The Trump administration has launched a national campaign to recruit what it calls “deportation judges,” a term that signals a dramatic restructuring of the immigration adjudication system. These roles mirror immigration judges—but the branding and job language suggest a system engineered for faster removals, fewer continuances, and reduced due process. Reports from USA Today, Detroit News, and NBC Bay Area reveal that career immigration judges have already been fired, clearing the way for a more enforcement-driven judiciary.
For immigrants, this means the difference between a fair hearing and a rushed removal. For families, students, workers, and asylum seekers, the risk has never been higher. The goal of this article is to break down exactly what’s changed and give you the tools, checklists, insights, and legal framework you need to protect yourself or your loved ones.
The Trump administration’s push to hire “deportation judges” is more than a workforce campaign. It’s a signal that the United States is shifting from a justice-based immigration court model to an enforcement-driven removal machine. With public ads targeting attorneys to join the “deportation judge corps,” the federal government appears to be collapsing the separation between DHS enforcement and DOJ adjudication.
This article dissects what the job postings actually reveal, what the media has confirmed, and what attorneys—including Richard T. Herman, Esq., with more than 30 years of experience—are already seeing inside the system.
| Year | Development | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| 2017 | Enforcement surge begins under Sessions | Increased pressure on immigration courts |
| 2020 | “Rocket dockets” appear | Shorter hearings, heavy caseloads |
| 2023–2024 | Pre-Trump backlog hits historic highs | Over 3 million pending cases |
| 2025 (early) | Career immigration judges fired or reassigned | Less judicial independence |
| 2025 (Nov.) | DOJ launches “deportation judge” recruitment ads | Signals a redesigned removal pipeline |
Multiple credible outlets confirm that DOJ posted recruitment ads calling for lawyers to apply as “deportation judges”:
Technically, the posted roles fall under EOIR immigration judge hiring.
But the public-facing branding—never used before in U.S. history—signals a pivot:
Not neutral judge → removal adjudicator.
The ads emphasize efficiency, speed, meritorious claims only, and high caseload processing—all hallmarks of a conveyor-belt removal system.
| Aspect | Traditional Immigration Judge | “Deportation Judge” (Advertised) |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose | Neutral adjudicator | High-volume removal processor |
| Branding | “Immigration Judge” | “Deportation Judge” |
| Safeguards | Ethical barriers, procedural protections | Emphasis on throughput, fewer continuances |
| Hearings | Often lengthy, detailed | Short, streamlined |
| Expected Output | Case-by-case justice | Rapid removal decisions |
| Agency Alignment | DOJ adjudication | Appears aligned with DHS enforcement goals |
Changing the label changes:
This branding shift normalizes the idea that immigration courts are removal factories, not justice forums.
Richard Herman puts it bluntly:
“A court with a pre-determined preferred outcome is not a court. It is an administrative removal chute.”
If the role is marketed inherently as a “deportation” job, neutrality is compromised.
Faster hearings = more missed hearings = more default removal orders.
Expedited dockets often rely on detention to guarantee:
Pro se immigrants fare far worse in accelerated systems.
A red flag: job ads promising to “ensure only meritorious claims succeed” suggest a predisposition against approvals.
This alone undermines the legal requirement that asylum and relief cases receive individualized, impartial review.
Most Americans do not realize: immigration courts are not independent courts.
They are controlled by the Department of Justice, not the judiciary.
They operate under the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).
Because EOIR is part of DOJ, the Attorney General can directly influence:
AILA and NAIJ have repeatedly argued that EOIR’s placement inside DOJ leads to:
Their long-standing position: The U.S. needs an Article I independent immigration court.
The hiring blitz for “deportation judges” did not emerge in isolation. It follows what multiple news outlets describe as an unprecedented purge of career Immigration Judges (IJs) across the United States. These firings shook EOIR, destabilized dockets nationwide, and sent an unmistakable message to remaining judges: neutrality will not be tolerated.
Media outlets reported a large-scale replacement of immigration judges in 2025, with credible sources describing the removal of a significant number of IJs viewed as insufficiently aligned with the administration’s enforcement goals.
While exact numbers vary across reports and interviews, attorneys across major jurisdictions describe a consistent wave — dozens of judges removed or reassigned in a matter of months.
Multiple judges spoke to journalists anonymously — or after leaving EOIR — because they feared professional retaliation.
Their statements, as summarized in media reporting, paint a disturbing picture:
NBC Bay Area reported that former judges saw these firings as an “attack on the rule of law and judicial independence.”
Source:
NBC Bay Area
According to attorney accounts and public reporting, the IJs who were dismissed often had one or more of the following characteristics:
They granted continuances, allowed expert testimony, or gave asylum seekers adequate time to gather evidence.
Many had backgrounds in nonprofit legal services, public defense, or asylum representation — roles viewed skeptically by political leadership.
Even when within normal statistical variance, judges with comparatively balanced asylum grant rates were scrutinized.
Some spoke, internally or publicly, against production metrics.
Chief and assistant chief immigration judges who defended judicial independence were reportedly among those reassigned.
Immigration judges are not Article III lifetime-appointed judges.
They are employees of the Department of Justice, subject to:
Given that structure, firing dozens of judges sends a clear message to the entire system:
Rule how we want, or we will replace you.
This has a chilling effect on:
Remaining judges see what happened and adjust accordingly, which leads to:
The timing was not subtle.
Step 1: Fire or purge neutral, fair-minded judges with experience.
Step 2: Launch a national recruitment campaign for “deportation judges” with public ads emphasizing removal power and “speed.”
This produces:
The Detroit News analysis framed it openly: DOJ wants judges who will “aid the crackdown” and “enhance enforcement efficiency.”
Source:
Detroit News
Across major jurisdictions (New York, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami), attorneys describe immediate changes:
Judges now deny continuances reflexively, even when unopposed by ICE.
Schedules accelerate; immigrants cannot secure counsel; hearings proceed without them.
Cases are scheduled rapidly; IJs encourage “quick resolution.”
ICE arrests respondents immediately after hearings or dismissals, triggering expedited removal.
Judges declare — without rulemaking — that they lack authority to conduct bond hearings for EWI cases.
Attorneys describe judges “looking over their shoulder,” worried their decisions will be second-guessed.
Multiple judges, speaking to reporters, expressed versions of the same idea:
the immigration court system has crossed a line.
Their concerns are echoed by organizations like the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), which has long argued that EOIR:
For many observers, the 2025 firings represent the final collapse of the appearance of judicial independence.
In 2025–26, the most alarming transformation inside the immigration court system is not merely the hiring of so-called “deportation judges”—it is the aggressive re-interpretation of longstanding law in ways that eliminate due process protections once considered foundational.
Immigration attorneys across the country are reporting three seismic shifts that fundamentally alter the nature of removal proceedings and the balance of power between Immigration Judges (IJs), ICE, and respondents.
For more than two decades, expedited removal (ER) was limited almost entirely to:
That framework is documented clearly in DHS and EOIR guidance:
Attorneys in multiple jurisdictions report a disturbing pattern:
This strategy weaponizes dismissal—a tool traditionally used to correct legal defects—into a trapdoor for fast-track deportation.
Expedited removal inside courthouse hallways represents a historic break from how immigration law has functioned in the United States since 1996.
For decades, immigration judges exercised clear jurisdiction to conduct bond hearings for individuals who:
This authority stems from long-established INA and EOIR policy guidance:
In 2025–26, attorneys nationwide report the sudden, sweeping claim (without rulemaking or Federal Register notice) that:
“IJs have no jurisdiction over bond for EWI cases.”
This reversal:
Bond hearings are the gateway to fairness.
A detained immigrant:
Removing bond jurisdiction is, in effect, removing access to justice.
This is not an interpretation of law; this is inventing a new rule without calling it a rule.
Attorneys in multiple cities report hearing the same chilling line from immigration judges:
“We all have our bosses.”
This phrase encapsulates the most dangerous trend of all:
the shrinking distance between EOIR adjudicators and DHS enforcement.
Historically, IJs and ICE attorneys operated as separate actors:
This tripartite structure was the bare minimum needed to call the process a “court.”
Immigration judges now routinely:
Quotas, firings, and political reappointments have created:
The IJ’s statement—“We all have our bosses”—is not a casual remark.
It is a confession that:
These changes form a coherent pattern:
→ Eliminates hearings entirely.
→ Keeps immigrants detained and vulnerable to rapid removal.
→ Replaces neutral adjudication with political obedience.
Together, these shifts dismantle the illusion that immigration courts are courts at all.
They reveal the emerging reality:
A national deportation machine disguised as a judicial process.
Online questions on Reddit and other forums abound:
“How did immigration courts suddenly get so aggressive? What changed?”
Here’s my explanation based on direct attorney experience.
This is the big one.
For 25+ years, expedited removal (ER) was used at:
Not inside immigration courts. And NEVER after a judge dismissed a case.
Now?
People show up for their EOIR hearing.
Their lawyer makes a motion to dismiss (which is normal).
The judge grants it.
Case closed.
And then ICE arrests them in the hallway and removes them under expedited removal — with NO hearing.
No asylum hearing.
No bond.
No appeals.
No judge.
Nothing.
This is a border tool being weaponized against people living inside the U.S.
And immigration judges are complicit because they know what happens the moment they dismiss the case.
This is new.
For decades, judges gave bond hearings to EWI respondents.
Every experiencd immigration attorney has handled hundreds of them.
Now?
Judges are saying:
“I don’t have jurisdiction.”
No rule change.
No statute change.
No Federal Register notice.
No EOIR memo.
Just… a new “interpretation” that magically eliminates bond for tens of thousands of people.
This means:
It’s not law.
It’s policy dressed up as law.
Attorneys across the U.S. are hearing the same line or sentiment from judges:
“We all have our bosses.”
This means:
Immigration courts were already not truly independent.
Now they aren’t even pretending.
This is why online communities are exploding with fear, confusion, and “WTF is happening?” threads.
