After the shooting of a U.S. National Guardsman by an immigrant with recent immigration benefits, federal agencies have quietly pushed through immediate administrative restrictions across asylum, marriage-based green cards, adjustment of status, student cases, and third-world immigrant categories.
Post-shooting immigration crackdown includes suspension of asylum decisions, expanded FBI/ICE security background checks, mandatory social media screening, and delayed family petitions without new legislation or public notice. These rapid changes are based on existing executive powers, especially INA 212(f), national security authority, and the Trump v. Hawaii Supreme Court precedent.
Media confirmed a pause on asylum approvals nationwide (AP News).
USCIS background checks expanded, involving FBI and ICE, particularly after biometrics (USCIS Fraud & National Security).
ICE stationed at marriage green card interviews in high-risk cities like San Diego (NBC San Diego).
New Trump calls for a permanent pause on migration from third-world countries following the shooting (Fox News).
Processing times for I-130 family petitions could reach 18–30 months in 2026 (USCIS Processing Tool).
Lawyers report surge in “national security RFEs” requiring social media, tattoos, military records, political documentation (Herman Legal Group).
Background clearance rates dropping from ~92% to under 60% after the incident (TRAC Immigration).
The shooting of a U.S. National Guardsman by an immigrant previously granted immigration relief has produced one of the fastest administrative immigration crackdowns in recent history — without a single vote in Congress, without a formal rule in the Federal Register, and without public input.
Instead, three things are happening:
Internal DHS and USCIS directives to slow, pause, or review decisions
Increased ICE presence at USCIS offices and interviews
National security risk scoring applied to individual immigrant backgrounds
Dozens of journalists have begun tracking how these informal actions are shaping policy. Reporting from Reuters, Politico, AP News, and Newsweek suggests that the pattern is consistent across many field offices.
Immigration attorneys, including multiple lawyers at Herman Legal Group, confirm that cases that would have been approved before the shooting are suddenly being delayed with little explanation except “pending security review.”
This guide documents what is happening now, what risks immigrants face, and how geographic, family, asylum, and third-world identities may affect outcomes.
According to national security briefings and multiple media outlets:
The shooter passed standard USCIS vetting prior to receiving status (a major government embarrassment)
DHS officials publicly admitted to “vetting blind spots”
Federal agencies immediately began internal policy review
National security agencies involved include:
The White House message frames the incident as a national security failure requiring emergency correction.
Unlike prior controversies, such as the 2017 travel ban, this response is happening inside existing cases and process decisions — not through public policy papers.
Below are confirmed changes with sources, attorney anecdotal evidence, and internal case documentation:
Particularly affirmative asylum applications at USCIS Service Centers.
Source: AP News
Every case now runs through multiple national security interfaces before approval.
Source: USCIS Fraud & National Security
This includes history on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X, Telegram, WhatsApp, Signal, and Reddit.
Source: Federal Register
These include Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, and others labeled third-world risk sources.
Source: Fox News
Even benign memberships require explanation.
Source: Cato Institute Immigration
RFEs demand proof of identity, military service, tattoos, political affiliations, social media screenshots.
Source: Herman Legal Group
Especially in California, Arizona, Ohio, Texas, and Virginia.
Source: NBC San Diego
Cases sit in “security review” status for 12–18 months.
Source: USCIS Processing Tool
Countries are automatically ranked higher risk based on FBI indicators.
Source: DHS Counterterrorism
Civil surgeons now reporting “security flags” on routine medicals.
Source: CDC Immigrant Medical Requirements
This turns routine green card cases into multi-agency cases.
Source: Politico
Even cases with U.S. spouses and children reviewed for “unvetted political history.”
Source: Attorney interviews at Herman Legal Group
• Asylum seekers from third-world countries
• TPS applicants filing I-485
• Refugees and humanitarian parolees
• Marriage green card applicants with prior visa overstay
• F-1 students switching to marriage or work status
• Applicants with tattoos, regardless of meaning
• Prior military members, even if conscripted
• Individuals active in political Facebook groups
• Applicants with deleted social media accounts
• Anyone from a country on Trump’s “permanent pause” list
• Afghanistan
• Yemen
• Somalia
• Sudan
• Syria
• Iraq
• Eritrea
• Democratic Republic of Congo
• Pakistan
• I-589 (asylum)
• I-485 marriage adjustment
• I-130 spouse petitions
• I-765 work authorization renewals
• I-131 travel advance parole
• I-140 filings with foreign charity work
• San Diego USCIS
Three things make this immediate policy shift legal:
Allows the President to block entry or restrict decisions for any national security reason.
USCIS officers may delay, deny, or refer cases if there is any suspicion of possible risk.
Source: USCIS Policy Manual
The Court upheld national security migration suspensions.
Source: Supreme Court Opinion
This means:
• Laws do not need to change
• Congress does not need to act
• Agencies can slowdown approvals
All under “national security” or “algorithmic risk scoring.”
| Category | Typical 2024 Timeline | New Estimate 2025–26 |
|---|---|---|
| Affirmative Asylum | 270 days | Suspended / undefined |
| Marriage-based I-485 | 11.5 months | 18–30+ months |
| I-130 Spousal Petition | 9 months | 14–22 months |
| Security Background Clearance | 92% | 55–60% |
| I-765 EAD Renewal | 4 months | 7–11 months |
| I-131 Advance Parole | 5 months | 10–15 months |
| Trigger | Before | Now |
|---|---|---|
| Tattoo documentation | Rare | Standard |
| Social media screenshots | Rare | Standard |
| Political party affiliation | Rare | Common |
| Military service papers | Case-by-case | Mandatory |
| Past religious membership | Not tracked | Tracked |
| Deleted accounts | Ignored | Flagged |
Q1. Are asylum decisions really suspended?
Yes. Multiple news agencies report internal DHS instructions delaying affirmative asylum decisions.
Q2. Who is most at risk under the new crackdown?
Third-world nationals, especially from Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and Sudan.
Q3. Can USCIS legally delay decisions indefinitely?
Yes, under national security review authority and INA 212(f).
Q4. Is visa overstay still forgivable in marriage cases?
Yes, but officers now apply security RFEs in addition to standard relationship evidence.
Q5. How will this affect I-130 petitions?
Expect longer timelines and more documents required for nationality, military history, and ideology.
Q6. Could ICE show up at a marriage interview?
Yes. Lawyers at HLG have confirmed ICE presence in San Diego, Cleveland, Phoenix, Fairfax and other cities.
Q7. What documents trigger national security RFEs now?
Tattoo photos, deleted social media profiles, online political support, prior military service.
Q8. Should immigrants delete social media?
No. Deletion is a red flag indicating concealment.
Q9. Should immigrants translate foreign posts?
Yes. Officers prefer English explanations of foreign posts.
Q10. Are religious group memberships reviewed?
Yes. USCIS flags political religious groups.
Q11. Will pending EAD work permits slow down?
Yes, especially if nationality matches a high-risk country list.
Q12. Will USCIS do surprise background checks?
Yes. They now re-run checks after biometrics.
Q13. Are U.S. citizen spouses protected from ICE?
No. ICE can detain non-citizen spouses even if the U.S. spouse is present.
Q14. Are overstays criminal?
No. They are civil violations, not crimes.
Q15. Could someone be arrested at a USCIS office?
Yes. Documented multiple times in San Diego cases.
Q16. Does having a clean record help?
Not always. The crackdown is nationality-based, not conduct-based.
Q17. Can I request a video interview instead of in-person?
Sometimes, but USCIS often denies requests during security review cases.
Q18. Can an attorney attend the marriage interview?
Yes, and it is strongly recommended.
Q19. Should I bring a lawyer to biometrics?
Usually not required, but contact an attorney if nationality is “flagged.”
Q20. Will asylum seekers face travel restrictions?
Yes. Advance parole approvals will take longer.
Q21. Could USCIS hold my passport?
Sometimes during security investigations.
Q22. Is it safer to delay filing?
No. Filing early creates priority date protection.
Q23. What information should families collect now?
Social media logs, tattoo documentation, military discharge papers, voting records, religious affiliation history.
Q24. How long might the crackdown last?
Likely through 2026, especially during national security statements by the administration.
Q25. Should I talk to an attorney before filing anything?
Yes. Legal strategy matters more than ever in post-shooting national security cases.
This incident has created a fast-moving political opening for more aggressive national security immigration restrictions. Based on recent statements from administration officials, legal authority under INA 212(f), and precedent from the 2017–2020 travel bans, analysts expect new executive orders, memoranda, or DHS operational directives that could appear within days or weeks.
Below are realistic scenarios immigration lawyers should be preparing for now.
Multiple major outlets — including Fox News, Newsweek, and Politico — have reported internal discussions about broadening the list of “high-risk countries.”
For context:
The 2017 travel ban included seven majority-Muslim countries
The 2020 expanded ban added Nigeria, Myanmar, Eritrea, Tanzania, Sudan, Kyrgyzstan
Analysts believe a new list could include:
Afghanistan
Yemen
Somalia
Syria
Iraq
Sudan
Pakistan
DRC (Congo)
Haiti
Authority: INA 212(f)
Connection: national security vetting failure
This could take effect instantly, with no comment period.
A realistic next move: DHS may formally suspend approvals and restart asylum vetting criteria.
Very likely:
A secret USCIS memo to asylum offices
National security scoring algorithm updates
Internal directive to “delay adjudication until new vetting is complete”
This already appears to be occurring informally according to AP News and interviews with attorneys at Herman Legal Group.
USCIS already proposed reviewing social media identifiers via Federal Register.
We could soon see:
Specific platforms flagged (Telegram, WhatsApp, Signal)
Required submission of screen captures
Requests for deleted social media history
Likely to affect:
Asylum (I-589)
Marriage adjustment (I-485)
TPS adjustment cases
Student status changes (F-1 to marriage / H-1B)
This would mirror Trump-era Presidential Proclamations and may be published by:
DHS
DOJ National Security Division
DOS Visa Security Unit
Model: similar to the Visa Security Program referenced on DHS.gov
Possible implementation:
Applicants from specific countries automatically placed into security hold
Case status: “pending further review”
Rather than a blanket ban, analysts expect something like:
Restriction on new entries
Limitation on adjustment of status for nationals of flagged countries
Temporary halt on refugee and parole programs
Modeled closely on travel bans upheld by the Supreme Court in Trump v. Hawaii (Supreme Court Opinion).
We are already seeing this in:
San Diego
Expect:
DHS to “formalize” ICE deployment to USCIS marriage interviews
Guidance for sudden detention immediately after the interview
Internal HLG documentation confirms these setups in recent cases:
USCIS currently uses discretion to deny without issuing an NTA (Notice to Appear).
A new directive could:
Require NTAs in all denied “high-risk” cases
Send more families directly into removal proceedings
Expect this especially for:
Marriage cases involving overstay
Husbands/wives trying to fix status through U.S. spouses
Applicants from flagged countries
Attorney defensive strategy will shift to:
Preemptive evidence gathering
Spouse affidavits
Security history documentation
Emergency representation planning
RFEs are already exploding, but you could soon see new standardized questions, including:
“Provide screenshots of all public social media linked to applicant”
“Explain meaning of tattoo and origin of symbol”
“List organizations the applicant has belonged to since age 14”
“List positions held in any youth political groups”
HLG is preparing a tattoo explanation packet structure for clients (internal HLG template available).
This is similar to post-9/11 internal reforms.
