatures May Be Considered Invalid?
Although each case will depend on its facts, USCIS has identified several problematic practices.
Copy-and-Paste Signatures
One concern involves signature images copied from prior documents and pasted onto new filings.
USCIS distinguishes this practice from a scanned copy of an originally executed signature page.
Unauthorized Signatures
A spouse, employer, attorney, friend, or family member generally cannot sign on behalf of an applicant unless specifically authorized by law.
Signature Stamps
Rubber-stamp signatures generally remain problematic and may trigger additional scrutiny.
Improper Electronic Signatures
Certain electronic signature practices may not satisfy USCIS requirements for paper-filed forms.
Applicants should ensure that any electronic signature method complies with current USCIS guidance.
Will USCIS Give Applicants a Chance to Fix the Problem?
Not necessarily.
One of the most important aspects of the new rule is what it does not require.
The regulation does not create a mandatory cure period.
In other words, USCIS may not be required to issue:
a Request for Evidence (RFE);
a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID);
a request for a corrected signature.
Instead, USCIS may proceed directly to rejection or denial.
Applicants should therefore avoid assuming that a signature defect can always be corrected later.
What Should Immigration Lawyers Do Immediately?
Immigration law firms should review internal procedures now.
Recommended practices include:
Maintain Original Signature Records
Keep evidence showing that the client personally executed the document.
Audit Remote Signature Procedures
Review how signatures are obtained, stored, and transmitted.
Train Staff
Ensure that paralegals, legal assistants, and administrative personnel understand the distinction between a valid scanned original signature and an improperly copied signature image.
Review Every Filing
Verify:
applicant signatures;
petitioner signatures;
interpreter certifications;
preparer certifications;
attorney signatures;
Form G-28 signatures.
Preserve Signed Copies
Maintain complete electronic records of all signed submissions.
What Should Immigration Applicants Do Right Now?
Step 1: Personally Review Every Form
Carefully review all information before signing.
Step 2: Personally Sign Every Required Form
Do not permit another individual to sign for you unless specifically authorized.
Step 3: Keep Copies
Maintain copies of every signed document submitted to USCIS.
Step 4: Review Signature Pages Carefully
Many filing problems arise from omitted pages, missing signatures, or signing the wrong version of a form.
Step 5: Work With Qualified Counsel
Complex immigration cases benefit from careful legal review before filing.
Richard Herman’s Analysis
The significance of this rule extends well beyond signatures.
The broader message from USCIS is clear:
Technical compliance matters.
Over the past several years, USCIS has increasingly emphasized:
filing integrity;
fraud prevention;
documentary compliance;
procedural requirements;
discretionary review;
record verification.
The new signature rule fits squarely within that broader trend.
While most applicants will never experience a signature-related denial, individuals and attorneys should recognize that procedural mistakes now carry greater consequences than they did in the past.
Signature compliance should therefore be treated as a substantive part of case preparation rather than a clerical afterthought.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can USCIS deny my case because of a signature mistake?
Yes. Beginning July 10, 2026, USCIS may deny an immigration filing if it determines that the filing lacks a valid signature.
Are scanned signatures still acceptable?
Generally yes. USCIS continues to recognize scanned copies of original handwritten signatures in many circumstances.
Does this rule apply to Form G-28?
Yes. Both attorneys and clients should ensure that G-28 signatures comply with USCIS requirements.
Will USCIS issue an RFE before denying my case?
Not necessarily. The new regulation does not require USCIS to provide an opportunity to cure every signature defect.
Does the rule affect employment-based immigration cases?
Yes. H-1B petitions, L-1 petitions, O-1 petitions, I-140 petitions, and other employment-based filings may all be affected.
Does the rule affect family-based immigration cases?
Yes. Family petitions, adjustment applications, waivers, and naturalization filings may all be affected.
Can attorneys still use scanned signatures?