And they’re right to panic.
One of the clearest signs that the U.S. immigration court system is not functioning like a real judicial system is the massive variation in asylum approval rates across different courts — and even between judges sitting in the same building, applying the same laws, reviewing the same types of cases.
This isn’t a small difference.
It is a national pattern of extreme inequality.
And it is documented publicly by TRAC Immigration, the country’s most respected nonpartisan source for immigration court analytics.
Reference:
TRAC Immigration – Asylum Decisions
Across the United States, the average asylum grant rate ranges widely depending on the court location. But the national average tells us almost nothing about what actually happens in individual courtrooms.
Here is the real landscape:
New York City, for example, has historically had an asylum approval rate in the 55–60% range (according to recent TRAC data summaries) (with some judges approving over 90% of their cases).
There are immigration courts — especially in certain Southern or interior jurisdictions — where the overall approval rates fall below 15%.
The gap is staggering.
Inside some high-volume courts, you can have:
The only difference?
The judge.
This is not normal variation — it is a symptom of a system where outcomes depend less on the law and more on who is sitting on the bench.
Below are the key reasons asylum decisions vary so dramatically across the country and even within the same courthouse:
Immigration Judges are:
This lack of independence leads to substantial variation — judges feel different levels of:
Reference:
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Since 2018, EOIR has imposed case completion quotas on judges.
These quotas:
Speed + high caseload pressure → holes in due process → wildly inconsistent outcomes.
Reference:
AILA – Immigration Court Reform
Local ICE attorneys and local court leadership often influence:
This regional enforcement culture explains why:
Same law.
Different climate.
Some judges come from:
Others come from:
Their professional history profoundly shapes:
This is not a defect in the judges as people — it is a defect in the system that places them in adjudicatory roles without true independence or consistent training.
Unlike real judicial systems, EOIR:
Even when the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) tries to unify standards, the Attorney General can:
Reference:
Office of the Attorney General – EOIR Decisions
This creates constant legal instability, encouraging variation.
Evaluating asylum cases requires assessing:
Without:
the result is a system where the judge’s personality and worldview matter more than the law.
Two asylum seekers with the same facts, the same fear, from the same country, could have completely opposite outcomes depending on:
This is not justice.
This is lottery-based adjudication.
TRAC reports have documented:
Reference:
TRAC Immigration – Asylum Decisions
The key takeaway from TRAC’s reporting is simple:
The law is the same everywhere — the outcomes are not.
The DOJ’s shift toward:
means the variation will increase dramatically.
Expect:
Because when the role is branded as “deportation judge”, asylum is no longer viewed as a protection — it is viewed as an obstacle.
In any true judicial system:
would produce consistent, predictable outcomes.
In EOIR, they do not.
This is not a reflection of asylum seekers.
It is a reflection of a deeply broken system.
One that prioritizes:
over fairness and consistency.
One of the biggest immigration mysteries on Reddit an other online forums is why some asylum seekers win their cases easily… while others get denied over and over.
Here’s the simple truth:
It depends almost entirely on which judge you get — not the law.
And yes, that’s as crazy as it sounds.
Reference for data:
TRAC Immigration – Asylum Decisions
New York City has one of the highest grant rates in the country.
Meanwhile, some courts in the South and Midwest approve less than 1 out of 10 asylum cases.
Same law.
Same statutes.
Same types of cases.
Totally different outcomes.
You can walk into the same courthouse and get:
Same building.
Same country conditions.
Same legal standard (“well-founded fear”).
Your fate depends on the draw of the judge — not your evidence.
Because immigration courts (EOIR) are not independent courts.
They are run by the Department of Justice, which is an enforcement agency.
DOJ controls:
This means judges face:
So outcomes drift based on:
Two people with the exact same asylum case can have:
That’s why people call the system “asylum roulette.”
After the 2025 hiring shift, judges are being recruited as “deportation judges,” not neutral adjudicators.
Combine that with:
…and it’s obvious the disparity will only grow.
This is why so many attorneys call it “justice by ZIP code.”
For decades, legal scholars, immigration judges, and civil rights organizations have warned that the United States does not actually have an independent immigration court system. Immigration courts live inside the Department of Justice (DOJ) — an agency whose primary mission is enforcement, not neutrality.
Now, after the 2025 shift toward “deportation judges,” the crisis has become too large to ignore.
EOIR is run by:
This gives DOJ direct control over:
Even the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) is an extension of DOJ.
There is no constitutional separation.
Reference:
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Organizations across the spectrum support removing EOIR from DOJ and creating an Article I court, like:
Supporters include:
An Article I court would:
The “deportation judge” era demonstrates what experts warned for decades:
When a prosecutorial agency controls the court, it can:
These are not policy disputes — they are constitutional dangers.
A truly independent court would:
Judges would:
Judges would no longer be performance-rated like factory workers.
Expedited removal would return to the border, where it belongs.
Bond hearings for EWI respondents would return to longstanding norms.
No more “justice by zip code,” where outcomes depend on the judge, the city, or the administration.
Congress has the power to create an Article I court by statute.
Dozens of legislative proposals over the past 25 years attempted this.
But after the events of 2025–26 —
the need is no longer academic, it’s urgent.
Without structural reform:
The 2025–26 transformations revealed the fragility of a system where:
This is not a court.
It’s an administrative removal mechanism wearing judicial clothing.
Reform must not only undo recent damage — it must move immigration courts into the modern era, with:
Until then, due process will remain optional, conditional, and politically defined — instead of legally guaranteed.
Under DOJ regulations, immigration judges can be evaluated using case completion metrics.
Reference:
AILA has stated for years that quotas:
EOIR has used “rocket docket” calendars since 2017, heavily criticized by:
Rocket dockets schedule:
According to TRAC:
Source:
Across the country, attorneys report:
Master hearings that once lasted 10–20 minutes are now as short as 3–5 minutes.
Even valid reasons like:
Detained individuals face especially fast timelines, making legal defense extremely difficult.
TRAC data shows growing rates of removal orders for “failure to appear.”
Lawyers in major cities like:
ICE trial attorneys have less authority to close or pause cases.
NAIJ members have publicly stated that their colleagues avoid granting asylum because:
This reflects a judiciary under pressure, not a neutral court.
Asylum already requires:
Under fast-track “deportation judge” hearings, there is often:
Source for data trends:
Marriage-based cases or hardship-based relief require time to gather evidence:
Time compression destroys this process.
F-1, OPT, and H-1B cases can be pushed into removal quickly if:
People who have lived in the U.S. for 10+ years, with strong equities, will find it harder to:
Detention + “deportation judge” =
near-zero chance of meaningful due process.
Immigration courts are unique:
The Attorney General can:
Reference:
A “deportation judge” is the public-facing term used in DOJ recruitment ads to hire new immigration judges. The official job title remains Immigration Judge (IJ) within the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). However, the branding strongly implies an enforcement-first role emphasizing fast removals.
Reference:
EOIR – Immigration Judges
Technically yes—but functionally no.
The recruitment ads emphasize:
This differs sharply from traditional due-process-oriented adjudication.
Because immigration judges are supposed to be neutral adjudicators.
Labeling them “deportation judges”:
Immigration judges are employees of the Department of Justice, not independent courts.
Reference:
DOJ – EOIR Overview
No. Immigration courts are administrative courts, not judicial courts.
They are subject to:
AILA and NAIJ have repeatedly highlighted this structural flaw.
AILA has stated for years that EOIR must be removed from DOJ because:
Reference:
AILA – Immigration Court Reform
Yes.
Multiple credible reports indicate that dozens of immigration judges were terminated or reassigned for being “too lenient.”
References:
NBC Bay Area
USA Today
Detroit News
Several were reportedly removed after:
EOIR has not publicly confirmed the specific personnel decisions.
But DOJ hiring ads suggest the administration wants judges who:
This language is controversial because it implies a presumption of denial.
The Attorney General can:
Reference:
EOIR – Attorney General Decisions
Performance quotas require judges to complete a minimum number of cases per year.
Quotas pressure judges to:
Reference:
AILA on Quotas
Because complex cases (asylum, cancellation, hardship waivers) require time.
Quotas turn judges into case-processing machines rather than neutral decision-makers.
A rocket docket is an accelerated court schedule with:
Used heavily for:
Yes.
TRAC data shows increases nationwide as hearing schedules accelerate and immigrants cannot obtain counsel in time.
Reference:
TRAC Immigration Court Data
Yes—and that’s a problem.
Asylum requires extensive documentation, and speeding hearings reduces fairness.
Yes, but fewer.
Judges under pressure are granting fewer continuances across the country.
Yes—but not at government expense.
This means time compression disproportionately harms unrepresented immigrants.
Reference:
EOIR – Rights in Removal Proceedings
Extremely.
Detention accelerates hearings and limits:
Detention + “deportation judge” model =
rocket removal pipeline.
In some cities:
Other cities report even shorter timelines.
Yes.
When courts accelerate, ICE obtains faster custody-to-removal routes.
In-absentia removal is almost guaranteed.
Reopening the case later is extremely difficult.
Fewer continuances means:
They must:
Less time = greater danger.
DACA remains vulnerable:
Any lapse, mis-filing, or allegation can trigger:
Yes.
SEVIS data errors or unauthorized employment may lead to expedited hearings.
Reports indicate ICE is reactivating older orders in major cities.
Yes.
Legal organizations have documented increased ICE presence around:
Yes—if the person has:
Yes.
Hardship, medical, and psychological evidence often takes weeks.
Accelerated hearings make full evidence impossible.
Cancellation cases require:
Fast timelines devastate these cases.
Lawyers report judges pressuring immigrants to choose voluntary departure instead of pursuing relief.
Absolutely.
Accelerated hearings disproportionately harm unrepresented immigrants.
Yes.
Unaccompanied minors and children in mixed-status families face:
Yes.