Track 1:
U.S. spouses
Western Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea
Track 2:
Middle East
Central Africa
South Asia
Latin America hotspots
Eastern Europe (select cases)
Reference model:
Likely plaintiffs:
ACLU
Human Rights First
American Immigration Council
National Immigration Law Center
Likely legal arguments:
Equal protection
Due process (lack of notice and rule-making)
APA (Administrative Procedure Act) violations
This mirrors litigation strategy after Travel Ban 1.0 and Travel Ban 2.0.
If you or a loved one has a pending immigration case and worries about national security delays, RFEs, or ICE presence at interviews, legal strategy is essential. Herman Legal Group has represented immigrants for over 30 years, including high-risk national security cases, asylum cases from conflict regions, and marriage-based adjustment cases involving ICE detention warnings.
Contact us to create a customized security-aware immigration strategy:
Book a Consultation
Marriage Immigration Defense Strategy
USCIS
DHS
Federal Register
ICE Locator
TRAC Immigration Data
FBI National Security
EOIR Practice Manual
Reuters
AP News
Politico
Fox News
Newsweek
NPR
Book a Legal Strategy Session
USCIS Marriage Interview Arrests 2026
Quiet War on Marriage Green Cards
Why ICE Is Waiting at Marriage Interviews
I-485 Marriage Green Card Timeline
I-130 Petition Guide
Know Your Rights Card
Asylum Denials and Delays
Start with these Herman Legal Group investigations documenting the arrests at USCIS marriage interviews — including those in San Diego involving couples with no criminal records:
Yes.
ICE can arrest you at your green card marriage interview even if you overstayed just a few days or weeks — and recent documented cases prove they do.
Throughout 2025–2026, reporters, attorneys, and families have confirmed that ICE detained multiple marriage-based green card applicants in San Diego, including:
- People with clean backgrounds
- No criminal convictions
- No prior immigration violations beyond a short overstay
- Genuine marriages to U.S. citizens
- Couples who brought children and newborns to the interview
The San Diego field office is now widely recognized — including by NBC San Diego, AP, and Reuters — as a national hotspot where ICE is positioned inside or adjacent to USCIS interview spaces.
The new enforcement environment means that even minor overstays now appear in DHS systems as “removability triggers,” and ICE is making arrests during interviews that used to be safe.
This article provides the complete 2026 guide to the risk.
For more than a decade, marriage-based adjustment interviews for couples involving small overstays were considered routine, safe, and predictable.
USCIS adjudicators focused on whether the marriage was real — not on punishing technical status violations.
But starting late 2024 and accelerating through 2025–2026, a series of high-profile arrests in San Diego — covered by NBC San Diego, India Today, NDTV, and other outlets — changed everything.
San Diego suddenly became:
What shocked attorneys and families was this:
➤ The people being arrested in San Diego were the lowest-risk immigration category in America.
They were:
Yet ICE detained them during a routine interview.
These San Diego arrests forced attorneys nationwide to rethink the risks of even minor overstays.
This article integrates:
It is the most comprehensive 2026 resource for overstays facing marriage interviews.
| Overstay Length | USCIS View (2025–26) | ICE View (2025–26) | Arrest Risk Level | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1–14 days | Historically forgiven | Unlawful presence = arrest authority | Low → Medium | San Diego has shown arrest is still possible |
| 15–30 days | Slightly higher scrutiny | Matches ICE “removability” queue | Medium → High | Multiple San Diego cases involved 2–3 week overstays |
| 30–180 days | Bumps into inadmissibility concerns | ICE highly responsive | High | Known trigger zone in San Diego/Houston |
| 180+ days | 3/10-year bars apply | Strong ICE interest | Very High | Worst-case scenario offices: San Diego, Miami |
2010–2014:
2015–2017:
2018–2020:
2021–2024:
Late 2024 – Mid 2025:
2025–2026:
Multiple outlets reported that the first wave of ICE arrests of clean family-based applicants began at the San Diego USCIS Field Office.
San Diego couples reported:
San Diego became the bellwether:
“If it can happen there, it can happen anywhere.”
Confirmed ICE presence in:
San Diego cases show that DHS systems generated “unlawful presence” alerts even when:
In San Diego interviews:
DHS began using family-based cases as:
San Diego was selected as a pilot environment.
Many immigrants believe:
The San Diego arrests disproved all of these.
San Diego cases demonstrate ICE will use this authority:
But if ICE arrests you in the San Diego field office:
This is the legal foundation ICE used in San Diego detentions:
San Diego changed that.
In 2025, ICE began arresting people whose:
San Diego broke the historical norm.
San Diego became a prototype because it is:
After San Diego arrests went public, similar patterns may appear in:
HLG attorneys observed:
San Diego is referenced repeatedly because it is the proof-of-concept for the 2025–2026 national enforcement model.
Yes — even ideal cases were arrested.
If you checked yes to ANY of the above, your risk increases — and arriving with an attorney (or having one on standby) becomes essential.
(This section gets heavily reshared on Reddit and immigrant WhatsApp groups.)
Carry this on paper to your interview.
Say ONLY:
“I wish to remain silent. I want to speak to my attorney.”
Herman Legal Group
216-696-6170
Book a consultation:
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/book-consultation/
Name: ____________________
Phone: ____________________
Your spouse should immediately gather:
This section strengthens GEO SEO and hyperlocal targeting.
Based on 2024–2026 field reports, attorney cases, and media coverage, these cities have elevated risk of ICE arrest during marriage interviews.
San Diego is the proof-of-concept DHS used to scale this enforcement model elsewhere.
HLG attorneys report:
Applicants with no criminal records detained in:
Not speculation — confirmed by clients.
USCIS questions one spouse while ICE watches.
At least two San Diego cases.
Including babies in carriers.
Many spouses left without information.
Claiming “failure to appear for follow-up interview.”
In San Diego cases, couples were detained after being unable to answer:
Applicants told: “This is what happens when you violate status.”
Some USCIS officers privately told couples:
“I’m sorry — ICE is here today.”
ICE prevents attorneys from entering back hallways.
Some detained San Diego applicants waited weeks.
Yes. San Diego cases show ICE has arrested applicants with overstays under 30 days.
San Diego arrests involved real marriages.
San Diego arrests involved clean records.
Legally, no.
ICE and USCIS share facility infrastructure; San Diego was chosen as a pilot enforcement site.
Yes — several cases reported.
Queens and Newark have shown elevated risk.
It does not protect you; arrests have occurred in front of children.
Yes.
No. USCIS cannot interfere with ICE enforcement.
Yes; some cases involve detention in the parking lot.
ICE does not distinguish reasons.
Yes. ICE behaves differently when counsel is present.
No automatic protection.
Yes, but it does not eliminate ICE interest.
USCIS will not disclose ICE presence.
Risk increases.
Still counted as unlawful presence.
Not relevant to ICE’s authority.
DHS monitors flagged cases.
Usually no, because you entered legally — but removal proceedings will begin.
Days to weeks.
Often no.
Varies by facility.
It complicates it significantly but may still be winnable.
Varies by judge, allegations, and ICE’s stance.
Never withdraw without attorney advice.
Yes, legally.
No.
Not necessarily a protection.
No; U.S. citizens are never detained.
You may assert the right to remain silent.
Yes — for other issues.
DHS may see multiple violations.
Yes — but you cannot rely on this.
Yes — confirmed arrests of clean cases.
Yes.
Yes.
Significantly.
Yes — through FDNS.
Yes — post-2024 policy changed.
You won’t, until they appear.
Yes (passport copies, marriage proof, lawyer contacts).
Yes — if approval is not yet stamped.
Yes.
No — backlog may take years.
They may not answer.
Answer truthfully but carefully.
Yes — inconsistencies lead to FDNS escalation.
Yes, though uncommon.
Yes, indirectly.
Yes.
Not until USCIS approves the case.
Usually not productive.
Do NOT sign anything.
Officers may mislead during questioning.
Do not sign.
Yes.
Not in 2025–2026.
Have an attorney prepared to intervene before the interview.
(These outlets specifically covered arrests at USCIS interviews, including San Diego cases.)
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/
https://www.pewresearch.org/topic/immigration-migration/
https://www.cato.org/research/immigration
https://www.fwd.us/immigration/
Starting in 2026, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will expand its collection of social media identifiers from almost all immigrant applicants—including visa applicants, green card applicants, asylum seekers, and even citizenship applicants.
Under the federal government’s digital-identity initiative in Executive Order 14161, DHS, USCIS, the State Department, CBP, and ICE will analyze:
- Usernames
- Past usernames
- Linked accounts
- Photos, comments, likes, and shares
- Political posts
- Tags from friends
- Cross-platform metadata
To protect yourself, schedule a confidential digital-footprint review:
Schedule a Consultation
| Topic | Details |
|---|---|
| Rule Name | DHS Social Media Identifier Expansion Rule |
| Legal Authority | Executive Order 14161 |
| Agencies Involved | DHS, USCIS, U.S. Department of State, CBP, ICE |
| Expected Start | 2026 |
| Forms Impacted | DS-160, DS-260, I-485, I-130A, N-400, I-589, I-765 |
| What Must Be Disclosed | All social media identifiers used within a specified window |
| Risk Level | High |
| Recommended Action | Pre-filing social media review |
The Department of Homeland Security is preparing to launch one of the largest digital-vetting expansions in U.S. immigration history.
Beginning in 2026, DHS and the U.S. Department of State will require immigrants to disclose:
This expansion is part of the federal government’s broader digital identity project under Executive Order 14161, requiring immigration agencies to use social media to verify identity, detect fraud, and screen for “risk indicators.”
Internal HLG resources you should link throughout the article:
“Social media is now part of your immigration file. DHS is evaluating your digital life alongside your immigration forms. Preparation and consistency matter more than ever.”
DHS and the State Department will embed expanded social media screening into:
Official regulatory information:
Federal Register Notice
Under Executive Order 14161, DHS must integrate online identity verification into immigration adjudications.
DHS claims it needs this information to:
This aligns with DHS’s broader “continuous vetting” programs and automated risk-scoring models.
1 – Minimal
2 – Low
3 – Moderate
4 – High
5 – Extreme (asylum, activists, journalists, dissidents)
Social media inconsistencies can lead to RFEs, NOIDs, or Stokes interviews.
Resource: Marriage Green Card Guide
LinkedIn employment claims must match SEVIS records.
Resource: F-1 Visa Guide
Job duties, employer, or skills posted online must match the LCA and H-1B petition.
Resource: H-1B Visa Guide
Political or activist content is often reviewed in depth.
Resource: Asylum Guide
Online communication patterns may be scrutinized.
Ohio cities most affected:
Local office links:
Our digital-footprint review includes:
Schedule a confidential review:
Schedule a Consultation
DHS uses:
These tools create a digital identity profile that can impact your immigration case.
| Feature | Herman Legal Group | Boundless/RapidVisa | Notarios |
|---|---|---|---|
| Licensed Attorneys | ✔ | ✘ | ✘ |
| Social Media Review | ✔ | ✘ | ✘ |
| RFE/NOID Defense | ✔ | Limited | ✘ |
| Ohio Knowledge | ✔ | ✘ | ✘ |
| Fraud Protection | High | Low | None |
Resource: Why Hire an Immigration Lawyer
It is a new 2026 requirement for immigrants to disclose all social media identifiers across multiple platforms so DHS and the State Department can perform digital identity checks.
See full analysis:
Executive Order 14161 Analysis
Virtually all:
Yes. Deleted posts often remain in:
You must report them. USCIS treats omissions as potential misrepresentation.
Private messages can be accessed during:
List all accounts you reasonably believe you controlled.
If unsure, schedule a review:
Schedule a Consultation
Yes. DHS, USCIS, and CBP now use:
Yes. It is authorized under:
Yes, for certain visa and immigrant categories if they maintain social media accounts.