Yes. Scanned copies of genuine original signatures generally remain acceptable. The rule primarily targets invalid, unauthorized, or improperly created signatures.
The new USCIS signature rule increases the consequences of technical filing mistakes. A missing, copied, unauthorized, or otherwise invalid signature could now result in rejection, denial, loss of filing fees, and significant delays.
For more than 30 years, Richard Herman and the attorneys at Herman Legal Group have helped immigrants, families, employers, physicians, researchers, entrepreneurs, students, and professionals navigate the U.S. immigration system.
Richard T. Herman is a nationally recognized immigration attorney, author, speaker, policy advocate, and founder of Herman Legal Group, the Law Firm for Immigrants. For more than 30 years, he has represented immigrants, families, entrepreneurs, investors, multinational employers, physicians, engineers, students, artists, athletes, and professionals navigating the complexities of U.S. immigration law.
Richard is widely recognized for his work in immigration law, immigrant entrepreneurship, economic development, federal court litigation, and immigration policy. He has built a national reputation for helping clients solve complex immigration challenges while serving as a leading voice on how immigration strengthens America’s economy, workforce, innovation ecosystem, and communities.
National Recognition & Professional Credentials
Richard has earned recognition from some of the legal profession’s most respected organizations, including:
Richard’s immigration law analysis and economic development work have been featured by The New York Times, The Washington Post, NPR, WBUR, CBS News, Forbes, Business Insider, USA Today, and numerous other national and international media organizations.
Selected appearances include:
The New York Times (2025) – As Trump Squeezes the Immigrant Work Force, Employers Seek Relief https://www.nytimes.com/
Forbes – Featured in The Immigrant Connection discussing immigrant entrepreneurship and economic growth https://www.forbes.com/
Author of Immigrant, Inc.
Richard is co-author of the acclaimed book:
Immigrant, Inc.: Why Immigrant Entrepreneurs Are Driving the New Economy (and How They Will Save the American Worker)
The book helped shape national discussions about immigrant entrepreneurship, innovation, workforce development, economic growth, and urban revitalization. Its themes have been cited in academic scholarship, economic development research, public policy discussions, and U.S. Supreme Court amicus briefs.
Richard’s work has been cited and discussed in academic journals, economic development research, public policy publications, and U.S. Supreme Court filings.
Civic Leadership, Nonprofit Service & Economic Development
Richard is widely regarded as a pioneer of immigration-based economic development in America’s Rust Belt. His work has focused on helping communities attract talent, support entrepreneurs, revitalize neighborhoods, strengthen local economies, and create American jobs.
Throughout his career, Richard has served in leadership, advisory, and board roles for organizations dedicated to immigrant integration, economic development, access to justice, entrepreneurship, international engagement, and civic advancement.
His leadership includes:
Co-founder of Global Cleveland
Founding advisor to Global Detroit
Co-founder of TiE Ohio
Former Civil Rights Director of LULAC Ohio
Former Trustee of the Legal Aid Society of Cleveland
Former Trustee of the Cuyahoga County Bar Association
Board and advisory involvement with nonprofit, economic development, and international affairs organizations throughout Ohio and the Midwest
Richard has delivered keynote presentations, university lectures, economic development forums, chamber of commerce programs, and policy discussions throughout the United States.
Most notably, Richard was selected by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Partnership for a New American Economy (PNAE) to speak at chambers of commerce, economic development organizations, and business forums nationwide regarding the economic benefits of immigration. Through these engagements, he helped educate civic and business leaders on how welcoming immigrants can strengthen local economies, create American jobs, attract investment, address workforce shortages, and improve regional competitiveness.
Richard has written extensively on immigration law, immigrant entrepreneurship, economic development, workforce strategy, public policy, and global competitiveness.
Herman Legal Group serves clients nationwide and around the world in family immigration, employment immigration, investor visas, citizenship and naturalization, removal defense, federal court litigation, waivers, asylum, humanitarian relief, and complex immigration matters.