But requests are increasingly denied unless:
Use the automated hotline or online portal:
Accelerated timelines leave little time for certified translations, which can harm case strength.
It depends on local ICE Office of Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA) guidance.
But many offices have scaled back PD under the enforcement-first approach.
Generally no—but if someone has prior orders, ICE may use this as a location to detain individuals.
Possibly, but:
You must update your address on Form EOIR-33 within 5 days of moving.
Failure may lead to in-absentia removal.
Reference:
EOIR Change of Address Form
You must file a motion to continue before the hearing, with supporting evidence.
But approval is not guaranteed.
It reduces:
Yes, in detained cases.
Fast-track denials increase appeals.
But the BIA is also under pressure to move faster.
Reference:
Board of Immigration Appeals
Motions to reopen without government consent face higher denial rates.
Yes.
The system is designed for speed.
Representation is the single strongest predictor of success.
You can schedule a consultation with an experienced immigration attorney at:
Herman Legal Group – Book Consultation
By Richard T. Herman, Immigration Attorney
30+ Years of U.S. Immigration Law Practice
Founder, Herman Legal Group
Historically → No.
A simple visa overstay has long not been a basis for arrest during a USCIS marriage green-card interview.San Diego in late 2025 → Yes.
Multiple immigrants with no criminal history — only visa overstay — were detained by ICE during USCIS interviews.
Media confirmations include:
- ABC 10 San Diego — reporting arrests of applicants with only overstay issues.
(See: ABC 10 News Report)- Daylight San Diego — documenting arrests at routine adjustment-of-status interviews.
(Read Report)
No evidence that other major cities (Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, New York, Miami, Phoenix, Dallas, Atlanta, Seattle, Denver) have adopted this practice.
San Diego is not “isolated,” but it is the first.
There are strong indicators that this may expand under current enforcement policies unless DHS clarifies guardrails.
For decades, immigrants married to U.S. citizens could attend their green-card interview with confidence: an overstay alone would not lead to arrest. The law allows such applicants to adjust status inside the U.S., and the marriage interview was considered a low-risk, administrative process.
But two recent media-confirmed arrests at the San Diego USCIS Field Office — involving immigrants whose only issue was visa overstay — have shaken this long-standing expectation.
Immigration lawyers in cities across the country have asked:
“Is this the new norm?
Are simple overstays now targets for arrest at USCIS interviews?”
This article answers that question with clarity, nuance, legal accuracy, and national relevance.
Under INA § 245(a), a foreign national who:
may adjust status even if:
For 30 years, this statutory protection made marriage-based green-card interviews one of the safest points of contact with USCIS.
Overstay is a civil violation, not a crime.
Historically it has not triggered ICE enforcement during interviews.
New DHS directives (2025+) emphasize:
These policy signals explain why San Diego may be a testing ground.
Multiple media outlets have confirmed arrests including:
A father married to a U.S. citizen, no criminal history, detained immediately after an adjustment interview.
Link:
ABC 10 News San Diego Investigation
A fiancé-visa entrant who overstayed — otherwise eligible for marriage AOS — detained without warning.
Link:
Daylight San Diego Report
A woman with no criminal history detained after interview (reported by local advocates).
Patterns Across Cases:
These are precisely the types of applicants historically viewed as low-risk.
Even a simple overstay makes someone removable under U.S. law.
USCIS interviews were treated as:
The arrests are not unlawful — but they represent a major departure from decades of agency practice.
San Diego is the only field office with documented arrests for simple overstay.
But the risk is no longer zero anywhere.
Nationwide immigration lawyers are watching closely, but no other cities have confirmed similar events as of this writing.
Richard Herman observes:
“When USCIS and ICE share data more aggressively, and DHS signals an enforcement-first approach, it’s only a matter of time before a local anomaly becomes a national pattern.”
San Diego attorneys note potential contributing factors:
Not illegal — but increases ICE interest.
If no I-94 exists (e.g., border waved-through), USCIS may deny AOS and ICE may arrest.
Even a decades-old fingerprint from a traffic stop at a checkpoint could surface.
Database mismatches can erroneously flag someone.
San Diego is a major ICE field office with active operations.
Important Clarification
Not every San Diego arrestee had additional issues.
Several appear to be truly “simple overstay” cases.
Fear → No.
Preparation → Absolutely yes.
99% of marriage green-card interviews across the U.S. still proceed without ICE involvement.
But under the 2025 enforcement climate, the interview should not be treated casually.
“In 2026, every overstay case — even marriage-based — needs a risk assessment. The era of assuming interviews are safe is over.”
These categories should receive legal screening before attending:
What immigrants must understand:
Most marriage green-card cases remain safe.
But in today’s enforcement climate, no applicant with an overstay should attend a USCIS interview without legal preparedness.
In San Diego: Yes, confirmed.
Nationwide: No widespread pattern so far.
Yes. Under INA §245(a), overstays are usually forgiven when married to a U.S. citizen.
Not generally — but they are no longer 100% safe, especially for applicants with additional complications.
Yes. Absolutely.
The enforcement climate requires pre-interview screening.
Yes. Any removable noncitizen can legally be detained anywhere, including federal buildings.
Past administrations treated USCIS interviews as service zones, not enforcement traps.
Still low-risk for lawful-entry overstays with no other issues, but risk is rising.
Multiple immigrants with no crimes and simple overstay were detained by ICE immediately after marriage or family AOS interviews.
At least three, all verified by local media.
No. Available reporting indicates clean records.
Yes — exactly the category traditionally considered safe.
Media reports and attorney statements strongly suggest yes.
No verified reports outside San Diego as of today.
Based on attorney networks:
NYC, LA, SF, Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, Miami, Chicago, Atlanta, Seattle, DC, Boston, Denver, etc.
Not necessarily. San Diego may be a pilot enforcement site.
No — but attorneys are preparing more aggressively.
Afraid? No.
Prepared? Absolutely.
No. It is a civil violation.
Yes — technically removable, but traditionally low priority.
Yes — if entry was lawful.
They cannot adjust status through USCIS unless protected under special laws (e.g., 245(i)).
Very high.
These cases should consider legal alternatives before attending interview.
High risk — USCIS must verify lawful entry.
Sometimes retrievable via:
CBP I-94 System
This may still count as lawful entry, but must be proven. High-risk without documentation.
Common. Stamps are not legally required, but I-94 needs verification.
Often yes—through FOIA, CBP databases, or secondary evidence.
YES.
This is now standard best practice.
In 2025–2026: YES. ESSENTIAL.
Absolutely not.
Yes, especially bona-fide marriage questions.
Sometimes — depending on fingerprints or ICE flags.
Yes. Very likely.
100% yes — this is a high-risk scenario.
Yes, if there is a removal order tied to it.
Not usually, unless fraud is involved.
Not usually — but ICE may wait outside or be called in.
It can. This appears to have happened in San Diego.
Yes — via background checks and IDENT biometrics.
Sometimes — they could be coordinating with supervision or ICE.
Often:
Often yes — but depends on prior orders or criminal issues.
Within hours if attorney is prepared.
Possibly — under medical or extraordinary family considerations.
Yes — shows ties to U.S. citizens.
Yes — sometimes very quickly.
Likely — part of “full enforcement” posture.
Unknown — but highly possible.
Yes — through internal memos or political pressure.
Hire counsel, prepare thoroughly, and treat interviews as controlled-risk events, not guaranteed safe zones.
“Marriage to a U.S. citizen protects you from arrest.”
FACT:
Marriage offers a legal pathway, not immunity. Overstay = still removable.
“If your case is strong, you’re safe at USCIS.”
FACT:
San Diego arrests show even strong cases can face ICE intervention.
“Only criminals get arrested at interviews.”
FACT:
San Diego cases involved clean-record overstays.
“This is only happening in Southern California.”
FACT:
Currently true — but enough to change national risk planning.
“A lawyer cannot prevent arrest.”
FACT:
A lawyer cannot block ICE — but can identify risks early and prepare emergency strategies.
“In 2026, every overstay case must be treated as a risk-managed event — not a routine interview.”
“The San Diego arrests are not an anomaly. They are a signal.”
“A green-card interview should never be a surprise enforcement checkpoint — but recent events prove it can be.”
“Legal entry is the difference between a path to residency and a path to a detention center.”
If you or your spouse has a visa overstay, entry issue, prior removal order, or any concern about the safety of a USCIS interview, speak with an experienced immigration attorney before taking risks.
Schedule a consultation:
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/book-consultation/
ABC 10 News San Diego — “Clients Detained During Green Card Interviews”:
https://www.10news.com/news/local-news/san-diego-immigration-attorneys-report-clients-detained-during-green-card-interviews-in-unprecedented-crackdown
Daylight San Diego — “ICE Arrests Expand to Green Card Appointments”:
https://www.daylightsandiego.org/san-diego-ice-arrests-expand-to-green-card-appointments/
USCIS Adjustment of Status (Form I-485):
https://www.uscis.gov/i-485
CBP I-94 Retrieval:
https://i94.cbp.dhs.gov/I94/#/home
USCIS Case Status:
https://egov.uscis.gov/casestatus/
EOIR Automated Case Status (Immigration Court):
https://acis.eoir.justice.gov/en/
ICE Detainee Locator:
https://locator.ice.gov/odls/#/index
USCIS FOIA:
https://www.uscis.gov/records/request-records-through-the-freedom-of-information-act-or-privacy-act
CBP FOIA:
https://foia.cbp.gov/
ICE FOIA:
https://www.ice.gov/foia
EOIR FOIA:
https://www.justice.gov/eoir/foia
FBI Identity History Summary (Criminal Background):
https://www.edo.cjis.gov/
Marriage Green Card:
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/marriage-green-card-process/
Overstay Options When Married to a U.S. Citizen:
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/married-to-a-us-citizen-overstay/
Green Card Interview Preparation:
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/green-card-interview-questions/
Deportation Defense Guide:
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/deportation-defense-options/
Extreme Hardship Waivers:
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/i-601-extreme-hardship-waiver/
How to Run FOIA Requests:
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/foia-immigration-records/
National Immigrant Justice Center (Know Your Rights):
https://immigrantjustice.org
ACLU Immigration Rights:
https://www.aclu.org/issues/immigrants-rights
American Immigration Council (Policy Guides):
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/
Immigration Equality (LGBTQ+ support):
https://immigrationequality.org/
Fast action is key — it can mean the difference between release and months in detention. Being detained by ICE can be a frightening experience for immigrants and their families. Immigrants who are detained might face severe emotional and financial consequences, making legal support crucial. Many immigrants face difficulties in locating an attorney due to limited availability in their area.