Indirectly, yes. While I-90 does not ask for social media, DHS uses continuous vetting.
Yes. Tagged content is frequently misinterpreted.
Yes — these can be interpreted as endorsements or associations.
Yes. Group membership is considered a “digital association.”
Absolutely. Algorithms often misread jokes, satire, memes, or cultural expression.
Yes, typically with automated translation tools that may miss nuance.
Yes — especially for:
Yes — especially for asylum, security, and N-400 “good moral character.”
Yes — even if posts were jokes or reposts.
Yes. Video-based content is increasingly used in identity checks.
If they were ever public or shared, copies may exist.
DHS checks for:
Yes — inconsistencies can trigger heightened marriage fraud suspicion.
Posts about timelines, relationships, or prior relationships can raise RFEs.
Online job posts must match SEVIS-approved work.
Resource: F-1 / OPT Guide
LinkedIn job titles must match the H-1B petition and LCA.
See: H-1B Visa Guide
Significantly — political posts, activism, and online affiliations are heavily scrutinized.
See: Asylum Application Guide
Yes — DHS may review communication patterns and relationship evidence online.
DACA renewals involve background checks that can incorporate digital data.
Potentially, through background screening and continuous vetting.
Yes — social media may be reviewed for:
Do not mass-delete anything without legal guidance.
Deleting may appear like concealment.
No. Sudden disappearance of accounts can be a red flag.
You must still disclose all past identifiers.
This depends; get legal advice:
Schedule a Consultation
Not before ensuring consistency with your immigration filings.
Privacy settings do not prevent government access during vetting.
Yes — set tagging approval and ask friends to avoid problematic tags.
Carefully — changes must not appear evasive.
Not without legal review.
This may look like you’re hiding older accounts.
These can trigger:
Even retweets or reposts can trigger review.
Different anniversaries or partner mentions from the past may confuse USCIS.
H-1B cases fail when LinkedIn contradicts the LCA.
Often classified as “risk indicators.”
Frequently misinterpreted.
May affect good moral character.
Can still be treated as part of your “digital identity.”
Major red flag.
For example:
“I’m moving to the U.S. forever!”
Yes — CBP and ICE use face-matching tools.
Yes — DHS correlates phone numbers with accounts.
Yes — geolocation metadata is increasingly used.
Yes — numerous private vendors supply social media data.
Some categories (asylum, refugees, employment visas) undergo ongoing vetting.
Often yes — through device fingerprints, IP data, and linked profiles.
Yes — especially for asylum and security screening.
Yes — VPN patterns may be flagged as identity obfuscation.
Yes — these can reveal inconsistent timelines.
If they were re-shared or archived externally, yes.
Yes — Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati USCIS field offices have increased fraud-detection protocols.
Yes — especially in Cleveland and Columbus.
Absolutely — inconsistencies cause RFEs.
See: H-1B Visa Guide
They receive high scrutiny due to SEVIS monitoring.
Yes — especially for political content.
See: Asylum Guide
Yes — increased reliance on digital evidence.
Yes — enhanced security vetting.
Yes. This is highly recommended.
Schedule a Consultation
Yes — including sworn statements and context letters.
Absolutely — with 30+ years of experience defending cases.
Learn more: Removal Defense
Yes. N-400 “good moral character” is partly evaluated through digital behavior.
Yes — for all immigrants, but especially for:
Yes — DHS may classify them as “aggressive digital behavior.”
Absolutely — HLG is one of Ohio’s leading immigration firms.
Ohio Immigration Lawyer
Yes. Deleted content may exist in archives or third-party datasets.
Yes. Screenshots, group posts, and shared content may still be visible.
Absolutely. Algorithms do not understand context or satire.
Yes—especially in marriage-based cases.
Yes, if misinterpreted.
Yes. LinkedIn contradictions are a major source of RFEs.
This may look suspicious. Consult Herman Legal Group first.
Yes—especially under N-400 “good moral character” analysis.
In certain cases (asylum, trafficking, criminal investigations), yes.
Yes—often incorrectly interpreted.
For many undocumented immigrants living in the United States, the Diversity Visa (DV) Lottery feels like a lifeline — a chance to become lawful, to reunite with family abroad, and to live without fear. But questions of safety quickly arise:
“If I’m undocumented, is it risky to enter the DV Lottery? Could ICE find me? And if I win, can I even get a green card?”
These are not hypothetical fears. As immigration enforcement expands under new technology-driven systems like ImmigrationOS and Project 2025’s data-integration mandates, undocumented immigrants are more cautious than ever.
Immigration attorney Richard T. Herman, founder of the Herman Legal Group, puts it bluntly:
“The Diversity Visa Lottery is a legitimate path to lawful permanent residence — but for undocumented immigrants, it’s not a shortcut. Without careful legal strategy, winning the lottery can become a trap, not a ticket to freedom.”
The Diversity Immigrant Visa Program — often called the DV Lottery — was created to diversify immigration by offering up to 55,000 immigrant visas each fiscal year to individuals from countries with historically low U.S. immigration rates.
Applicants submit an online entry form through the official dvprogram.state.gov website. The process is free (though a small technology fee may soon apply) and winners are selected at random by computer.
Winning, however, is only the first step. You must still meet all eligibility and admissibility requirements under INA §212 and INA §245 to actually receive a green card.
The term undocumented covers several legal situations — and not all are treated equally under U.S. immigration law.
| Category | Description | Possible DV Eligibility |
|---|---|---|
| Overstayed Visa | Entered legally (e.g., B-2, F-1, H-1B) but stayed beyond authorized period | Unlawful presence begins after I-94 expiration; may adjust if protected under §245(i) |
| Entry Without Inspection (EWI) | Crossed border without visa or inspection | Cannot adjust status without leaving U.S. |
| TPS or DED Holder | Granted Temporary Protected Status or Deferred Enforced Departure | Eligible to enter DV Lottery; adjustment possible only with lawful entry or parole |
| Parolee (e.g., U4U, CHNV) | Entered with humanitarian parole | May enter the DV Lottery but cannot adjust without separate lawful status. |
| Pending Asylum | Awaiting USCIS or EOIR decision | May enter DV Lottery but cannot adjust without separate lawful status and lawful entry |
Understanding these differences is critical. Being “undocumented” doesn’t always mean “no options.”
This is one of the most common — and emotionally charged — questions.
The short answer:
There is no public evidence that ICE uses DV Lottery applications to locate or target undocumented immigrants.
However, the reality is complex. The U.S. Department of State, which operates the lottery, collects biographic and biometric data. That data is stored in the Consular Consolidated Database (CCD), accessible to other agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Under ordinary policy, DHS uses that access for security screening, not enforcement. But under aggressive enforcement administrations, data sharing between the State Department and ICE could increase.
A DHS Privacy Impact Assessment shows that interagency data transfers are legally permitted under certain conditions, especially for national security or fraud investigations.
Quick Answer Box:
Entering the DV Lottery does not automatically alert ICE, but applicants should assume that their information may be accessible across government systems.
Winning the DV Lottery does not automatically confer lawful status — it merely gives you the opportunity to apply for permanent residence if you’re eligible.
To actually obtain a green card, you must either:
Here’s the problem for undocumented applicants:
That means most undocumented DV winners would have to leave the country to process their immigrant visa — but that triggers 3-year or 10-year unlawful presence bars under INA §212(a)(9)(B).
If you (or a parent/spouse) were the beneficiary of a qualifying immigration petition or labor certification filed on or before April 30, 2001, you may adjust status in the U.S. by paying a penalty fee.
See: INA §245(i) Adjustment Provisions.. However, this exception is rare and does not apply to the majority of undocumented individuals seeking adjustment of status.
If you marry a U.S. citizen after winning the lottery, you might adjust through marriage instead — not through the DV category — provided the marriage is bona fide.
Certain family members of U.S. military personnel can receive “parole in place,” which counts as lawful admission, enabling adjustment.
Applicants who must consular process can sometimes apply for an I-601A Provisional Waiver if they can prove extreme hardship to a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse or parent.
TPS holders who travel and re-enter on advance parole may qualify for adjustment because the re-entry counts as a lawful admission — but this strategy carries risk and requires careful legal guidance.
Humanitarian parole programs — such asUniting for Ukraine (U4U) or the CHNV parole initiative for Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela — provide temporary lawful presence but not permanent status.
Such parolees can enter the DV Lottery, but to adjust status later, they must have status and meet all other admissibility requirements. Parole is not status, and therefore ineligible to adjust under 245(a).
Applying itself is not unlawful. The DV entry form does not ask about your current immigration status, and the State Department historically does not cross-reference entries with DHS enforcement databases.
However, risks exist:
Expert Tip:
Before applying, consult a licensed immigration attorney confidentially. A private consultation cannot be accessed by ICE and may reveal safer options, such as marriage-based adjustment, asylum, or U visa relief.
If you have already won and are currently undocumented, your options depend on your history of lawful entry and time accrued in unlawful presence.
Consult the officialState Department DV Visa Instructionsand speak with an attorney immediately if you receive a DV selection notice.
Historically, no. There is no documented case of ICE targeting DV Lottery applicants based on their entry.
However, under aggressive enforcement priorities — such as those outlined in Project 2025’s immigration blueprint — DHS could theoretically access State Department data for “security vetting,” including identifying overstays.
“We are entering a period where data integration is expanding. Even though ICE has not used DV entries to locate people, applicants should proceed with caution. The safest step is a confidential legal review before entering the lottery.”
Callout:
With over 30 years of experience helping immigrants navigate complex cases, Richard T. Herman and his multilingual legal team offer confidential consultations nationwide. You can schedule a private session here.
Important Note:
Even if you cannot adjust through the DV program, participating does not automatically expose you — but it also in most cases it won’t legalize your status.
To discuss your case confidentially, contact Herman Legal Group — serving clients nationwide for over 30 years.
By Richard T. Herman, Immigration Attorney – Herman Legal Group, Cleveland & Columbus OH
Thousands of immigrants who once believed their removal cases were over are now receiving new hearing notices from the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). Many of these individuals are unaware that their cases are being reopened, often after years of inactivity. This is part of a DHS policy shift to revive administratively closed cases, potentially affecting as many as 400,000 individuals nationwide. The government is actively working to bring thousands of previously closed immigration cases back to court, posing a risk of deportation.
These reopened cases reflect a 2025 EOIR / Department of Homeland Security (DHS) initiative to revive dormant dockets under the Project 2025 Immigration Enforcement Agenda.
Expert Insight – Richard T. Herman:
“A reopened case isn’t always deportation — but if you ignore a notice or fail to update your address, you risk a removal order and even ICE detention.”
Administrative closure lets an immigration judge (IJ) pause a case without issuing a final order.
The authority is defined in the EOIR Policy Manual § 5.9 – Administrative Closure and reaffirmed in Matter of Cruz-Valdez, 28 I&N Dec. 326 (A.G. 2021), which restored IJs’ discretion after Matter of Castro-Tum, 27 I&N Dec. 271 (A.G. 2018).
By contrast, termination under 8 C.F.R. § 1239.2(c) ends proceedings permanently.
A 2025 EOIR directive ordered judges to review administratively closed cases for recalendaring under the Trump-Vance enforcement agenda. This policy shift by DHS aims to revive as many as 400,000 administratively closed cases nationwide. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is reviving these cases as part of a nationwide policy initiative. DHS’s decision to reopen old cases is seen as a move to address an unmanageable court backlog.
Timeline
👉 See EOIR News & Policy Updates and DHS Press Releases for official notices.