State Department Plans Major Visa Processing Cuts Across Africa: What Visa Applicants Need to Know
Updated June 11, 2026 – State Department Africa visa processing cuts
A significant change may be coming to U.S. visa processing across Africa.
With the proposed State Department Africa visa processing cuts, many are left wondering how this will impact their ability to travel.
According to reporting by the Associated Press, the U.S. Department of State (DOS) is considering a major restructuring of consular operations that would reduce the number of African posts processing visas from approximately 50 locations to just 20 regional visa-processing hubs.
If implemented, this proposal could become one of the most consequential changes to U.S. consular operations in Africa in decades, affecting family-sponsored immigrants, employment-based immigrants, students, business travelers, tourists, exchange visitors, Diversity Visa winners, and multinational employers.
These State Department Africa visa processing cuts could particularly impact those relying on the Diversity Visa lottery.
Although DOS has not officially confirmed the plan, the reported proposal has generated significant concern among immigration advocates, universities, businesses, and immigrant communities throughout Africa and the United States.
The implications of the State Department Africa visa processing cuts are still being evaluated.
Key Takeaways
DOS reportedly plans to consolidate visa processing in Africa from approximately 50 posts to 20 regional hubs.Many applicants are concerned about the effects of the State Department Africa visa processing cuts.
Applicants in many countries may be required to travel internationally for visa interviews.
Family-based, employment-based, student, visitor, and Diversity Visa applicants could be affected.The State Department Africa visa processing cuts could alter travel plans for many.Many stakeholders are mobilizing in response to the State Department Africa visa processing cuts.
Non-hub embassies would reportedly continue limited services but cease most routine visa adjudications.
Increased travel costs, longer wait times, and additional logistical barriers are likely.
DOS has not formally announced implementation but has acknowledged ongoing evaluation of overseas operations.
The proposal reflects broader 2026 trends toward centralized adjudications and enhanced immigration screening.
These developments regarding the State Department Africa visa processing cuts are critical for upcoming travelers.
What Has Been Reported?
According to the Associated Press, State Department officials discussed the proposal during a May 29, 2026 conference call involving Foreign Service personnel.
Under the reported plan, only 20 designated embassies and consulates would continue routine visa processing throughout Africa.
Other embassies and consulates would remain open but primarily provide:
It’s crucial to understand the ramifications of the State Department Africa visa processing cuts on family reunification.
U.S. citizen services
Passport assistance
Emergency services
Diplomatic visa processing
Certain national-interest matters
Routine immigrant and nonimmigrant visa adjudications would reportedly be transferred to designated regional processing centers.
The ongoing discussions about the State Department Africa visa processing cuts have raised significant awareness among various stakeholders.
As the situation unfolds, the State Department Africa visa processing cuts will be closely monitored by advocates.
The community response to the State Department Africa visa processing cuts has been vocal.
The State Department has not publicly announced the plan. However, a department spokesperson told reporters:
“The Department is constantly evaluating its overseas operations in order to deploy taxpayer resources in a way that advances America’s priorities as efficiently and effectively as possible.”
According to media reports, the following locations would remain full-service visa processing centers.
West Africa
Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire
Accra, Ghana
Dakar, Senegal
Lagos, Nigeria
Lomé, Togo
Monrovia, Liberia
Praia, Cabo Verde
East Africa
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
Djibouti City, DjiboutiThe impact of the State Department Africa visa processing cuts may disproportionately affect students.
Kampala, Uganda
Kigali, Rwanda
Nairobi, Kenya
Central Africa
Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo
Malabo, Equatorial Guinea
Yaoundé, CameroonMany are concerned about the implications of the State Department Africa visa processing cuts for employment opportunity.
Southern Africa
Cape Town, South AfricaTravel costs may rise as a result of the State Department Africa visa processing cuts.