Always verify visitation hours directly with the facility before traveling — ICE and county rules change frequently, especially after COVID-related updates. Family members and attorneys should bring photo ID and confirm the detainee’s A-Number (A#) for entry or phone inquiries.
When ICE arrests someone in Columbus, Cleveland, or Cincinnati, the first three days determine everything. The immigration court system does not guarantee free legal representation for those who cannot afford a lawyer.
During this window:
“The first 72 hours after arrest can determine whether your loved one spends months detained — or comes home on bond.”
— Richard T. Herman, Esq.
(See ICE Detention Facilities ).
Most cases go through the Cleveland Immigration Court ; some transfer to Detroit EOIR .
“Bond hearings reward preparation and honesty. Judges look for community ties and stability.”
— Richard T. Herman
ALERT:
Don’t wait for ICE to reach out — your lawyer must initiate contact and advocate immediately.
“Families that call within hours — not days — often secure release quickly. Time and preparation are everything.”
— Richard T. Herman, Esq.
After release, your attorney can pursue:
|
Law Firm |
Locations |
Strengths |
Notes |
| Herman Legal Group | Cleveland • Columbus • Cincinnati • Dayton • Youngstown | Bond, removal, family & asylum; bilingual staff | 30+ years’ experience; same-day consults |
| Margaret W. Wong & Associates | Cleveland | Removal & business visas | Prominent NE Ohio firm |
| Robert Brown LLC | Columbus | Family & business visas | Limited bond work |
| Shihab Burke LLC | Columbus | Immigration & criminal defense | Smaller regional firm |
Under INA § 236(a), most non-citizens detained by ICE may request bond if they:
INA § 236(c) requires detention without bond for:
These are called mandatory detention cases, meaning judges have no discretion to release.
Only a federal habeas petition can challenge unlawful or prolonged detention.
(See 8 U.S.C. § 1226 ).
A strong Bond Packet includes:
Label and paginate everything — a clean file reflects credibility.
“Bond hearings reward organization and humanity. Show the judge your life, not just your paperwork.”
— Richard T. Herman
If the bond amount is excessive:
If the IJ denies bond entirely, you can:
If you violate bond conditions, your bond can be revoked and an arrest warrant issued.
In Matter of Yajure Hurtado (2025), the BIA ruled that people who entered without inspection (EWI) are treated as “applicants for admission” under INA § 235(b)(2) — meaning immigration judges have no jurisdiction to set bond.
This decision effectively removes bond eligibility for many long-term undocumented Ohio residents.
(American Immigration Council Analysis)
If someone entered unlawfully years ago and is now detained by ICE:
When EOIR denies jurisdiction, the only avenue is a writ of habeas corpus in U.S. District Court (Northern or Southern District of Ohio).
The habeas petition argues:
Federal courts have authority under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to review these detentions.
(See American Immigration Litigation Center Guide ).
“If your loved one entered without inspection and ICE claims the judge can’t set bond — act fast. File habeas in federal court before transfers make it harder.”
— Richard T. Herman
When your loved one is detained by ICE in Ohio, a well-prepared motion for bond can make the difference between release and prolonged detention. In Ohio, bond hearings require compelling legal arguments to prove the individual is not a flight risk or danger to the community.
This motion is your formal written request asking the immigration judge (IJ) to hold a hearing and determine whether your family member qualifies for release under INA § 236(a).
Because bond hearings in Ohio are usually handled by the Cleveland Immigration Court, the motion must comply with both EOIR procedures and local court practices.
A motion for bond serves two main goals:
A strong motion tells a clear story — why the person should be trusted to appear for future hearings and why detention is unnecessary.
(See official EOIR filing instructions at justice.gov).
The motion should have the following structure:
The bond packet gives credibility to your motion and is often the single most persuasive part of the case. Include:
Judges appreciate clarity — organize your exhibits with a table of contents and label each tab (e.g., “Exhibit A – Sponsor Affidavit”).
(See Appealing a Bond Denial Before the BIA).
Q: How soon can someone be released on bond?
A: Often within 3–5 days once a lawyer files a bond motion and the judge schedules a hearing.
Q: What is mandatory detention?
A: Cases under INA § 236(c) where serious crimes or prior removals prevent any bond.
Q: What if ICE or the judge says there’s no jurisdiction?
A: Likely an EWI case under § 235(b)(2). Your attorney must file a federal habeas petition.
Q: Can bond amounts be reduced?
A: Yes — lawyers can request a bond redetermination or appeal excessive amounts.
Q: Who can pay immigration bond?
A: A U.S. citizen or LPR with valid ID over age 18.
Q: Will bond money be refunded?
A: Yes, if the immigrant attends all hearings and complies with court orders.
Q: Can an asylum seeker get bond?
A: Sometimes — if not subject to mandatory detention and showing credible fear or strong equities.
The Herman Legal Group has handled hundreds of bond motions and hearings across Ohio — from Cleveland and Columbus to Dayton and Youngstown.
Our team prepares comprehensive bond packets, negotiates with ICE, and ensures filings meet every procedural requirement. Contacting several immigration attorneys at once can increase the chances of finding one with availability to take your case.
For immediate help preparing a bond motion, contact:
📞 1-800-808-4013 or Schedule Online
“A bond motion is not just paperwork — it’s a chance to humanize your client and show the judge they belong home with family.”
— Richard T. Herman, Esq.
Immigration Bond Process & Hearings
Eligibility, Denials & Appeals
Mandatory Detention & EWI Case Law
The DV-2027 Diversity Visa Lottery—one of the most anticipated global immigration opportunities—now includes a passport-scan upload requirement that has sparked confusion and anxiety across Africa, South Asia, and Eastern Europe.
Applicants everywhere are asking:
This guide explains what the new DV-2027 passport rule means, who must comply, how to prepare, and what mistakes to avoid—so you don’t lose your chance at a U.S. green card before the lottery even begins. Currently, no passport documentation is required to submit a Diversity Visa Lottery application.
Richard T. Herman, Esq., immigration attorney:
“Every year, millions of hopeful applicants are disqualified for simple technical errors.
The passport-scan rule isn’t meant to punish—it’s meant to ensure each entry is genuine and verifiable.”
The U.S. Department of State first introduced a passport requirement for the Diversity Visa program in 2019 to combat fraud and multiple registrations. Some agents were submitting thousands of duplicate entries—sometimes without the applicant’s knowledge—and later extorting money when those applicants were selected. The U.S. Department of State has plans to publish this new requirement in the Federal Register for public comments before it can be finalized.
That rule was suspended during the pandemic but has returned—stricter than ever for DV-2027. Every principal applicant must upload a clear digital scan of the biographic page of a valid passport. The rule is expected to take effect with the 2026 Diversity Visa Program, which opens for entries in October 2025.
Any DV-2027 entry submitted without a valid passport scan will be automatically disqualified—no exceptions.
Legal Source: See the official DV Lottery Instructions.
The rule applies to all principal applicants, not dependents. Each applicant must provide:
Each entry must be tied to a unique, verifiable passport. Using another person’s passport—or an altered document—violates U.S. visa law.
Applicants from high-participation regions—Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Albania—should be extra careful; mismatched or expired passports are the top reason for disqualification.
You cannot submit a DV-2027 entry with an expired passport unless you qualify for a rare exemption (statelessness, refugee status, or lack of a functioning government).
If your passport is under renewal, wait until you receive the new one. Submitting with an expired or temporary number can trigger automatic rejection.
Expert Tip — Richard T. Herman:
“Applicants who rush and use an old passport often lose eligibility before the lottery even starts.
Always double-check that your passport is valid through at least May 2026, when interview scheduling begins.”
Fast Fact:
Only the biographic page is required—don’t upload visa or signature pages unless specifically requested later.
| Mistake | Consequence |
|---|---|
| Expired passport | Automatic rejection |
| Blurry/cropped image | Entry invalid |
| Mismatched name or DOB | Screening failure |
| Fake or altered document | Permanent ban |
| Shared passport number | Immediate rejection |
| Wrong file type | Upload fails |
Key Insight:
After submission, you cannot replace or edit your passport scan. Double-check everything before hitting Submit.
The State Department cross-checks passport numbers against global identity databases to block duplicates and fake entries.
For applicants in Africa and South Asia—where agents often handle submissions—this rule helps protect individuals from scams.
Richard T. Herman:
“The passport rule increases fairness by ensuring only legitimate applicants can enter.
But it also raises the stakes for mistakes—one wrong upload can cost your chance.”
In Nigeria, Ghana, and Kenya, passport backlogs are common. Apply early and verify that your MRZ code is visible.
In India, Nepal, and Bangladesh, use only official e-passport portals. Avoid “guarantee” agents.
Applicants from Ukraine, Russia, Albania, and Uzbekistan must ensure English transliterations match the passport spelling—Cyrillic variations frequently cause rejections.
If selected later and your passport is lost or renewed, bring the new passport and proof of continuity (old photocopy or police report).
Keep digital backups of your passport and DV-2027 confirmation page in secure cloud storage.
Stateless persons, refugees, or nationals from collapsed governments may request limited exemptions—but only with solid documentation.
Details are in the DV Program Instructions.
| Requirement | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Passport Scan | Verifies identity & nationality |
| Photo Upload | Confirms likeness & blocks duplicates |
Fast Fact:
Both passport and photo must be current and accurate—outdated files lead to disqualification.