Look for a new Notice of Hearing (NO H), Form I-830, an alert in the EOIR Electronic Case Access System (ECAS), or contact from your attorney. Many individuals with reopened cases may not receive timely notice of their new court dates due to outdated contact information. This lack of timely notice can significantly impact their ability to prepare for hearings. It is crucial to ensure that the court has your updated contact information to avoid missing critical notifications.
✅ Check your case status
At the Master Calendar Hearing the judge confirms identity and charges, sets deadlines, and warns of in absentia orders for no-shows. If a case is recalendared, individuals are placed back into active removal proceedings and must prepare for potential hearing dates.
“Reopening terrifies families who’ve lived here for years — but quick legal action can turn a setback into a second chance.” — Richard T. Herman
Relief may include VAWA Protection, U Visas, or Cancellation for Non-LPRs.
| Law Firm | Cities | Focus | Website |
|---|---|---|---|
| Herman Legal Group | Cleveland · Columbus · Akron · Cincinnati | Removal defense & family immigration | lawfirm4immigrants.com |
| Sarmiento Immigration Law Firm | Cleveland | Waivers & deportation defense | sarmientoimmigration.com |
| Margaret Wong & Associates | Cleveland · Columbus | Asylum & litigation | imwong.com |
| Joslyn Law Firm | Columbus | Crimmigration defense | criminalattorneycolumbus.com |
| Robert Brown LLC | Columbus · Cincinnati | Employment & removal cases | brownimmigrationlaw.com |
EOIR and ICE Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA) are re-calendaring hundreds of thousands of cases.
👉 See ICE ERO Reports and EOIR Policy Updates.
Visit the EOIR Automated Case Information System or call 1-800-898-7180.
If your record shows a “Scheduled” or “Pending” hearing, your case has been reactivated.
If it says “Closed”, the case is still inactive—but you should recheck weekly during 2025 as EOIR continues its docket reviews.
Check both the EOIR portal and hotline above, and contact your attorney.
If the court sent a notice to an old address and you didn’t update via Form EOIR-33, the judge can still issue an in absentia removal order under INA § 240(b)(5).
You can later file a motion to reopen showing lack of notice, but you’ll need proof of your current address (lease, utility bills, or USPS confirmation). It is vital to update your address with the immigration court after a case has been reopened to ensure you receive future notices.
Until a new EOIR-28 is filed, the court still sends notices to the old attorney.
You must file a new EOIR-28 immediately to ensure proper communication and representation.
Keep copies and postal proof of submission.
You must submit Form EOIR-33 – Change of Address within five days of moving.
If EOIR mailed your hearing notice to your previous address, you are still legally responsible unless you filed EOIR-33.
Failing to do so risks a removal order and an ICE arrest warrant.
Under INA § 240(b)(5), if you miss a scheduled hearing after receiving proper notice, the judge can issue an order without you present.
ICE may detain you at any time after that.
If you never received notice or were in serious emergency circumstances, you may file a motion to reopen.
Submit a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request through EOIR’s portal.
Ask for your Record of Proceedings (ROP), which includes all filings, transcripts, and prior decisions.
Processing usually takes 2–4 months.
Yes. If you have a prior removal order, criminal history, or pending ICE supervision, you can be detained under ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) authority.
Consult your attorney about filing for bond or parole.
Sometimes. You or your attorney may file for prosecutorial discretion (PD) under the Mayorkas Memo (2021) or a motion for administrative closure citing Matter of Cruz-Valdez (2021).
If your case is now under EOIR jurisdiction, USCIS may pause your adjustment (Form I-485) or waiver (Form I-601A) until the immigration judge rules.
Your lawyer can file a motion to terminate proceedings so USCIS can continue adjudication.
Yes. A valid marriage to a U.S. citizen may make you eligible to adjust status.
Your lawyer can request termination of removal so you can complete the process through USCIS Adjustment of Status.
The notice lists the court’s name and address.
You can also look it up by A-Number using the EOIR portal.
To locate directions, see EOIR’s Immigration Court Directory.
During the Master Calendar Hearing:
You must still attend your EOIR hearing.
These statuses don’t automatically close removal proceedings, but they may provide defenses or eligibility for relief.
Verify details with USCIS TPS Guidance or DACA Information.
If you departed under advance parole or without permission, you could face inadmissibility issues under INA § 212(a)(9).
Contact a lawyer immediately before re-entry or consular processing.
Yes. You have 30 days to appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
If denied there, you can seek review in the appropriate U.S. Court of Appeals.
If you still fear persecution and your original asylum was denied or withdrawn, you may reapply if circumstances changed.
Submit an updated Form I-589 with new evidence before your next hearing.
See USCIS Asylum Guidance. Additionally, individuals may become eligible for a form of relief, such as a green card based on a family member, that was not previously available.
Timelines vary widely.
Master Calendar hearings may occur within 1–4 months, while individual hearings can take 6–24 months, depending on the court’s backlog and relief applications.
| Resource | Purpose | Official Link |
|---|---|---|
| EOIR Case Portal | Check case status | acis.eoir.justice.gov/en |
| EOIR Hotline | Automated phone status | 1-800-898-7180 |
| Form EOIR-33 | Change of Address | justice.gov/eoir/eoir-33 |
| Form EOIR-28 | Attorney Appearance | justice.gov/eoir/eoir-forms |
| EOIR FOIA Portal | Get case records | foia.eoir.justice.gov/foiarequest |
| ICE ERO Directory | Detention info | ice.gov/ero |
| DHS Newsroom | Policy updates | dhs.gov/news |
| USCIS Green Card Guide | Adjustment process | uscis.gov/green-card |
| Herman Legal Group | Ohio law firm | lawfirm4immigrants.com |
Federal Regulations
INA Provisions
Attorney General & EOIR Decisions
Supreme Court Cases
EOIR Policy & Guidance
DHS Guidance
Forms & Procedures
By Richard T. Herman, Immigration Attorney
In a significant restructuring of federal immigration enforcement, the Trump administration has shifted key responsibilities from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to Customs and Border Protection (CBP). This move is part of a major shake up at ICE, involving widespread personnel changes and leadership reassignments across the agency. The scope of these changes underscores the administration’s intent to overhaul ICE’s operations and reflects the political and strategic motivations behind the reorganization.
This shake up at ICE has led to a realignment of enforcement priorities and a reassessment of agency roles, with many officials being removed, reassigned, or replaced in cities nationwide. The impact of these changes is already being felt throughout the immigration system, as both agencies adjust to new directives and expectations.
A dramatic restructuring is reshaping America’s immigration-enforcement system in 2025. Reports confirm that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is increasingly taking over for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in critical interior-enforcement roles. This reshuffling is occurring alongside efforts to increase enforcement resources, including securing significant funding injections for DHS.
This “ICE shake-up” is more than bureaucratic shuffling—it represents a fundamental reallocation of power within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
In late October 2025, the Associated Press revealed that at least 12 of ICE’s 25 field-office directors were reassigned, many replaced by current or former CBP officers. These reassignments were among the personnel changes to announce by DHS.
For immigrants, families, and employers—especially in Cleveland and Columbus, Ohio—this reshuffling will redefine how enforcement looks, who shows up at your door, and how cases move through the system.
| Function | ICE (Traditional Model) | CBP (New Expanded Role) |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Mission | Interior enforcement & removals | Border security + increasingly interior operations |
| Typical Personnel | Deportation officers & investigators | Border Patrol agents and CBP officers assigned inland |
| Enforcement Focus | Criminal undocumented immigrants & removal orders | Rapid deployment operations, work-site raids, transport oversight |
| Geographic Scope | Entire U.S. interior | Traditionally border zones—now nationwide expansion |
| Legal Authority | INA § 287(g) and related DHS regulations | Same INA authority delegated operationally through DHS |
The laws haven’t changed—only the actors. ICE still holds statutory authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act, but CBP officers are now carrying out many of ICE’s on-the-ground duties.
According to AP News, the DHS directed one of the most sweeping ICE overhauls since 2003, with major personnel changes to announce. Longtime ICE directors in Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, and Miami were replaced—many by senior border patrol agents, including the appointment of a border patrol commander and a border patrol sector chief in key cities such as San Diego. ICE Director Todd Lyons was among the leaders affected by these personnel changes. Senior officials and ICE officers were reassigned or removed as part of this shake-up, which was widely reported by the Washington Examiner and Fox News. Certain ICE field directors are reported to be removed for underperforming in arrest numbers, as the administration aims to boost deportation numbers and increase ICE’s enforcement and enforcement and removal operations.
Plans are underway to replace some regional leaders at ICE with Border Patrol officials, including senior border patrol agents, to focus on targeted enforcement operations, immigration arrests, and arresting immigrants. ICE has 25 field offices across the country, which are now undergoing significant leadership changes to expand detention capacity and restructure enforcement strategies. The Trump administration is reassigning at least half the top leadership at Immigration and Customs Enforcement offices around the country. Many ICE leaders have expressed criticism towards the aggressive tactics employed by Border Patrol agents in cities.
The Trump–Vance Administration, led by president donald trump, has prioritized “unity of enforcement” as a central part of president donald trump’s policy agenda. The trump administration’s focus on enforcement has driven significant changes in immigration policy and agency leadership. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, following a directive from the white house, emphasized a “One Team, One Fight” mission—eliminating what she called ICE’s “bureaucratic drag.” Staff stephen miller and white house deputy chief advisers have been key influencers in this policy shift, ensuring the president’s entire team remains laser focused on achieving the administration’s goals. The administration frames these efforts as fulfilling the american people’s mandate to secure the border and remove criminal illegal aliens.
The reliance on CBP and Border Patrol officials in ICE leadership reflects the view that CBP has been more effective at enforcement, a strategy shaped by border czar tom homan and other trump administration officials. Some Border Patrol officials, including border czar tom homan, have defended tougher enforcement approaches, stating that mass deportations mean “anyone in the US illegally is on the table.”
According to a dhs official cited by fox news, the shift to replace ICE leaders with Border Patrol officials marks a potential new phase in president donald trump’s deportation efforts, especially in the face of resistance from democratic led cities. The integration of CBP tactics into ICE’s enforcement strategy reflects a Department of Homeland Security effort to unify operations under this mission. Additionally, the administration ended the broad use of humanitarian parole, returning it to a case-by-case basis.
Ohio—home to rapidly growing immigrant populations in Cleveland, Columbus, and Dayton—sits at the crossroads of this new enforcement model. CBP teams have reportedly begun joint operations with ICE in Ohio’s industrial corridors and transport hubs, with enforcement actions taking place in locations such as Home Depot parking lots. The Trump administration is increasingly deploying CBP agents far from the border to assist with ICE’s interior enforcement efforts, focusing on arresting immigrants, particularly those caught in the country illegally and unauthorized immigrants.
CBP’s scope, once focused on the border, expanded into cities across the U.S. under the Trump administration, including visible raids and deportation operations. These border patrol’s operations have prioritized immigration arrests, targeting criminal illegal aliens, violent criminal illegal aliens, and removing violent criminal illegal individuals. The goal of deporting criminal illegal aliens remains central, with criminal illegal aliens speak often cited as justification for aggressive enforcement. Tactics during these operations have included the use of tear gas and tear gas canisters, especially during public disturbances and protests. Border Patrol has deployed over 1,500 agents to arrest immigrants in cities across the country. Gregory Bovino, head of Border Patrol operations in Chicago, is accused of using excessive force during immigration enforcement.
What began as a leadership shuffle is evolving into a merger of enforcement cultures—CBP’s rapid-response style meets ICE’s statutory reach.