Johannesburg, South Africa
Luanda, Angola
Port Louis, Mauritius
Why This Matters
For many applicants, obtaining a visa interview is already one of the most difficult parts of the immigration process.
Applicants are urged to prepare for potential delays caused by the State Department Africa visa processing cuts.
Reducing the number of processing locations could create substantial new barriers.
Potential consequences include:
Increased international travel expenses
Hotel and transportation costs
Additional visa requirements for transit countries
Longer appointment wait times
Delayed family reunification
Greater logistical complexity
Increased risk of missed academic or employment start dates
For many families, the issue may no longer be eligibility for a visa but access to the interview itself.
Legal advice is essential for navigating the challenges posed by the State Department Africa visa processing cuts.
Impact on Family-Based Immigration
The proposal could significantly affect:
IR-1 and CR-1 spouses
K-1 fiancé visa applicantsThe implications of the State Department Africa visa processing cuts for familial ties cannot be overstated.
Parents of U.S. citizens
Family preference categories
Child immigrants
Many applicants already wait years for priority dates to become current.
After reaching the final stage of the process, applicants could face the additional burden of traveling to another country for medical examinations, interviews, biometrics, and related appointments.
For lower-income families, these expenses may be substantial.
Congress is likely to be engaged in discussions regarding the State Department Africa visa processing cuts.
Impact on Employment-Based Immigration
The proposal could affect:
Increased scrutiny on the State Department Africa visa processing cuts is expected from community leaders.
H-1B professionals
L-1 intracompany transferees
O-1 extraordinary ability applicants
TN professionals
EB-1 immigrants
EB-2 immigrants
EB-3 immigrants
Physicians
Engineers
Technology professionals
Employers increasingly rely on global mobility programs and international recruitment.
Additional interview bottlenecks could delay onboarding, workforce planning, and project implementation.
Impact on F-1 Students and J-1 Exchange Visitors
African students represent a growing segment of international enrollment at U.S. universities.
Students often operate under strict timelines tied to:
University enrollment dates
Research programs
ScholarshipsMany families are preparing for the ramifications of the State Department Africa visa processing cuts.
Housing arrangements
Employment authorization deadlines
If appointment availability becomes concentrated in fewer locations, students may face:
Missed semester start dates
Deferred admissions
Additional travel expenses
Scheduling delaysThe need for transparency regarding the State Department Africa visa processing cuts is critical.Students are particularly affected by the State Department Africa visa processing cuts.
Universities could also experience enrollment disruptions.
Impact on Diversity Visa Winners
The proposal may be particularly challenging for Diversity Visa applicants.
Unlike many immigration categories, Diversity Visa processing operates under strict statutory deadlines.
Legal pathways may be impacted by the State Department Africa visa processing cuts.
Visa numbers expire at the end of the fiscal year.
Any increase in:
interview delays;
appointment shortages;
travel complications;
administrative processing;
could jeopardize an applicant’s ability to receive a visa before the annual deadline.
Why Would DOS Make This Change?
The State Department has not provided a formal explanation because the proposal has not been officially announced.
However, potential justifications may include:
resource consolidation;Stakeholders are rallying against the proposed State Department Africa visa processing cuts.
staffing shortages;
security considerations;
regional specialization;
budgetary priorities;
operational efficiency.
Critics note that consular operations are largely funded through user-paid visa fees rather than direct taxpayer appropriations.
That reality may become a central point of debate if the proposal moves forward.
The full effects of the State Department Africa visa processing cuts are yet to be determined.
Richard Herman’s Analysis
If implemented, this proposal reflects a broader immigration trend that has emerged throughout 2026.
Federal agencies increasingly appear to be emphasizing:
centralized adjudication;
enhanced screening;
expanded vetting procedures;
resource consolidation;
reduced operational footprints abroad.
Whether these measures improve efficiency remains an open question.
Public opinion regarding the State Department Africa visa processing cuts remains divided.
What is clear is that they may shift substantial costs and burdens from the government to visa applicants themselves.