Data is encrypted and deleted after each DV cycle. Upload only via the official DV entry portal — never through agents or third-party websites.
Key Insight:
Never email your passport scan. Only upload directly through the State Department portal.
“The new passport-verification rule reflects the government’s effort to balance security with accessibility. For genuine applicants, it’s simply a matter of preparation and attention to detail.”
Richard T. Herman, founder of the Herman Legal Group, has practiced immigration law for over 30 years and warns that small mismatches can derail strong cases.
| Law Firm | Region | Strengths |
|---|---|---|
| Herman Legal Group | Midwest (OH) | 30 years of global representation |
| Wilner & O’Reilly, APC | West Coast | Humanitarian and family visas |
| Peek & Toland Law Firm | Texas / South | Employment & family immigration |
| Tsang & Associates, PLC | East / West Coast | Complex consular processing |
| Kuck Baxter Immigration | Southeast U.S. | DV lottery appeals and litigation |
1. Do I need a passport to apply? Yes—principal applicants must upload a valid, unexpired passport scan.
2. Can I use an expired passport? No, unless a rare exemption applies.
3. What if it’s being renewed? Wait for the new passport.
4. Uploaded the wrong page? Entry invalid.
5. Passport expires 2026? Renew before interview.
6. Lost passport? Replace it and bring proof.
7. Do family members need passports? Not for entry, but required if selected.
8. Are e-passports accepted? Yes.
9. Is there a fee? Only the $1 registration fee.
10. Can I update after selection? Yes—show both old and new passports at interview.
11. How to check status? Visit DV Lottery Check Status in May 2026.
12. Need help? See Herman Legal Group’s DV Lottery Guide or book a consultation with Richard T. Herman.
For years, travelers renewing U.S. visas enjoyed a convenient perk: the interview waiver—popularly called the “drop-box.”
But as of October 1 2025, the U.S. Department of State (DoS) has dramatically narrowed who qualifies.
This change affects millions of applicants worldwide, including those in India, the EU, UK, Japan, and Mexico. If you’re planning a visa renewal, this guide explains what changed, who still qualifies, and how to plan ahead.
The interview-waiver option allowed certain visa applicants to renew without appearing in person. Instead of an interview, they could submit documents and biometrics at a Visa Application Center (VAC).
Originally designed to reduce consulate crowding during COVID-19, the program let many people—especially:
—skip the interview if they met other eligibility rules.
Between 2021 and 2024, more than 50 percent of non-immigrant visas worldwide were issued under interview waivers, according to the U.S. Department of State.
On September 18 2025, the DoS announced that most broad interview-waiver authorities would expire starting October 1 2025. Effective September 2, 2025, most nonimmigrant visa applicants will be required to attend in-person interviews at U.S. consular posts.
Under the new policy (see official announcement): The U.S. Department of State will narrow the categories of applicants eligible for a nonimmigrant visa interview waiver starting September 2, 2025.
The DoS ended pandemic-era flexibilities, stating that routine interviews are vital for security and consistency.
Before October 1, children under 14 and applicants over 79 almost always qualified. Now those automatic age exemptions are gone unless the person meets another narrow waiver category.
For example, a 12-year-old renewing a tourist visa may now be required to attend an interview with a parent present.
According to the U.S. Department of State, only a very limited set of cases can skip the interview:
Always check your local U.S. embassy’s webpage for “Interview Waiver Eligibility.” For India, visit U.S. Embassy New Delhi and VFS Global.
India was the biggest beneficiary of the drop-box program. Until September 2025, most H-1B, L-1, and B-1/B-2 renewals used it.
After October 1, the U.S. Mission in India confirms that most applicants must now schedule full interviews, except for narrow renewal cases within 12 months.
See: U.S. Embassy India — Visa Services Update
Applicants in London and EU posts like Frankfurt, Paris, Warsaw now fall under the same policy.
Waivers for renewals within 12 months may still apply for B-1/B-2, C1/D crew, and diplomatic categories.
Check: U.S. Embassy London — Interview Waiver Program
The Tokyo and Osaka consulates advise that the drop-box is no longer automatic for low-risk renewals. Even repeat travelers may be called for interview “as needed.”
See U.S. Embassy Tokyo — Visas.
Mexico’s Border Crossing Card (BCC) holders may still use waivers if renewing within 12 months of expiration and meeting local criteria.
Details: U.S. Embassy Mexico — BCC Renewals.
1. Assume an Interview Is Required
Unless your case fits a clear waiver category, book an interview slot early. Don’t count on the drop-box to save time.
2. Monitor Visa Wait Times
Use the State Department’s Visa Wait Time Tool for real-time queues by embassy.
3. Prepare All Documentation Early
Complete your DS-160 form, pay the MRV fee, and review your passport validity and supporting documents.
4. If Your Drop-Box Slot Was Canceled
Watch for rescheduling emails from the embassy or VFS Global. You may need to attend in person.
5. Employers and Students — Plan for Delays
With interviews required, wait times for H-1B and F-1 renewals could stretch weeks or months.
Coordinate with employers or schools before traveling abroad.
“In my 30 years of immigration practice, I’ve never seen a rollback of the drop-box program this sweeping. We urge clients to plan for full interviews and consult experienced counsel before booking travel,” says Richard Herman, founder of the Cleveland-based Herman Legal Group.
The firm has offices in Cleveland, Columbus, Akron, Cincinnati, Dayton, and Youngstown, Ohio, serving clients nationwide. Schedule a consultation here.
Q1: Is the drop-box program completely gone?
No, but it’s much smaller. Only a few visa categories (such as diplomatic and narrow renewal cases) remain eligible.
Q2: My child is 12. Do they still qualify automatically?
No. Age alone is no longer a basis for exemption. Check your embassy’s website to see if the case fits a specific waiver.
Q3: What about my parents over 80?
They too may need to appear for interview unless the case meets a renewal or diplomatic exception.
Q4: I already booked a drop-box appointment for October. Will it be honored?
If your appointment was booked before October 1 and your embassy accepts it, you might still qualify. Otherwise, expect a reschedule.
Q5: Can consular officers still waive interviews individually?
Yes, under limited authority for low-risk cases or emergencies. But you cannot request it directly.
Q6: Will this increase visa wait times?
Almost certainly yes. The end of mass drop-box processing means more in-person interviews and longer queues.
Q7: What should employers of H-1B workers do?
Plan ahead for longer stamping times abroad. Encourage employees to consult an attorney before traveling.
Q8: Could the policy change again in 2026?
Possibly. Future administrations may reinstate limited waivers for efficiency. Monitor travel.state.gov for updates.
Experienced immigration lawyers can:
To consult with Herman Legal Group, click here to book a consultation.
The rollback of interview waivers marks a shift back to traditional security screening.
However, advocacy groups and business organizations are already pressing the State Department to restore simplified renewal channels, especially for frequent travelers and H-1B professionals.
“The next administration could bring back some waivers if wait times explode again,” notes Richard Herman. “But for now, everyone should prepare for face-to-face interviews.”
By Richard T. Herman, Immigration Attorney (30+ years), Herman Legal Group
The Diversity Immigrant Visa (DV) program—commonly known as the Green Card Lottery and officially called the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program by the U.S. government—offers up to 55,000 immigrant visas annually to individuals from countries with historically low immigration to the United States. The U.S. Department of State has announced that the Diversity Visa (DV) Lottery for 2027 will open this fall to new applicants. The dates and rules for the DV-2027 program are published in the Federal Register, the official government publication for regulatory updates.
As of November 1, 2025, the entry period for the DV-2027 cycle has not yet been officially announced, but based on precedent and announcements we know what to expect—and how you can prepare.
This guide answers the 25 most frequently asked questions about the DV-2027 program, using clear headings, comparison-charts, call-out boxes (Expert Tip, Fast Fact, Key Insight, Important Note, Need to Know), and original explanation throughout.
Answer: The DV-2027 program is the upcoming cycle of the Diversity Immigrant Visa Lottery, run by the U.S. government. Applicants will apply in fall 2025 (anticipated), and if selected they may receive an immigrant visa during fiscal year 2027 (October 1, 2026–September 30, 2027). The random selection process is highly competitive, as tens of millions of people worldwide typically submit entries for the DV lottery each year.
Fast Fact: Although you apply in 2025, the program label “2027” refers to the fiscal year in which visas will be issued. (See the program description on the official “Diversity Visa Program – Diversity Immigrant Visa (Green Card Lottery)” page.) Key Insight: Being selected does not guarantee a visa—selection begins a process with many requirements ahead.
The program is administered by the “Diversity Visa Program – Submit an Entry” page of the U.S. Department of State (DOS). It is authorized under Section 203(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
Important Note: If you are inside the U.S. when selected, the adjustment of status step may involve U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
Up to 55,000 immigrant visas are expected to be allocated for the DV-2027 cycle. The USA.gov page confirms the program typically makes approximately 50,000-55,000 visas available each year.
Need to Know: Because selection is random and many selectees may not complete the process, planning and timeliness matter.
| Year | Entry Period (approximate) | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| DV-2026 | Oct 2 – Nov 7, 2024 | Official window per DOS. |
| DV-2027 | Early Oct 2025 – Early Nov 2025* | Registration typically closes in early November. Dates not yet confirmed. See commentary from legal sources. (Nixon Peabody LLP & iVisa Travel) |
*Timeline subject to change once the official DOS instructions publish. The opening and closing dates are widely publicized by the State Department and official sources to ensure applicants are informed. Expert Tip: Set a reminder in early October 2025 and ensure all photos and documentation are ready ahead of schedule.
Eligibility criteria for DV-2027 will continue to be based on two main factors:
Key Insight: If you fail either requirement, don’t risk making an entry—you may be disqualified. Fast Fact: There is no minimum age requirement specified; the focus is on education or work experience.