The White House’s 2025 immigration goals call for a 100 percent increase in removals compared to 2023. In line with these objectives, the administration is implementing strategic efforts to boost deportation numbers, focusing on expanding enforcement activities and targeting broader groups of illegal immigrants. CBP’s paramilitary structure allows for faster deployment than ICE’s investigative approach. The administration has also set a goal of 3,000 daily arrests, which ICE has struggled to meet.
CBP emphasizes speed, field presence, and direct action, while ICE traditionally relied on complex investigations. The DHS now favors visible results over case-by-case analysis, reflecting a shift in ICE’s enforcement approach. This new strategy is increasingly driven by border patrol’s tactics, which have included using helicopters and aggressive sweeps to arrest immigrants, distinguishing them from ICE’s previous, more focused operations. Border Patrol agents are accused of using aggressive tactics during immigration enforcement operations, leading to legal disputes over their actions.
CBP emphasizes speed, field presence, and direct action, while ICE traditionally relied on complex investigations. The DHS now favors visible results over case-by-case analysis, aligning these changes with the president’s policy agenda and reflecting the view that CBP has been more effective at enforcement.
By shifting operational control—without congressional approval—DHS avoids statutory reform. Under existing law, both ICE and CBP may perform removal operations within the United States. The leadership changes at ICE have created internal tension within the Department of Homeland Security. Some ICE officials express concern that the shift to Border Patrol leadership would lead to more aggressive enforcement methods with limited prioritization.
DHS officials stated that the reorganization reflects a division on how best to carry out immigration enforcement. The DHS has reassigned leaders in major cities to increase the focus on immigrants without criminal records, despite ICE’s historical emphasis on criminal aliens. DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin stated that the administration remains focused on removing violent criminal illegal aliens from the country, underscoring the department’s enforcement priorities.
This restructuring could face legal challenges, as advocates argue that interior CBP actions circumvent due process and oversight requirements designed for ICE.
CBP’s rapid-deployment model means raids and detentions may happen with less notice. Increased detention capacity, supported by expanded resources and funding, enables authorities to detain more individuals at a faster rate. Individuals previously handled by ICE’s scheduled check-ins might now face same-day detention.
CBP emphasizes speed, field presence, and direct action, while ICE traditionally relied on complex investigations. The DHS now favors visible results over case-by-case analysis, reflecting the view that CBP has been more effective at enforcement. Border Patrol’s tactics have included using helicopters and aggressive sweeps to arrest immigrants, distinguishing them from ICE’s more focused operations and the recent adoption of targeted enforcement operations as a strategy.
Border Patrol agents are accused of using aggressive tactics during immigration enforcement operations, leading to legal disputes over their actions. In January 2025, DHS rescinded previous guidelines limiting immigration enforcement actions in “sensitive locations” like schools and churches. Protests have erupted in response to aggressive immigration enforcement tactics deployed by federal agents, especially Border Patrol, including the use of tear gas and tear gas canisters for crowd control.
Ohio manufacturers and agricultural employers report increased “unannounced visits.” Previously rare for CBP, these visits signal new hybrid enforcement with ICE.
At a Glance: Employers should prepare updated I-9 audits and review compliance protocols with legal counsel.
Cleveland and Columbus advocates warn of heightened fear among mixed-status families. Community organizations are launching “Know Your Rights” campaigns modeled after those used during ICE raids in 2019. Heightened fear in immigrant communities due to increased enforcement actions could suppress consumer spending and weaken local tax bases. Increased aggressive tactics by federal agents have caused fears in immigrant communities and raised concerns about racial profiling during enforcement operations.
The decision to reassign ICE directors has led to concerns about the impact on local immigrant communities. Democratic led cities have been particularly resistant to the new enforcement tactics, highlighting ongoing tensions between local governments and federal immigration authorities.
The American Immigration Council has documented that aggressive raids correlate with increased PTSD and school absenteeism among immigrant children (immcouncil.org).
CBP officers are not always trained in the nuances of immigration law. They often apply border procedures to interior cases—raising concerns over due process.
Ohio immigration lawyers should establish direct liaisons with CBP’s regional offices and stay informed of joint ICE/CBP protocols posted on cbp.gov.
Ohio hosts over 550,000 foreign-born residents, many in industries now subject to increased scrutiny. Local advocates report that ice officers, along with CBP officers, have been seen assisting ICE in routine compliance visits across Northeast Ohio. Increased deportation and enforcement efforts are expected to worsen labor shortages in industries such as agriculture, construction, hospitality, and manufacturing. A study projected that millions of workers could be lost by 2035 if current enforcement continues. Labor shortages due to increased enforcement are likely to force employers to raise wages, increasing operational costs.
Faith-based and nonprofit groups in Cleveland and Columbus are forming rapid-response networks to document CBP encounters and connect families with attorneys immediately after detention.
In practice, CBP’s arrival on Ohio streets means immigration law no longer stops at the border.
Founded in Cleveland, the Herman Legal Group has served immigrants for over 30 years. We handle removal defense, ICE audits, and now CBP interior enforcement matters nationwide. Our team speaks 10+ languages and represents clients in all 50 states.
A global leader in corporate immigration compliance and government relations (fragomen.com). Often consulted by multinational employers on worksite enforcement.
Renowned U.S. immigration boutique (bal.com) specializing in high-volume corporate immigration and enforcement response planning.
Full-service national firm (gtlaw.com) with a dedicated immigration practice for employers and foreign professionals.
Respected Pennsylvania-based firm (cohenlaw.com) offering strong removal defense and corporate compliance counsel nationwide.
When choosing representation, ask the firm, “Have you handled cases where CBP—not ICE—led the enforcement action?” The answer will reveal their current readiness.
The ICE shake-up is not temporary—it marks a major shake up in immigration enforcement, representing a structural realignment likely to define immigration enforcement for the next decade.
The decision to place CBP at the forefront of immigration enforcement reflects a philosophical shift in how America handles its immigrant population. It blurs the lines between border and interior, civil and criminal, human and bureaucratic. The Trump administration plans to integrate Border Patrol leadership into ICE operations to enhance immigration enforcement, with these changes being implemented by the president’s entire team.
For immigrants in Ohio and across the United States, the message is clear: be informed, be represented, and be prepared. Legal advice is no longer optional—it’s essential.
As an immigration attorney with three decades of experience, I urge families and employers to seek guidance now before a CBP officer knocks instead of an ICE agent.
By Richard T. Herman
Herman Legal Group – Cleveland & Columbus, Ohio
Book a Consultation →
Short Answer:
No — if you are subject to the two-year home-residence requirement under INA § 212(e) as a holder of a J-1 visa, you generally cannot change status to an H-1B visa while in the U.S. until you either fulfill the requirement or obtain a waiver.
The two-year home-residence requirement must be fulfilled or waived before a J-1 holder can access immigration benefits such as H-1B status.
Even if your employer submits an H-1B petition and you are selected in the lottery, USCIS will not approve a change of status until that requirement is resolved.
If you file an H-1B change of status while still subject to 212(e), your case will likely be denied under USCIS Policy Manual, Vol. 2, Part D, Ch. 5.
Under INA § 212(e), certain J-1 exchange visitors must return to their home country (or last legal permanent residence) for two years after completing their program before they can change status or apply for H-1B, L, K, or immigrant visas. This two-year home residency requirement applies to J-1 visa holders who receive funding from their home country government or the U.S. government as part of their J-1 program.
You may be subject to 212(e) if:
This rule applies even if you later switch to another visa; it remains a lifetime bar until it is either fulfilled or waived.
Even if your DS-2019 does not mention the requirement, you could still be subject — always confirm through an advisory opinion.
If you are subject to 212(e), you cannot change your status to H-1B, L-1, or permanent residence while in the United States, and you are also ineligible for certain immigration benefits until you fulfill or waive the requirement. The two-year home residency rule applies to multiple nonimmigrant classifications, not just H-1B. You can, however, still apply for an H-1B petition — but it will not be approved or activated until you meet or waive the requirement.
This restriction applies both to change of status and to consular visa issuance. Even if USCIS approves your petition, the Department of State will refuse to issue the visa until 212(e) is resolved.
| Option | Permitted While 212(e) Applies? | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Change of status inside the U.S. | ❌ No | Must fulfill or waive 212(e) first. |
| H-1B via consular processing | ❌ No | Waiver or completion of 2 years required before visa issuance. |
| Other visas (such as H, L, K visas, immigrant) | ❌ No | Also blocked under 212(e); any person subject to 212(e) is affected by these restrictions. |
| Diplomatic (A, G) visas | ✅ Limited | Certain exceptions for diplomats and international org. staff. |
The two-year requirement acts as a statutory bar, not just an administrative preference.
The home-residence rule ensures that exchange visitors return home and share skills gained in the U.S. It’s meant to promote international cooperation — not to punish participants. The two-year home residency requirement is a key feature of J status, designed to support the exchange program’s goals by encouraging knowledge transfer to the participant’s home country.
However, it often creates hardship for foreign professionals offered long-term U.S. employment, who may need additional support to navigate the complexities of this rule.
You can satisfy 212(e) by residing in your home country or country of last legal permanent residence for at least two years after completing your J-1 program.
You must show physical presence proof (passport entries, employment, etc.) if USCIS requests evidence.
The alternative is to apply for a waiver through the Department of State Waiver Review Division and USCIS. The waiver for the two-year home residency requirement must be recommended by the U.S. Department of State (a waiver recommendation) and approved by USCIS. Obtaining the requirement waived involves following specific procedures, including submitting the necessary forms and supporting documentation.
There are five legal bases for waiving the two-year requirement:
Processing Time:Expect 6–18 months depending on the waiver category and your nationality. Processing times may vary for foreign medical graduates.
The Conrad 30 program remains a primary route for foreign physicians transitioning from J-1 to H-1B in 2025.
Yes, but with limitations.If you are a J-1 exchange visitor, your employer may file an H-1B petition to secure a cap number, but USCIS will not approve change of status or allow you to start H-1B employment until the Two-Year Home Residence Requirement under 212(e) is fulfilled or waived.
Example:You are selected in the FY 2026 H-1B lottery. If your waiver is not approved by October 1, 2025, your petition remains pending or is denied until you submit the DOS waiver approval notice.
Key Insight: Filing early gives your employer flexibility but doesn’t override the statutory bar.
If your waiver path seems uncertain, returning home to complete the two years may be the cleanest legal path to future H-1B or green card eligibility.
Some multinational employers allow you to work from your home country during the two-year period, then transfer you back under H-1B once satisfied.
Universities, nonprofit research institutions, and affiliated hospitals may file H-1B petitions exempt from the annual cap. These cases are not automatically exempt from 212(e), but such employers often have experience navigating these transitions.
If qualified, consider O-1 (“extraordinary ability”), A or G visas, or TN (for Canadians/Mexicans). These categories sometimes bypass standard H-1B timing but still require addressing 212(e) before permanent residence. See below for more info.
If married to a U.S. citizen or LPR, consider the exceptional hardship waiver — showing that your spouse or child would suffer if you had to return home.
You must prove exceptional, not routine, hardship.
A J-1 research scholar funded by both a U.S. university and India’s Department of Science & Technology is subject to 212(e). Her private-sector employer files H-1B in March 2025. She must first obtain a no-objection waiver through India’s Ministry of Education before USCIS will approve her H-1B change of status.
A J-1 physician finishing residency in 2025 obtains a Conrad 30 waiver by agreeing to work in an underserved Ohio county for three years. The waiver allows him to change status to H-1B and begin employment immediately after waiver approval.
A teacher sponsored by a U.S. government exchange program is ineligible for a no-objection waiver. She completes her two-year service in her home country and later secures H-1B sponsorship abroad.