For many immigrants, students, and employers, the practical challenge may become not whether they qualify for a visa—but whether they can reach the embassy or consulate where the interview occurs.
That distinction could become one of the defining immigration access issues of 2026.
Could Critics View the Policy as Discriminatory?
One of the most controversial aspects of the reported proposal is that it affects a continent whose population is overwhelmingly Black and whose countries have historically faced greater barriers to U.S. immigration than many European nations.
Civil rights advocates, immigration scholars, and some foreign policy experts are likely to ask whether reducing visa-processing capacity across Africa sends a troubling message about who is being prioritized in the U.S. immigration system.
The Optics Matter
Critics argue that immigration policy does not operate in a vacuum.
Over the past decade, debates over immigration have frequently intersected with discussions about race, nationality, and global inequality.
Many observers still recall reports that President Donald Trump, during his first administration, referred to certain African and developing nations as “shithole countries,” a remark widely reported by major media outlets and criticized by leaders around the world.
Against that backdrop, a proposal to reduce visa-processing access throughout Africa may inevitably raise questions about whether applicants from African countries are receiving the same level of attention and resources as applicants from wealthier regions.
A Question of Resource Allocation
Critics are examining the impact of the State Department Africa visa processing cuts on social equity.
Supporters of the proposal may argue that the decision is based on operational efficiency, staffing, security considerations, or budgetary priorities rather than race.
Critics, however, may respond that the practical effect is what matters.
If visa applicants from dozens of African countries must travel across borders, incur substantial expenses, and wait longer for interviews while applicants in many European countries continue to enjoy easier access to consular services, some will view the disparity as evidence of unequal treatment.
The concern is not necessarily whether decision-makers intended discrimination, but whether the policy creates disproportionate burdens for a particular population.
The Sweden Comparison
Critics often frame the issue using a simple comparison.
If a visa applicant from a predominantly white European country such as Sweden can access consular services with relatively few logistical barriers, while a similarly situated applicant from an African country must travel internationally, pay additional expenses, obtain transit permissions, and navigate lengthy wait times, questions naturally arise regarding fairness and equal access.
The legal issue may not be whether applicants are treated differently because of race. Rather, the debate may focus on whether government resources are being allocated in a way that systematically creates greater obstacles for certain populations than for others.
The Government’s Likely Response
The ramifications of the State Department Africa visa processing cuts should be discussed in public forums.
The State Department would likely emphasize that consular operations are organized based on operational needs, staffing, security considerations, visa demand, and diplomatic priorities rather than race or ethnicity.
Absent evidence of discriminatory intent, the government would likely characterize the restructuring as an administrative decision designed to improve efficiency and deploy resources more effectively.
Richard Herman’s Response
Whether the proposal is ultimately viewed as a legitimate management decision or as part of a broader pattern of unequal treatment may depend on how it is implemented.
If interview wait times remain reasonable, access to visa services remains meaningful, and applicants can obtain appointments without excessive burdens, concerns may diminish.
However, if applicants throughout Africa face substantially longer delays, higher costs, and fewer opportunities to access visa services than similarly situated applicants in other regions, criticism will likely intensify.
At a minimum, the proposal raises an important policy question:
The State Department Africa visa processing cuts raise critical questions about access.
Should access to U.S. visa processing depend significantly on where an applicant happens to live, particularly when the resulting burdens fall disproportionately on populations that already face economic and logistical disadvantages?
That question is likely to remain part of the debate as additional details emerge.
Many are advocating for a reconsideration of the State Department Africa visa processing cuts.
What Applicants Should Do Right Now
1. Monitor Official State Department Announcements
Changes in consular processing can have profound consequences for immigrants, families, students, employers, and visa applicants.
Whether you are pursuing a family-based immigrant visa, employment-based green card, fiancé visa, student visa, visitor visa, waiver application, or facing delays at a U.S. embassy or consulate, the immigration attorneys at Herman Legal Group closely monitor developments affecting global visa processing.