The official eligible/ineligible country list for DV-2027 has not yet been posted. Based on DV-2026 rules, nationals of countries such as Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, China (mainland & Hong Kong), Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, India, Jamaica, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, South Korea, Venezuela and Vietnam were ineligible. Natives of Macau SAR are eligible to participate, along with other regions such as Taiwan. The Department of State determines eligibility and visa quotas by considering geographic areas to ensure fair distribution. (See DV-Lottery country eligibility discussion).
Expert Tip: Your country of birth (chargeability) matters — not necessarily your current residence or citizenship. Important Note: The eligibility list may change each year—verify the final list when the DV-2027 instructions publish.
When registration opens, you must do the following:
Key Insight: Only one entry per person; duplicate entries disqualify the person. Expert Tip: Avoid third-party websites charging fees—they often commit mistakes or duplicate entries. Always use the official diversity visa website for accurate information and application procedures.
No. The DOS rules clearly state that submitting more than one entry by or for the same person will result in disqualification. The application must be submitted only one time; multiple submissions will disqualify you from the lottery. (See DV Submission Rules).
Fast Fact: If both spouses qualify, each should submit their own entry but each must include the other as dependent (or spouse) as required.
While exact DV-2027 photo specs will be in the official instructions, based on DV-2026 and guidance from legal advisors (e.g., Susan Scheer Immigration Law), recommended photo requirements are: recent (within 6 months), colour photo, plain light-background, no glasses or headwear (unless for religious purposes), correct size ratio (600×600 pixels or similar).
Expert Tip: Non-compliant photos are among the most common reasons for disqualification. Need to Know: You only upload the photo at entry stage—but must gather all required documents, including original civil documents, passport, and translations, ahead of time in case you are selected.
Selections are made via a computer‐generated random draw among all eligible entries, and regional/national quotas apply. Lottery winners are notified through the official portal and must follow the next steps to secure their visa. (See Selection of Applicants – DOS).
Key Insight: This is a random “lottery” in the literal sense—your job is to submit a valid entry, follow instructions, and if selected then follow next steps. Fast Fact: The selection list is not published in advance. Status must be checked online.
No. Selection means you are eligible to apply for a visa—it does not guarantee a Green Card or visa issuance. As diversity visa winners, you must still meet eligibility, pay fees, complete interviews, and receive a visa number before Sept 30, 2027. (See DOS interview guidance here).
Important Note: Some selectees fail to act in time or miss deadlines—and lose the opportunity.
If selected you will:
Expert Tip: Do not ignore your confirmation number or wait until later — once selected you must act promptly. Need to Know: Your spouse and children under 21 (if included on your entry) can also receive visas.
Yes. A new $1 registration fee for entry into DV-2027 has been introduced. All Diversity Visa lottery applicants must pay a $1 electronic fee when submitting their entry. (See legal commentary by Sedki Law and Jeelani Law).
Fast Fact: The $1 fee must be paid at time of entry via the official portal. Key Insight: This is the first time the registration fee applies — plan accordingly.
Expert Tip: Do not use a visa consultant or third-party agent to pay the registration fee or submit your entry. Only use the official government website to avoid fraud or disqualification.
Results for the DV-2027 program are expected to be released in May 2026, via the official portal dvprogram.state.gov. Results will likely be posted in early May 2026. The USA.gov page reminds applicants: the DOS will not notify you by email or mail.
Need to Know: Keep your confirmation number safe — without it you cannot access your result.
Expert Tip: Bookmark and use only the official site—beware of fake “winner” emails.
While recovery options may vary by year, best practice is to immediately save a screenshot and backup both digital and printed copies of your confirmation number at the time of entry. (See USA.gov eligibility info).
Important Note: Losing your confirmation number may mean you cannot verify your selection status.
You will need:
Key Insight: Even one missing document can delay or deny your visa process.
Fast Fact: The interview often lasts just a few minutes—but your accuracy and preparedness count.
Expert Tip: If you have a complex history (immigration violations, criminal issues), consider consulting an immigration attorney ahead of the interview.
Yes—if you are selected and are residing in the U.S., you may adjust status through the adjustment application process (Form I-485) with USCIS if you meet the eligibility criteria for the diversity immigrant category. The status process requires checking the monthly visa bulletin for the diversity immigrant cut off and specified cut off numbers. The Visa Bulletin’s Section B displays the current month’s visa availability and the rank cut off number for the diversity immigrant category. You must check if your rank number is below the specified cut off numbers for a particular month to be eligible to file the adjustment application. The monthly visa bulletin also provides advance notification of visa availability for the following month, allowing you to plan your filing accordingly. Diversity immigrant visa availability is determined each month, so applicants must monitor the bulletin to ensure they can adjust status before the end of the fiscal year (Sept 30, 2027). Check the latest Visa Bulletin and USCIS DV Program page for details.
Important Note: Non-immigrant status must be valid and you must maintain eligibility for adjustment.
If you were selected for DV-2027 but fail to enter the U.S. or complete the process before the end of the fiscal year (Sept 30, 2027), you lose the visa. Visas cannot be carried over to the next year.
Need to Know: Plan your finances, travel logistics and timing ahead of the visa deadline.
| Mistake | Why it causes disqualification |
|---|---|
| Submitting more than one entry | DOS disqualifies duplicates. |
| Using a non-compliant photo or missing deadline | Entry rejected at initial stage. |
| Not meeting education or work requirement | Ineligible and entry void. |
| Failing to include spouse/children or incorrect data | Could nullify your selection. |
| Misrepresentation (false info) or inadmissibility issues | Visa denial or disqualification. |
Expert Tip: Use a checklist for your entry and again if you’re selected—avoiding simple errors improves your chance of success.
Fast Fact: The U.S. government will never notify you by email or letter that you “won” and then ask you to pay. (See fraud warnings on USA.gov results page).
Key Insight: With the new $1 fee and increased interest in DV-2027, scams are likely to rise.
Tips to protect yourself:
Yes. If you enter the DV Lottery, you must list your spouse (even if they will not immigrate) and all unmarried children under 21 at the time of entry. If you are selected, your spouse and children also can receive visas as derivatives. (See Susan Scheer’s DV-2027 guide)
Need to Know: If your family status changes after your entry (marriage, new child) you must follow the guidelines to update accordingly—failure may risk disqualification.
At a glance timeline for DV-2027:
Important Note: All required steps—from submission to entering the U.S.—must be completed during that fiscal year.
Expert Tip: Use this timeline to plan your finances, documentation gathering, travel and relocation logistics.
Once you enter the U.S. with your immigrant visa packet and become a lawful permanent resident, you are granted a green card. Green cards allow you to live, work, and study in the U.S. permanently. Typically after five years you may apply for U.S. citizenship (subject to residency and eligibility rules).
Key Insight: Getting the green card is not the end—it’s the beginning of your U.S. residency responsibilities (taxes, renewals, etc.).
Your odds vary depending on how many entries from your region/country, and how many visas are allocated, but the key is you can only control the quality of your entry—not the draw. Most lottery winners reside outside the United States and complete their visa process through consular processing. In fact, most lottery winners are selected from applicants living abroad, not from within the U.S.
Fast Fact: Millions of people apply each cycle; only up to 55,000 visas are made available. (See USA.gov page). What you can do:
Expert Tip: Avoid errors—errors cost more than lack of luck. Your best “advantage” is careful preparation.
The DV-2027 Green Card Lottery remains a rare and valuable opportunity—but it is not automatic or risk-free. Registration has not yet opened, but now is the time to prepare: verify your eligibility, gather your documents, stay alert for official announcements, and plan your timeline and finances. With this guide (updated November 1, 2025), you’re equipped with expert tips, clear answers and actionable steps ahead.
For personalised legal review or assistance preparing your DV-2027 entry and next steps, book a consultation at: Book a Consultation
By Richard T. Herman, Esq., Herman Legal Group — “The Law Firm for Immigrants”
| Country | Bond Start |
|---|---|
| Mauritania | Oct 23, 2025 |
| São Tomé & Príncipe | Oct 23, 2025 |
| Tanzania | Oct 23, 2025 |
| The Gambia | Oct 11, 2025 |
| Malawi | Aug 20, 2025 |
| Zambia | Aug 20, 2025 |
(Source: State Dept. countries list)
The Department of State selected these countries because of elevated B1/B2 overstay rates as reported by DHS in the FY 2024 Entry/Exit Overstay Report. Certain countries with high visa overstay rates or those deemed deficient in screening and identity verification are specifically targeted for the program. High visa overstay and visa overstay rates are key factors in the selection process, as these metrics help identify countries subject to additional scrutiny, such as visa bonds or travel restrictions. The legal framework is provided by INA § 221(g)(3) and the TFR governing the pilot.
Using any other port risks denial of entry or an improperly recorded departure.
Your full bond will be cancelled and refunded automatically if any of the following occurs:
The DHS/USCIS review can be triggered if you:
Such actions can lead to forfeiture of the bond. Cases of potential visa bond breaches or bond breaches will be referred to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for determination. If the applicant complies with all requirements, the bond is not forfeited.
| Feature | Standard B-1/B-2 Visa | B-1/B-2 Visa with Bond (Pilot) |
|---|---|---|
| Bond requirement | None | Yes – $5k/$10k/$15k |
| Form required | DS-160 only | DS-160 plus I-352 after instruction |
| Payment channel | Standard visa fees | Additional bond payment via Pay.gov |
| Ports of entry allowed | Any U.S. port | Only BOS, JFK, IAD |
| Refund path | Not applicable | Automatic refund upon compliance |
| Breach risk | Standard visa risk | Additional risk of bond forfeiture if conditions breached |
If you’re coming to Ohio (Cleveland or Columbus or Cincinnati) and subject to this program:
(National focus; special attention to Ohio: Cleveland & Columbus)
Consular officers use their discretion under INA § 221(g)(3) to require a Maintenance of Status & Departure bond for B-1/B-2 applicants from specified countries. The amount reflects risk factors (e.g., past overstay, travel history, country data). When setting the bond, consular officers also consider visa bond terms, including compliance obligations, required payments, and refund conditions as outlined by the regulatory framework. The TFR sets this as a pilot program limited to the listed countries. (See Federal Register link above.)