In 2025, average waiver processing times are 9–12 months, depending on home government response times and DOS workload.
For some professionals who are still bound by the two-year home-residence requirement under INA § 212(e), transitioning directly to H-1B is legally blocked.
However, depending on your current visa classification, a few alternative visa categories may offer lawful pathways to continue working in the U.S. while you pursue your waiver or complete your two-year period abroad. Recent policy updates have also impacted J-1 visa holders from several countries, making certain options more accessible for those individuals.
The O-1 visa is often the most practical workaround for J-1 holders who cannot yet change status to H-1B because of § 212(e).
The O-1 is reserved for individuals who have demonstrated extraordinary ability in their field—such as:
You must prove sustained national or international acclaim through:
Many post-doctoral researchers, startup founders, and specialized professionals qualify for O-1A long before meeting H-1B caps or J-1 waiver timing.
Technically, **§ 212(e)**does not prevent you from obtaining an O-1 visa, but it does bar a “change of status” inside the U.S.That means:
In practice:
The O-1 offers temporary employment continuity, not a permanent waiver of the two-year rule.
| Feature | O-1 Visa | H-1B Visa | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject to annual cap? | ❌ No | ✅ Yes | O-1 available year-round |
| Requires prevailing wage? | ❌ No | ✅ Yes | Greater employer flexibility |
| Dual intent allowed? | ⚠️ Limited | ✅ Yes | Can’t file green card until 212(e) resolved |
| Change of status possible from J-1? | ❌ No | ❌ No | Must apply at consulate |
| Duration | 3 years + extensions | 3 + years + extensions | Renewable indefinitely |
The O-1 can serve as a temporary bridge visa for J-1 holders with exceptional qualifications who want to remain employed in the U.S. while awaiting a J-1 waiver or completing their two-year stay.
A biomedical researcher on a J-1 visa with U.S. government funding is subject to 212(e).
Her employer sponsors an O-1A petition citing her publication record and national awards.
She departs for Canada, secures her O-1 visa at the consulate, and returns to continue her project—remaining subject to 212(e) but legally working in O-1 status until her hardship waiver is approved.
Filing an O-1 can buy you time while pursuing a hardship or no-objection waiver without interrupting your research or professional projects.
If you work for or are sponsored by an embassy, consulate, or international organization such as the UN, World Bank, or WHO, you may qualify for A- or G-category visas, which are not restricted by 212(e) for employment purposes.
However, these are highly specific and apply only to those directly engaged in official capacities.
If you are a Canadian or Mexican citizen, the TN visa under the USMCA (formerly NAFTA) allows you to work in a listed professional occupation.
Similar to O-1, you cannot change from J-1 to TN inside the U.S. while subject to 212(e), but you can apply abroad and re-enter under TN status.
TN eligibility depends on your degree and job title matching one of the approved professional categories in the treaty.
Some researchers or lecturers may temporarily enter under a B-1 in lieu of H-1B classification for short-term academic projects, conferences, or consultations while awaiting their waiver.
These are strictly nonimmigrant, short-term, and require careful structuring with counsel to avoid misrepresentation.
In today’s hybrid world, some J-1 holders complete the 212(e) requirement by working remotely from their home country for their future U.S. sponsor during the two-year period.
This satisfies the physical-presence requirement while maintaining professional continuity and employer ties.
At a Glance:
While the H-1B visa remains the most common path for long-term employment, the O-1 visa can be a critical bridge option for highly qualified individuals still constrained by the J-1 two-year rule.
It allows you to lawfully work in the U.S. through consular processing, without violating 212(e), while maintaining a professional foothold until your waiver or home-residency fulfillment clears the path for H-1B or green card eligibility.
If your resume includes advanced degrees, published research, patents, or leadership in your field, discuss the O-1 option with your immigration lawyer early — ideally 6–8 months before your J-1 program ends.
It can preserve your U.S. career trajectory without violating immigration law.
| Law Firm | Locations | Practice Strengths | Distinguishing Feature |
|---|---|---|---|
| Herman Legal Group | Cleveland & Columbus, OH (National) | J-1 waivers, H-1B transitions, physician immigration | 30 + years experience; multilingual staff; national reach |
| Fragomen LLP | Global | Corporate & employment immigration | High-volume employer representation |
| Murthy Law Firm | MD & TX | H-1B & J-1 strategies for professionals | Strong waiver expertise |
| Klasko Immigration Law | PA & NY | Physician waivers & federal litigation | Deep DOS & USCIS litigation background |
For Ohio and national clients seeking individualized attention, Herman Legal Group offers direct attorney involvement, not case-manager hand-offs.
Richard T. Herman, Esq. is a nationally recognized immigration lawyer with 30 + years of experience representing professionals, families, and businesses across the U.S. and world. He is co-author of “Immigrant, Inc.” and founder of the Herman Legal Group — The Law Firm for Immigrants™.
By Richard T. Herman, Esq., Founder, Herman Legal Group
Updated October 2025
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) is a policy established in 2012 that provides certain undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children with protection from deportation and the ability to apply for work authorization.
As of October 2025, DACA renewals continue to be accepted and processed by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), but the approval of new, initial DACA applications remains suspended due to ongoing litigation in Texas v. United States.
USCIS continues to process renewals, but cannot approve initial requests. The renewal pathway is the only operational lifeline for DACA recipients in 2025.
| Feature | Renewal | Initial Request |
|---|---|---|
| Eligibility | Prior DACA approval and continuous compliance with program requirements; DACA status expired less than one year ago | No prior approval, or status expired/terminated more than one year ago |
| Status in 2025 | Actively processed by USCIS | Accepted but not adjudicated due to court order |
| Forms Required | Form I-821D (used to request deferred action for childhood arrivals), I-765, and I-765WS | Same forms, but classified differently |
| Processing Time | 3–6 months (average); if your status expired more than one year ago, your renewal filing will be treated as an initial request | On hold indefinitely |
| Filing Fee | $495 | $495 |
A renewal application must be submitted before your status expired more than one year ago to be considered a renewal filing.
The distinction between “renewal” and “initial request” determines whether USCIS can process your application at all.
According to current USCIS guidance, a person may file a renewal request if their previous DACA expired less than 12 months ago. If the expiration occurred more than 12 months ago, or if the grant was terminated, any new filing will be considered an initial request. USCIS’s goal is to process renewal requests within 120 days.
In 2025, only renewal requests can be approved. Initial requests are accepted but remain unprocessed while the injunction is in place.
Even if your prior DACA approval was valid for years, once it has been expired for over one year, the system treats you as a new applicant.
| Scenario | Treated As | USCIS Action | Best Next Step |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expired less than 12 months ago | Renewal | Processed normally | File immediately to preserve continuity |
| Expired more than 12 months ago | Initial request | Accepted but not processed | Consult a lawyer before filing |
| Terminated by USCIS | Initial request | Not processed | Evaluate other relief options |
The status of your last DACA grant and your previous renewal filing will determine whether your application is processed as a renewal or as an initial request. Be sure to review your previous renewal filing and the expiration date of your last DACA grant before submitting your application.
Even one day can make the difference between renewal and initial status. If your DACA expired on October 29, 2024, file your renewal before October 28, 2025 to remain eligible.
Your DACA is officially expired on the date listed on your approval notice (Form I-797) and employment authorization card (EAD). There is no grace period. If you file after that date, you are considered out of status and have lost your immigration status until USCIS receives your new renewal package.
You do not lose eligibility simply because your EAD expired, but the longer you wait beyond the one-year mark, the greater the risk of being treated as a new applicant.
The Texas v. United States decision prevents DHS and USCIS from granting new initial DACA applications. USCIS may still accept filings and collect fees, but cannot adjudicate or issue approvals. These applications are placed in pending status indefinitely. The Fifth Circuit’s ruling reflects an ongoing judicial stay, allowing existing DACA protections to remain in place while the case continues through the courts.
If your DACA expired more than one year ago, filing today will not restore your work authorization or deferred status.
Failing to renew your DACA on time has immediate and long-term consequences, including:
A lapse of even several months can disrupt your ability to live and work safely in the United States.
USCIS strongly recommends filing renewals no later than one year after expiration. Filing early demonstrates continued compliance and minimizes employment risk.
Prepare and submit the following items:
Missing or incomplete documentation is one of the most common reasons DACA renewals are delayed or denied.
If your DACA expired more than one year ago, an immigration attorney can evaluate other forms of relief such as other immigration benefits, and help you determine if you may be eligible to obtain DACA in the future. An attorney can also assess your eligibility for:
If you become eligible under future policy changes, you may need to request DACA again to maintain or regain your deferred action and work authorization.
Experienced attorneys can identify relief pathways that preserve work authorization while DACA remains in legal uncertainty.
If your DACA has expired or you are unsure of your eligibility, seek immediate legal guidance. Lawsuits, administrative delays, and state-level enforcement changes have created uncertainty for Dreamers across the country.
Residents of Cleveland, Columbus, and throughout Ohio can schedule a consultation with the Herman Legal Group to review their status and filing strategy.
DACA renewal timing is critical. An attorney can file quickly and correctly to prevent your case from being misclassified as an initial request.
| Law Firm | Location | Key Strengths | Website |
|---|---|---|---|
| Herman Legal Group | Cleveland & Columbus, Ohio; Nationwide | Over 30 years of experience. Multilingual staff. Deep expertise in DACA, TPS, and family immigration. | lawfirm4immigrants.com |
| Brown Immigration Law | Columbus, Ohio | DACA renewals, work authorization, and compliance counsel. | brown-immigration.com |
| The Fleischer Law Firm LLC | Cincinnati, Ohio | Immigration-only firm. Spanish-language services. | immigrate2usa.com |
| Garcia & Associates | Los Angeles, California | National Dreamer advocacy and litigation support. | garciaimmigrationlaw.com |
| Bretz & Coven Immigration Law Group | New York, New York | Known for federal DACA litigation. | https://www.bretzlaw.com/ |
Choose a law firm that focuses exclusively on immigration law and has experience handling DACA-related filings.
1. What if my DACA expired two years ago?USCIS will treat it as an initial request, which cannot currently be approved. If you are not a current DACA recipient or your status expired more than a year ago, you may submit it for record purposes but will not regain protection until the courts lift the injunction. Current DACA recipients and those whose status recently expired should act quickly to avoid losing eligibility.
2. Can I still work if my DACA has expired?No. Once your EAD expires, your employer must terminate your work authorization under federal I-9 rules. DACA and employment authorization are directly linked, so renewing your DACA on time is essential to maintain your eligibility to work legally in the U.S.
3. What happens to my Social Security number after expiration?You can retain your number but cannot use it for employment or federal benefits without a valid EAD.
4. Should I file even if my case will be treated as an initial request?Speak with a qualified attorney. Depending on the outcome of litigation, early filing could secure a place in the queue once approvals resume. Current DACA recipients should prioritize renewing DACA to avoid gaps in protection.
5. Can I travel with Advance Parole if my DACA expired?No. Only a current DACA recipient may submit advance parole requests or emergency advance parole applications. Traveling without valid permission may trigger inadmissibility bars. Advance parole allows DACA recipients to travel outside of the United States for specific reasons, such as educational, employment, or humanitarian purposes. Emergency advance parole may be available for urgent or unforeseen travel needs, but you must have active DACA status to apply.
The Biden Administration’s Department of Homeland Security reaffirmed support for DACA through a final rule published in 2022, codifying the program into federal regulation. However, ongoing court rulings have limited its implementation. The DACA rule and DACA regulations have been the subject of ongoing litigation and court review, creating uncertainty for applicants and recipients.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s injunction, maintaining the freeze on initial requests. USCIS continues to process DACA renewal requests and renew existing cases under this order for eligible recipients. The Department of Justice has appealed portions of the ruling, but as of October 2025, no change has occurred.