For more than 30 years, Richard Herman and the Herman Legal Group team have helped individuals, families, professionals, students, and employers navigate complex immigration matters worldwide.
Schedule a consultation with Richard Herman or an experienced Herman Legal Group attorney today.
Richard T. Herman is a nationally recognized immigration attorney, author, speaker, policy advocate, and founder of Herman Legal Group, the Law Firm for Immigrants. For more than 30 years, he has represented immigrants, families, entrepreneurs, investors, multinational employers, physicians, engineers, students, artists, athletes, and professionals navigating the complexities of U.S. immigration law.
Richard is widely recognized for his work in immigration law, immigrant entrepreneurship, economic development, federal court litigation, and immigration policy. He has built a national reputation for helping clients solve complex immigration challenges while serving as a leading voice on how immigration strengthens America’s economy, workforce, innovation ecosystem, and communities.
National Recognition & Professional Credentials
Richard has earned recognition from some of the legal profession’s most respected organizations, including:
Richard’s immigration law analysis and economic development work have been featured by The New York Times, The Washington Post, NPR, WBUR, CBS News, Forbes, Business Insider, USA Today, and numerous other national and international media organizations.
Selected appearances include:
The New York Times (2025) – As Trump Squeezes the Immigrant Work Force, Employers Seek Relief https://www.nytimes.com/
Forbes – Featured in The Immigrant Connection discussing immigrant entrepreneurship and economic growth https://www.forbes.com/
Author of Immigrant, Inc.
Richard is co-author of the acclaimed book:
Immigrant, Inc.: Why Immigrant Entrepreneurs Are Driving the New Economy (and How They Will Save the American Worker)
The book helped shape national discussions about immigrant entrepreneurship, innovation, workforce development, economic growth, and urban revitalization. Its themes have been cited in academic scholarship, economic development research, public policy discussions, and U.S. Supreme Court amicus briefs.
Richard’s work has been cited and discussed in academic journals, economic development research, public policy publications, and U.S. Supreme Court filings.
Civic Leadership, Nonprofit Service & Economic Development
Richard is widely regarded as a pioneer of immigration-based economic development in America’s Rust Belt. His work has focused on helping communities attract talent, support entrepreneurs, revitalize neighborhoods, strengthen local economies, and create American jobs.
Throughout his career, Richard has served in leadership, advisory, and board roles for organizations dedicated to immigrant integration, economic development, access to justice, entrepreneurship, international engagement, and civic advancement.
His leadership includes:
Co-founder of Global Cleveland
Founding advisor to Global Detroit
Co-founder of TiE Ohio
Former Civil Rights Director of LULAC Ohio
Former Trustee of the Legal Aid Society of Cleveland
Former Trustee of the Cuyahoga County Bar Association
Board and advisory involvement with nonprofit, economic development, and international affairs organizations throughout Ohio and the Midwest
Richard has delivered keynote presentations, university lectures, economic development forums, chamber of commerce programs, and policy discussions throughout the United States.
Most notably, Richard was selected by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Partnership for a New American Economy (PNAE) to speak at chambers of commerce, economic development organizations, and business forums nationwide regarding the economic benefits of immigration. Through these engagements, he helped educate civic and business leaders on how welcoming immigrants can strengthen local economies, create American jobs, attract investment, address workforce shortages, and improve regional competitiveness.
Richard has written extensively on immigration law, immigrant entrepreneurship, economic development, workforce strategy, public policy, and global competitiveness.
Herman Legal Group serves clients nationwide and around the world in family immigration, employment immigration, investor visas, citizenship and naturalization, removal defense, federal court litigation, waivers, asylum, humanitarian relief, and complex immigration matters.
Honoring 30 Years of Service
For three decades, we have been proudly serving immigrant communities with compassion and commitment. Thank you for being part of our journey—your trust inspires us every day!