Does paying the bond guarantee I will get the visa?
No. Paying the bond does not guarantee visa issuance — you must still meet all eligibility criteria and the consular officer must approve the visa.
Can I arrive via any U.S. airport if I have Global Entry?
No. Under the bond program you must arrive and depart through BOS, JFK, or IAD. Global Entry participation alone does not change the requirement.
If I leave before the authorized date, do I automatically get refunded the bond?
Yes — if you depart on or before your authorized stay and otherwise comply, the bond is cancelled and refunded automatically. Keep travel records.
The visa-bond pilot adds significant cost, routing restrictions, and compliance requirements to what can otherwise be routine B-1/B-2 travel. If you or a family member are from one of the listed countries, you need to plan early: understand the bond mechanics, map your travel via Boston/New York/Washington, budget for the bond, and document your departure.
The Visa Bond Pilot Program is primarily designed to study the operational feasibility of implementing visa bonds.
At the Herman Legal Group, we assist clients nationwide — and especially in Ohio (Cleveland & Columbus) — with these consular/travel-risk matters. Schedule a consultation today.
The U.S. has been required by Congress since 1996 to implement a comprehensive “entry-exit tracking system.” The 2025 rule finally makes it mandatory for nearly all non-citizens — including lawful permanent residents.
The Department of Homeland Security has finalized a sweeping biometric expansion requiring border officers to photograph non citizens—including lawful permanent residents (green-card holders) and foreign nationals—every time they enter or leave the United States. This initiative is part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to tighten border security measures.
Under this rule, border officers will use facial-recognition cameras to verify identity by comparing a traveler’s live photo with existing DHS, DOS, and CBP records. CBP systems will also generate galleries of biometric images associated with individuals to compare against live photos taken at entry and exit points.
Official Source:CBP Press Release (2025) | Federal Register Notice (DHS, Oct 2025).
If a non-citizen refuses to be photographed, CBP may deny entry, boarding, or verification of departure — effectively blocking travel.
| Category | Covered Under Rule? | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| U.S. citizens | ❌ No | Citizens remain exempt, though their photos may be used for verification voluntarily. |
| Green-card holders (LPRs) | ✅ Yes | Must be photographed at both entry and exit. |
| Non-immigrant visa holders | ✅ Yes | Includes B-1/B-2 visitors, F-1/J-1 students, H-1B/L-1 workers, etc. |
| Asylees/refugees | ✅ Yes | Must comply when re-entering or departing the U.S. |
| Minors under 14 years | ✅ Yes | DHS may exempt if not technically feasible, but most will be photographed. |
| Crew members/diplomats | ⚙️ Case-by-case | Depending on international agreements. |
Expert Tip:
Permanent residents returning from trips abroad longer than one year should still carry a reentry permit — and expect biometric verification both ways.
| Feature | Before 2025 Rule | After Dec 26 2025 |
|---|---|---|
| Photo Requirement | Required at entry only; often waived for LPRs. | Mandatory at entry and exit for nearly all non-citizens. |
| Facial Recognition Use | Partial pilot at 50+ airports. | Expanded to all international airports, seaports, and major land crossings. |
| Covered Travelers | Mostly visa holders and arrivals under VWP. | Includes green-card holders, students, workers, refugees. |
| Data Integration | Fragmented; limited coordination between CBP and USCIS. | Centralized through Traveler Verification Service (TVS) and IDENT/HART databases. |
| Legal Basis | 8 U.S.C. § 1365b and post-9/11 border security acts. | New DHS final rule implementing full compliance as a new regulation. These new regulations update border security procedures, including biometric data collection and facial recognition at entry and exit points. Notably, the laws passed in previous decades did not anticipate the current scope of biometric technology, raising questions about their applicability to modern practices. |
This expansion effectively treats lawful permanent residents like foreign visitors for biometric purposes, even though they live permanently in the U.S. The new regulation requires all non-citizens, including Green Card holders, to be photographed and processed at entry and exit, reflecting changes not foreseen by the laws passed many years ago.
CBP justifies the rule as a way to:
CBP’s facial-recognition system has already processed over 300 million travelers and helped identify 1,800+ impostors, according to DHS data (2024 CBP Report).
While CBP frames the program as security-driven, civil-rights advocates warn of significant privacy concerns raised by the collection and storage of biometric data. Privacy advocates have expressed concerns that the policy could normalize mass surveillance.
Critics also fear that ongoing biometric monitoring could lead to a perpetual surveillance state, where individuals are subject to constant government observation and loss of privacy rights.
Organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have criticized the rule and may pursue litigation. A senior policy counsel from the ACLU has specifically raised concerns about the fairness, accuracy, and civil rights implications of these border security measures. EFF Biometric Tracking Report.
Although DHS claims the system deletes U.S. citizen photos within 12 hours, there is no statutory deletion period for non-citizens.
Need to Know:
Facial mismatches could delay your entry or departure — even for lawful permanent residents. Always double-check your records after travel.
This rule also blurs long-standing distinctions between immigrants and non-immigrants.
Green-card holders — once considered “returning residents” — now face the same biometric scrutiny as temporary visitors. The implementation of these measures is grounded in U.S. immigration laws, which provide the legal framework for biometric data collection and border enforcement.
Legal scholars argue this re-categorization could influence future enforcement policies, such as:
Biometric exit tracking could indirectly expand ICE’s ability to locate immigrants who spend extended time abroad or appear to have abandoned residency.
Ohio’s airports (Cleveland Hopkins International and John Glenn Columbus International) are both slated for early integration under CBP’s biometric rollout plan.
Travelers departing from or returning to Ohio should expect photo capture beginning mid-2026.
Local Implications:
Fast Fact:
Ohio hosts over 240,000 foreign-born residents, many of whom are green-card holders who travel frequently abroad.
Below is a comparative overview of leading immigration law firms that can advise travelers on the new rule.
| Law Firm | Geographic Focus | Distinguishing Features |
|---|---|---|
| Herman Legal Group | Cleveland & Columbus OH + national | Led by Richard T. Herman, 30+ years in immigration practice; multilingual staff; deep experience in travel, biometrics, and compliance counseling. |
| Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy LLP | Global / national | Extensive corporate mobility and compliance experience; works with Fortune 500 clients. |
| Berry Appleman & Levin LLP | National | Strong H-1B and global mobility portfolio; publishes travel updates. |
| Murthy Law Firm | National | Renowned online immigration resource; detailed client advisories on CBP procedures. |
Expert Tip:
When choosing counsel, look for firms familiar with CBP secondary-inspection defense and DHS biometric appeals — not just visa filings.
Important Note:
If you receive a DHS notice alleging “abandonment of residence,” contact an immigration attorney immediately — you may need to file Form I-131A for a returning resident visa.
According to DHS, data collection at entry and exit points involves gathering photographs and biometric information from travelers to ensure security, verify identities, and combat fraud. The biometric data collected—including photos, fingerprints, and other biometric data—will be stored in the IDENT/HART system and shared with:
Data from aliens collected is used to enhance border security, verify identities, and support immigration enforcement efforts.
Photos of U.S. citizens inadvertently taken will be deleted within 12 hours.
Retention varies:
Accurate and comprehensive biographic data is crucial for these systems; incomplete biographic data can impede security, identity verification, and enforcement efforts.
The 75-year retention policy effectively means your faceprint will remain in federal archives for life — a major privacy consideration.
| Country | Facial-Recognition Policy | Primary Goal |
|---|---|---|
| U.S. | Mandatory for all non-citizens and every international traveler at entry & exit (Dec 2025). | Track visa overstays, enhance border security. |
| EU (Schengen) | Launching Entry-Exit System (EES) in 2025. | Record third-country national travel. |
| U.K. | Expanding digital border scheme by 2026. | Transition to e-Visas and biometric gates. |
| Canada | Limited pilot at airports. | Modernize pre-clearance for U.S. travelers. |
The U.S. rule aligns with similar systems in the EU and U.K., signaling a global shift toward biometric border management for international travelers.
If travelers face adverse consequences (e.g., denial of entry or incorrect departure record), they may:
CBP Redress Procedures | Privacy Act Guidance.
| Year | Milestone | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 1996 | IIRIRA enacted | Congress mandates biometric entry-exit tracking, laying the groundwork for a comprehensive system. |
| 2001 | 9/11 Commission | Reiterates biometric requirement for security. |
| 2013 | CBP launches pilot | Limited airport photo trials. |
| 2020 | NPRM proposes inclusion of LPRs. | |
| 2025 | DHS final rule issued (Oct). | DHS rule aims to create a comprehensive system for biometric entry and exit tracking. |
| Dec 26 2025 | Rule becomes effective. | |
| 2026-2030 | Full implementation across all U.S. ports. | System expected to be fully implemented across all ports of entry during this period. |
Q1. Does this apply to U.S. citizens?
No. U.S. citizens are exempt, though their photos may be voluntarily matched for boarding efficiency.
Q2. What if I refuse the photo?
CBP can deny boarding or entry. There is no opt-out provision for non-citizens.
Q3. Does this affect conditional green-card holders?
Yes. Holders of 2-year conditional cards (Form I-751 pending) must also comply.
Q4. Will the photo be stored permanently?
Yes, for up to 75 years under DHS record rules.
Q5. How will this affect naturalization?
Likely minimal, but inconsistent travel records could delay Form N-400 review.
Q6. Are there exceptions for minors?
Limited — if technically infeasible, CBP may waive, but expect photo capture.
Q7. Can I challenge a mistaken biometric record?
Yes, through DHS TRIP or legal counsel.
Richard T. Herman, Esq.
Immigration Attorney | Founder, Herman Legal Group
Serving immigrants nationwide in 10+ languages for 30+ years.