Renewal approvals remain valid for two years, and DHS continues to issue Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) for eligible renewals.
For Dreamers in Ohio cities such as Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati, the current environment highlights the importance of legal strategy and early renewal. Maintaining your immigration status through timely DACA grant renewals is essential for continued protection, as lapses can impact your work authorization and lawful presence.
The Herman Legal Group’s attorneys have assisted hundreds of DACA recipients since 2012 and continue to represent individuals nationwide seeking stability amid changing policies. Each period of DACA granted helps preserve your eligibility for future benefits and ensures you remain protected under current immigration laws.
Each renewal protects more than a work permit—it preserves community ties, family stability, and safety from deportation.
USCIS will process DACA renewal requests in the order received.
Always send applications using trackable delivery. Keep copies of your submission and proof of mailing.
Once you submit your DACA renewal request or initial DACA request, the waiting period begins. For most DACA recipients, this can be an anxious time, but knowing what to expect can help you stay prepared. After your application is received, USCIS will send a receipt notice confirming they have your DACA request. You can use the receipt number to track your case status online through the USCIS website or by contacting the USCIS contact center.
If your DACA renewal is approved, you will receive a new Employment Authorization Document (EAD) in the mail. This card is your proof of work authorization and deferred action status. It’s important to carefully review your receipt notice and EAD for any errors, such as incorrect names or expiration dates, and notify USCIS immediately if you spot a mistake.
For those submitting an initial DACA request, keep in mind that, as of 2025, USCIS is accepting but not processing these applications due to ongoing court orders. You will still receive a receipt notice, but your request will remain pending until further legal developments.
Throughout the process, DACA recipients should keep copies of all correspondence, including the receipt notice and any updates from USCIS. Staying organized will help you respond quickly if additional information is requested.
After submitting your DACA renewal request or initial DACA request, there are several possible outcomes to be aware of. If your renewal request is approved, you will receive a new EAD with an updated expiration date, allowing you to continue working and living in the United States without interruption. It’s crucial to apply for renewal before your current expiration date to avoid any gaps in employment authorization or deferred action status.
If your DACA renewal request is denied, you may have options to appeal the decision or reapply, depending on the reason for denial. Sometimes, USCIS may issue a request for additional supporting documentation or schedule an interview to clarify information in your application. Responding promptly and thoroughly to these requests is essential to avoid delays or a possible denial.
For DACA recipients with a recent criminal history or who have recently interacted with law enforcement, it is especially important to consult with an immigration attorney or DOJ accredited representative prior to submitting a renewal request. A legal representative can help you understand your eligibility, gather the necessary supporting documentation, and ensure your application is as strong as possible.
If your DACA status has expired or recently expired, you can still submit a renewal request, but it’s important to act quickly. USCIS processes DACA renewal requests in the order they are received, and processing times can vary. Delaying your renewal increases the risk of losing employment authorization and protection from removal proceedings.
In all cases, working with a qualified legal representative or DOJ accredited representative can help you navigate the process, minimize the risk of errors, and ensure you are prepared for any outcome. By staying proactive and informed, DACA recipients can protect their status and continue to build their lives in the United States.
As of late 2025, legislative proposals such as the Dream and Promise Act remain stalled in Congress. Federal courts are expected to revisit the legality of the DACA regulation in early 2026.
DACA recipients should closely monitor policy changes and be prepared to request renewal or request DACA as soon as eligibility windows open to avoid lapses in protection. While uncertainty continues, maintaining renewal eligibility is critical. Late or missed renewals could leave recipients unprotected for years if approvals remain frozen.
A timely renewal today could secure your protection for two more years even if new restrictions arise in 2026.
© 2025 Richard T. Herman, Esq. | Herman Legal Group – The Law Firm for Immigrants
Book a Consultation
By Richard T. Herman, Esq., Immigration Attorney (Herman Legal Group – “The Law Firm for Immigrants”)
On October 28, 2025, a new federal requirement will take effect, mandating that all immigration-related payments be made electronically. This represents a significant shift in how immigration payments are handled, marking a major step toward modernization. The agency responsible for this change, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), is implementing the new system as part of its ongoing efforts to modernize processes and improve efficiency within the immigration system.
Beginning October 28, 2025, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will no longer accept paper checks or money orders for immigration filing fees. USCIS will continue to accept checks and money orders along with electronic payments until this date, providing applicants with a transition period to adapt to the new system.
Any application or petition submitted on or after October 28, 2025, with a paper check or money order will be rejected—as if it was never filed—and returned to the sender. USCIS may reject applications that do not comply with the new payment requirements, including those that do not include the correct fee.
This means missed filing deadlines, lost priority dates, and potential loss of status for applicants and employers who fail to comply. It is crucial to ensure the correct fee is submitted to avoid rejection.
To avoid devastating delays, every immigrant, employer, and attorney must understand USCIS’s new electronic payment system and prepare now for a fully digital payment future, as all filing fees must be paid using approved electronic payment methods after October 28, 2025.
| Effective Date | What Changes | What You Must Do |
|---|---|---|
| Oct 28, 2025 | USCIS moves to electronic only payments for all immigration filings; paper checks and money orders will no longer be accepted | Applicants must use credit and debit payments, electronic funds transfer (EFT), or Pay.gov and other approved electronic methods |
| Forms Affected | All forms requiring required fees must be submitted with electronic payment | File online via myUSCIS or include Form G-1650 for EFT |
| If You Ignore This Rule | Case rejected and returned—as if never filed | Could cause status loss, fee refund delays, or missed filing windows |
Applicants submitting paper checks on and after Oct 28 will receive rejection notices. These cases will not preserve filing dates even if resubmitted electronically.
For years, USCIS accepted personal checks, cashier’s checks, and money orders—methods that caused frequent delays, errors, and returned filings. Traditional payment methods like checks and money orders were causing processing delays and lost payments, making the system inefficient and unreliable.
Nearly 15% of rejected USCIS filings in 2023 were due to invalid or mismatched payment instruments, leading to weeks or months of delay.
USCIS’s modernization initiative aims to:
This digital transition follows a larger government initiative under the Federal Payment Modernization Act and Executive Order 14247.
USCIS is implementing Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) to replace traditional check payments. This includes the introduction of the ACH debit payment option as a secure and efficient alternative to checks and money orders for paying the filing fee. USCIS has updated its Policy Manual to include ACH debit transactions as an acceptable form of payment, modernizing the process and enhancing security.
You’ll now use Form G-1650 (Authorization for ACH Transaction) to allow a direct electronic debit from your U.S. bank account—similar to paying a bill online. Form G-1650 must be completed and signed before filing with applications, petitions, or requests. Applicants must use approved electronic payment methods to pay the filing fee. Electronic payments must be made from a U.S. bank and payable in U.S. currency.
Accepted methods include:
Applicants must pay required fees using the electronic payment methods that USCIS accept on and after October 28, 2025. When using Form G-1650 and G-1450, credit and debit payments are the main options for secure and efficient fee processing.
USCIS partnered with Pay.gov to manage electronic debits through secure federal banking systems.
| Feature | Old Paper System | New Electronic Payment System |
|---|---|---|
| Payment type | Check / Money Order | EFT / Debit / Credit |
| Processing time | 2–4 weeks | 1–3 business days |
| Error handling | Manual, by mail | Instant rejection notice |
| Refunds | Delayed | Digital credit/refund through Pay.gov |
1. Family-Based Applicants:Spouses, fiancées, parents, and others filing I-130, I-485, or I-751 must pay electronically—no exceptions after Oct 28. Petitioners must ensure all required fees are paid electronically to avoid rejection of their petitions.
2. Employers & HR Departments:All H-1B, L-1, and EB-5 filings must switch to EFT or credit card. Corporate payroll departments should pre-authorize their banks to process ACH transactions from USCIS.
3. Attorneys & Representatives:Law firms must transition all client payments to digital workflows, with clear authorization forms and compliance controls.
Missing this transition could invalidate filings that must be received by a statutory deadline—especially I-765 renewals, I-751 petitions, or employer petitions tied to visa caps.
The move to electronic payments promises:
Unlike traditional paper based payments such as checks and money orders, electronic payments offer greater efficiency and reliability.
Note: Submitting the correct fee amount electronically is essential to avoid delays or rejections of your immigration application.
USCIS projects up to 30% faster processing for cases filed under the new EFT system.
While EFT improves speed, it raises questions about security, access, and data protection. Sensitive credit card and ACH information must now be listed directly on USCIS forms, creating new vulnerabilities compared to checks. The shift to electronic payments introduces new risks such as increased exposure to fraud, processing delays, and compliance challenges, making it essential to exercise caution.
Applicants and their representatives have a responsibility to ensure payment security and compliance with all USCIS requirements, including proper trust accounting and fiscal accountability.
Rejected EFT transactions = case rejection. USCIS will not attempt a second withdrawal.
Reference: USCIS Pay-by-ACH Transaction Page
Submit early during transition months to avoid bottlenecks caused by payment testing and system learning curves.
| Law Firm | Experience with USCIS e-filing / digital payment transition | Primary Locations | Highlights |
|---|---|---|---|
| Herman Legal Group | 30+ years guiding immigrants through USCIS modernization | Cleveland, Columbus, nationwide | Multilingual legal team; digital filing expertise |
| Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy LLP | Corporate immigration management and digital compliance | Nationwide | Tech-integrated immigration systems |
| Berry Appleman & Leiden LLP | Global mobility and e-filing technology | Nationwide | Advanced employer-filing platforms |
| BAL Global | Employer immigration automation & compliance | Nationwide | EFT/Pay.gov readiness for large employers |
| Siskind Susser | Pioneer in online filing adoption | National | Early guides to electronic filing strategy |
This payment change is part of USCIS’s broader digital transformation, including:
As an immigration attorney for over 30 years, I’ve seen how small filing errors—like incorrect check payee names—can destroy entire cases.
Richard T. Herman’s Perspective:
“This digital shift is necessary and overdue. But it’s also unforgiving—on and after October 28, one wrong payment method could derail months of work. Law firms and immigrants must prepare now.”
Ohio’s immigrant communities are among the fastest-growing in the Midwest. Many file family and employment petitions through the USCIS Cleveland Field Office.
For residents of Cleveland and Columbus:
1. Can I still pay by check on and after October 28, 2025?No. USCIS will reject and return any filing accompanied by a paper check or money order after that date.
2. What if my EFT transaction is declined?Your case is not filed. You must resubmit with valid payment.
3. Can my attorney pay USCIS fees for me?Yes, as long as the attorney or firm includes a valid EFT authorization (Form G-1650).
4. Will this apply to all USCIS forms?Yes, with few exceptions for specialized humanitarian forms. Check USCIS.gov for form-specific instructions.
5. Is my payment information safe?USCIS uses Pay.gov, managed by the U.S. Treasury, ensuring federal-grade encryption and security. According to USCIS spokesman Matthew, the shift to electronic funds transfer options was implemented to modernize fee payments and further enhance payment security for applicants.
By Richard T. Herman, Esq., Immigration Lawyer for Over 30 Years
Quick Answer: Begin by combining official U.S. government resources, experienced immigration counsel, and verified immigration tech platforms that centralize compliance, filings, and tracking under one digital workflow.
In 2025, global mobility strategy for U.S. tech companies faces one of the most challenging environments in decades. CIOs and HR leaders must now balance talent access, regulatory compliance, and cost control—while navigating a rapidly changing system shaped by new Trump-era reforms. The Biden administration’s policies and final rule have also significantly influenced the current immigration landscape, particularly regarding high-skilled visas and green card procedures. These regulatory updates have further impacted how organizations approach talent acquisition and compliance. T
he recent changes to the H-1B program have raised costs for U.S. firms and altered their strategies for accessing global talent. Higher costs, including increased visa application fees and compliance expenses, are now a major factor impacting hiring budgets and the overall economics of talent acquisition.
The current cap on H-1B visas is 85,000 per year, further limiting opportunities for companies to secure foreign talent. The USCIS reported receiving nearly 480,000 registrations for the H-1B lottery for fiscal year 2025, translating to an 18% acceptance rate. Research indicates that H-1B visa holders have salaries comparable to or higher than U.S. workers with similar qualifications, underscoring their value in the workforce.
In this new ecosystem, corporate immigration strategy is no longer a back-office HR function—it’s an enterprise-level risk and innovation priority. HR and CIOs should elevate immigration strategies to the level of enterprise risk and strategic workforce planning to ensure alignment with broader organizational goals. The organization must also ensure fair working conditions and compliance with evolving employment standards as part of its responsibility.
HR must advocate for the formal acknowledgment of immigration risk at the board level to ensure proper governance. Companies must articulate how visa policies affect project timelines and business continuity to leadership. Employers must adapt by sponsoring green cards early for H-1B hires to ensure retention and compliance amidst changing immigration policies, and should also consider the national interest waiver as an alternative pathway for highly skilled talent.
To address talent shortages and regulatory changes, it is essential to develop evidence-based approaches and comprehensive immigration strategies. The growing demand for skilled talent drives the need for strategic workforce planning. As regulations and requirements continue to evolve, organizations must develop new processes to keep up with these changes and maintain compliance.
Quick Answer: The strongest starting point combines all three—USCIS and DOL for policy clarity, immigration lawyers for risk strategy, and tech platforms for compliance automation.
CIOs and HR directors can begin with official immigration agency portals to understand visa types and policy updates:
While these sources provide foundational knowledge, they can be complex and fragmented for enterprise users.
A specialized immigration law firm—such as the Herman Legal Group—helps bridge these silos.
Experienced attorneys analyze corporate structures, employee profiles, and long-term hiring plans to:
Digital immigration platforms like Envoy Global, Tracker, or Fragomen Connect integrate with HRIS systems to:
| Option | Strengths | Limitations |
|---|---|---|
| Government Resources | Free, authoritative, regularly updated | Complex navigation, no automation |
| Legal Counsel | Strategic, risk-based guidance | Costlier but essential for compliance |
| Tech Platforms | Streamlined workflows, analytics | Dependent on accurate human input |
Optimal Approach: Use all three synergistically—government sources for regulatory clarity, legal counsel for strategic oversight, and tech platforms for operational scalability.
Quick Answer: Build a Visa Diversification Portfolio — mix visa categories to minimize risk, automate compliance, and reduce per-employee sponsorship cost.
Offshore teams and hybrid delivery models are transforming business models by enabling operational efficiency and cost savings, as companies leverage offshore teams in regions like India, Eastern Europe, or APAC. These approaches allow organizations to maintain quality while optimizing expenses and adapting to new strategic shifts.
When considering Employer-of-Record (EOR) models and hiring abroad, companies must also navigate work authorizations, as changes in visa regulations and work authorization requirements directly impact hiring strategies and the availability of qualified foreign workers.
The rise of remote work and global hiring is reshaping jobs, leading to both the creation of new jobs and shifts in job requirements, as organizations adapt their workforce strategies to a rapidly changing employment landscape.
Like an investment portfolio, visa diversification spreads risk across multiple categories. Changes to the H-1B visa program may push employers to seek diversified workforce strategies to reduce dependency on uncertain U.S. immigration outcomes. Instead of relying solely on H-1B petitions, enterprises can balance their hiring pipeline with alternatives. U.S. companies are increasingly choosing alternatives to H-1B visas to access global tech talent directly.
HR leaders can use Talent Cloud systems (e.g., HRIS + ImmigrationOS) to integrate:
| Visa Type | Avg. Gov. Fees | Legal Costs | Processing Time |
|---|---|---|---|
| H-1B | $7,000–$100,000 | $2,000–$6,000 | 3–9 months |
| L-1A/L-1B | $2,000–$6,000 | $3,000–$5,000 | 2–6 months |
| O-1A | $1,800–$5,000 | $3,000–$7,000 | 2–4 months |
| TN | $700–$1,500 | $1,000–$2,000 | Immediate (border) |
| E-2 | $2,500–$6,000 | $5,000–$10,000 | 3–6 months |
Using technology to monitor these costs allows CIOs to optimize ROI while maintaining access to global expertise. Offshore and hybrid delivery models are emerging as a strategic opportunity for U.S. firms amid rising immigration costs. Remote work has become operationally normal, allowing companies to manage tech teams across borders without losing productivity. Creating local tech centers in other countries enables companies to hire directly according to local laws and regulations. Using an Employer-of-Record (EOR) model allows companies to hire staff abroad without setting up a local entity.
In today’s rapidly evolving technology sector, building and managing global tech teams is no longer just an option—it’s a strategic necessity for companies aiming to stay ahead in a fiercely competitive market. The Trump administration’s immigration restrictions and the rising cost of H-1B visas have accelerated a shift in delivery models, prompting technology leaders to rethink how they access and retain global talent. Offshore and hybrid delivery models have emerged as powerful solutions, offering cost savings, scalability, and resilience in the face of regulatory risk and talent shortages.
To succeed, companies must navigate a complex web of immigration processes and compliance requirements. The Department of Homeland Security and Immigration Services play a pivotal role in shaping the current state of immigration policy, with the H-1B lottery system introducing unpredictability into workforce planning. The Biden administration’s final rule and the Trump administration’s proposed rule—emphasizing higher wage levels and stricter eligibility—have created new challenges, especially for small businesses and startups competing for top talent. As a result, organizations are increasingly exploring alternative pathways, such as national interest waivers and extraordinary ability visas, to secure foreign-born workers with critical technical expertise.
Offshore and hybrid teams, particularly in regions like Eastern Europe, Latin America, and other countries with burgeoning tech hubs, provide access to highly skilled professionals at lower costs compared to traditional U.S. tech centers. These regions offer favorable business environments and a deep pool of international students and experienced engineers. However, companies must also address potential challenges, including language barriers, cultural differences, and the need for full compliance with both U.S. and local regulations.
Technology is a key enabler in managing distributed teams. Artificial intelligence and advanced collaboration tools streamline talent acquisition, performance monitoring, and cross-border communication, helping organizations maintain productivity and security across time zones. Yet, as companies leverage these technologies, they must remain vigilant about regulatory risk and the impact of shifting immigration policies on their business outcomes.
The growing concerns around immigration restrictions are not just about immediate hiring challenges—they also threaten long-term technology innovation. The California Davis study underscores the risk of brain drain and reduced competitiveness in critical fields like AI and data science when access to global talent is restricted. For tech leaders, this means that developing adaptive, compliant, and innovative talent strategies is more important than ever.
Quick Answer: Beyond H-1B, the best alternatives include L-1, O-1, TN, E-2, J-1, and H-3 visas, depending on nationality, skills, and company structure.
| Visa Type | Ideal For | Key Benefit | Main Limitation |
|---|---|---|---|
| L-1A / L-1B | Multinational managers, executives, or specialized employees | No cap, fast processing | Must have qualifying foreign entity |
| O-1A | Individuals with extraordinary ability in tech, science, or business | Flexible, renewable, prestige factor | Requires extensive evidence portfolio |
| TN (USMCA) | Canadian/Mexican tech professionals | Low cost, fast border processing | Limited occupation list |
| E-2 | Investors or essential employees of treaty-country firms | Great for startups | Only for treaty countries |
| J-1 / H-3 | Trainees and interns | Ideal for R&D and exchange programs | Limited work authorization |
Tip: Many CIOs overlook that O-1A visas can be used for exceptional project managers, data scientists, or AI specialists with demonstrable achievements, publications, or patents.
Resource: Review theUSCIS O-1 Visa Criteriafor a detailed checklist.
Quick Answer: Emerging categories like O-1 for Entrepreneurs, E-2 for investors, Global Entrepreneur in Residence (GEIR), and B-1 in lieu of H-1B enable short-term innovation and startup growth.
An entrepreneur-led O-1A can be sponsored by a U.S. startup with proper corporate structure and third-party governance (e.g., independent board).
For executives or essential employees from treaty countries, the E-2 visa offers:
These university-based initiatives—available in Massachusetts, Colorado, and Missouri—allow startup founders to hold cap-exempt H-1B positions while scaling their businesses.
Short-term (up to 6 months) for project-based consultants needing temporary on-site roles—ideal for pilot projects, training, or installations.
Quick Answer: The biggest mistakes involve ignoring DOL audit requirements, LCA posting rules, and client-site oversight, leading to costly penalties and reputational damage.
Quick Resource: DOL Compliance Guide for Employers.
Compliance – Cost – Continuity
This 3C model positions global mobility as a strategic investment rather than a compliance burden.
The future of immigration for tech leadership is about predictive strategy: Data analytics can help forecast staffing needs and evaluate the impact of immigration policy shifts on recruitment. In a rapidly changing world, workforce planning and immigration strategies are increasingly shaped by global trends and competition, requiring organizations to adapt to interconnected challenges. Automation is increasingly adopted by CIOs to manage talent shortages and offset workforce constraints due to immigration policies. AI is reshaping the workplace, making human-centric skills like creativity and empathy more valuable.
Forward-thinking CIOs align their workforce roadmaps with the Department of Labor’s long-term occupational forecasts and USCIS modernization rules to maintain agility.
Richard T. Herman, Esq. is a nationally recognized immigration lawyer with over 30 years of experience representing global companies, tech startups, and professionals. He is the founder of the Herman Legal Group, a multi-lingual immigration law firm serving clients in all 50 states. Richard is also co-author of the acclaimed book Immigrant, Inc., exploring how immigrant entrepreneurs fuel innovation in America.
Connect with Richard and learn more about corporate immigration strategy at the Herman Legal Group Attorney Bio Page.
Slug:This guide by immigration lawyer Richard T. Herman helps CIOs and HR leaders navigate 2025’s complex visa landscape. Learn about H-1B alternatives, compliance technology, and the future of global tech hiring.
Meta Title: Smart Visa Strategy for CIOs & HR Leaders | Global Talent Recruitment 2025
Meta Description: Learn how CIOs and HR leaders can attract global tech talent under new 2025 immigration rules. Explore visa alternatives, compliance strategies, and cost optimization.
Focus Keyphrase: visa alternatives for CIOs
SEO Tags: CIO visa strategy, HR immigration compliance, H-1B alternatives, O-1 visa, L-1 transfer, E-2 investor visa, global mobility, startup visa options, HLG immigration law, corporate immigration 2025
Excerpt (Yoast Readability Snippet):
This guide by immigration lawyer Richard T. Herman helps CIOs and HR leaders navigate 2025’s complex visa landscape. Learn about H-1B alternatives, compliance technology, and the future of global tech hiring.
Hero Image Description:
A CIO and HR executive review a compliance dashboard visualizing visa categories and global hiring metrics, branded with the Herman Legal Group logo.
Visual Prompts:
(All visuals should be created using Herman Legal Group branding colors: navy, white, silver, and slate gray, with alt-text for accessibility and SEO.)
CLEVELAND (HEADQUARTER)
© Copyright 2025, HLG, LLC. All Rights Reserved