By Richard T. Herman, Esq., Immigration Attorney | Founder, Herman Legal Group – Serving Immigrants Worldwide for 30 Years
Navigating the F-1 visa and related Optional Practical Training (OPT) and Curricular Practical Training (CPT) application processes can be complex for international students. Understanding each step of the application process and the associated timeline is crucial to ensure a smooth experience and avoid unnecessary delays.
The U.S. immigration system is known for its strict compliance requirements and intricate regulations, which can make the process feel overwhelming for many F-1 students. It’s common to feel overwhelmed by the paperwork, deadlines, and legal terminology, but with the right support, these challenges can be managed.
When seeking legal guidance, good communication between students and their immigration lawyers is essential to ensure all questions are addressed and information is clearly understood. A good understanding of the immigration process empowers F-1 students to make informed decisions and confidently move forward with their academic and professional goals.
In 2025-2026, the U.S. remains a magnet for international students—but it has also become a compliance minefield. F-1 students must demonstrate strong ties to their home country to convince visa officers of their intent to return after completing their studies.
With tighter USCIS review of OPT employment, expanded SEVIS data-sharing under “Project Firewall,” and the second phase of the wage-tiered H-1B lottery, F-1 students are asking tougher questions than ever before. Many also explore other visa options, such as H-1B, L-1, or O-1, for post-graduation employment.
This guide summarizes the ten most common questions students ask immigration lawyers—and gives clear, legally grounded answers you can act on today. Among these, F-1 students frequently inquire about Optional Practical Training (OPT) and Curricular Practical Training (CPT) application processes.
Finding a good immigration lawyer is a critical first step for F-1 students navigating the U.S. immigration process. The right immigration attorney can provide clear guidance, help you avoid costly mistakes, and develop strategies tailored to your unique situation—whether you’re applying for a student visa, seeking a green card, or facing deportation proceedings.
Start by looking for an immigration lawyer with proven experience in F-1 student cases and a deep understanding of immigration law. Membership in the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) is a strong indicator of a lawyer’s commitment to staying current with immigration processes and best practices. Ask for referrals from friends, family, or your school’s international student office, and read online reviews to gauge the lawyer’s reputation.
Schedule an initial consultation to discuss your concerns and assess the lawyer’s communication style. A good immigration lawyer will listen carefully, explain the immigration process in plain language, and outline a plan to achieve a positive outcome. They should be transparent about their approach, answer your questions thoroughly, and make you feel comfortable discussing sensitive issues. By choosing a knowledgeable and compassionate lawyer, you can confidently move forward in your immigration journey and avoid costly mistakes that could jeopardize your status.
Your initial consultation with an immigration attorney is your opportunity to get personalized advice and set the foundation for a successful immigration process. During this meeting, you’ll discuss your immigration history, current status, and long-term goals—whether you’re interested in student visas, employment-based visas, or permanent residency.
A good immigration lawyer will ask detailed questions to understand your background and identify the best immigration benefit for your situation. Be prepared to share documents and answer questions about your education, employment, and any previous visa applications. This is also the time to ask about the lawyer’s experience with cases like yours, their approach to handling potential risks, and the possible outcomes you can expect.
The attorney should provide clear explanations of the immigration process, outline the next steps, and address any concerns you have about your case. Use this consultation to evaluate the lawyer’s communication style and ensure you feel comfortable working with them. By the end of your initial consultation, you should have a better understanding of your options, the process ahead, and how the lawyer can help you achieve your immigration goals.
Understanding the legal fees and costs involved in F-1 student cases is essential for making an informed decision about hiring an immigration lawyer. Immigration attorneys may charge a flat fee for straightforward services or an hourly rate for more complex immigration cases. It’s important to ask for a detailed breakdown of all costs involved, including filing fees, biometrics appointment fees, and any charges for legal assistants or support staff.
During your initial consultation, discuss the scope of work included in the quoted fee, the expected timeline, and the possible outcomes. Some law firms offer payment plans or student discounts, so don’t hesitate to ask about flexible payment options. Transparency is key—make sure you understand what services are covered, how and when you’ll be billed, and what additional expenses might arise during your immigration journey.
By having a clear understanding of the costs involved, you can avoid surprises, budget effectively, and feel confident that you’re getting the best value from your immigration attorney. This knowledge will help you make an informed decision about hiring the right lawyer to guide you through the U.S. immigration system.
Quick Answer:
Stay enrolled full-time, work only with authorization, keep your SEVIS record active, and report changes within 10 days to your DSO.
Key Rules to Remember
2026 Trend: USCIS and ICE now cross-reference student income with IRS and LinkedIn data to detect unauthorized employment.
Two Options
Important Points
Common Triggers: Unauthorized employment, dropping below full-time without approval, or letting the I-20 expire.
Authorized Employment Types
| Type | Who Approves | Max Hours | When Available |
|---|---|---|---|
| On-Campus | DSO | 20 per week | From Day 1 |
| CPT | DSO | Per Authorization | After 1 academic year |
| OPT | USCIS | Full time after graduation | 12 months |
| STEM OPT Ext. | USCIS | 24 additional months | STEM majors only |
| Severe Economic Hardship | USCIS | 20 hrs | After 1 academic year |
Students interested in long-term employment in the U.S. may also consider work visas as part of their future immigration strategy.
2026 Alert: Freelance or remote contract work is classified as “employment.” Payment through PayPal or crypto can still violate status.
Submitting complete and accurate documentation is essential to avoid delays in employment authorization processing.
A. OPT (12 Months) – Apply up to 90 days before and 60 days after graduation.
B. STEM OPT Extension (24 Months) – Requires E-Verify employer and Form I-983.
C. Cap-Gap Extension – Covers time between OPT end and H-1B start (Oct 1).
D. Other Paths – New degree, J-1 training, O-1, TN, E-2, or marriage-based green card. For many F-1 students, obtaining green cards is a long-term goal, so it is important to plan for green cards early and seek guidance from an experienced immigration lawyer.
Students must adhere to specific employment authorization rules under CPT and OPT, including work hour limits and the necessity to report employment.
Pro Tip: Keep copies of every I-20 and EAD for future green-card applications. Preparing a strong immigration application is essential for these post-graduation options to maximize your chances of success.
Summary of Change:
The H-1B selection system now prioritizes registrations by wage level (tier I lowest → tier IV highest).
Implications
Strategy
You May Travel If:
Avoid Travel If:
At Ports of Entry: CBP officers now routinely ask for proof of employment and SEVIS records. F-1 students must also ensure their documentation, including their passport, I-20, and SEVIS records, is accurate and up-to-date to maintain legal status.
Possible Reasons
Solutions
Consultation with immigration attorneys is common among F-1 students regarding status violations and re-entry to the U.S. Contacting your immigration lawyer promptly if your SEVIS record is terminated or you face status issues is crucial to ensure you receive timely legal guidance and protect your status.
Do Not: Stay in the U.S. without active SEVIS status—unlawful presence accumulates immediately.
Legal Alternatives
Strategic Tip: Start documenting achievements and publications now to build future O-1 or NIW evidence.
Notable 2026 Shifts
Practical Advice
Step 1: Student Phase
Step 2: Professional Phase
Step 3: Permanent Residence
Timeline Snapshot:Typical path ≈ F-1 (4 years) → OPT/STEM OPT (3 years) → H-1B (6 years) → Green Card (1–3 years depending on category and country).
Richard T. Herman, Esq. is a nationally recognized immigration lawyer with over 30 years of experience representing students, professionals, and families worldwide. He is the founder of the reputable law firm Herman Legal Group, which has extensive experience in immigration law, and co-author of the book Immigrant, Inc.: Why Immigrant Entrepreneurs Are Driving the New Economy. The law offices of the Herman Legal Group are a trusted place for students to seek immigration legal services. It is important to choose a lawyer who is specialized in immigration law to ensure the best possible guidance for your case. Ask if your lawyer is a member of The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) to confirm their expertise and commitment to the field.
Richard and his multilingual team serve clients in over 12 languages. You can reach him through his profile pageor book a consultation here. You should ask your lawyer about their previous experience with cases similar to yours to better understand their expertise and how they can assist you. Additionally, inquire about their fees and whether they offer a payment plan to ensure their services align with your budget. It’s also crucial to know who else will be working on your case, including other attorneys or paralegals, to have a clear understanding of the team handling your matter.
Furthermore, ask about your lawyer’s current workload to ensure they can prioritize your case effectively. Finally, discuss your chances of success based on your specific situation to set realistic expectations. Effective communication is key, so ask how you can reach your lawyer and how often you’ll receive updates. If English is not your first language, ask if your lawyer can communicate in your native language to ensure clarity and understanding. After hiring your immigration lawyer, ask about the next steps in your case to stay informed and prepared. Additionally, ask your lawyer how much they charge and if they offer a payment plan to better plan your finances.
The journey to bring your beloved parents to the U.S. can be deeply rewarding, but it often comes with significant challenges, especially when they are elderly and facing health issues. Many U.S. citizens find themselves overwhelmed by the intricacies of the immigration process, particularly when confronted with complex forms like Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative. If your parents are 72 and 75 with health issues, and you’re trying to petition them but find Form I-130 confusing, you’re not alone. This comprehensive guide is designed to demystify the process, address common concerns related to aging parents and medical conditions, and provide actionable steps and resources to help you succeed.
Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, is the foundational step in family-based immigration. It establishes the qualifying relationship between a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident (LPR) petitioner and their foreign relative (beneficiary) who wishes to immigrate to the United States. For U.S. citizens, petitioning parents falls under the “immediate relative” category, which is highly advantageous as it means there are no annual visa quotas, leading to generally faster processing times compared to other family-based categories.
The USCIS Form I-130 petition for alien relative parents is specifically designed for U.S. citizens who are at least 21 years old to sponsor their parents. This immediate relative status is crucial, as it typically allows parents to apply for a green card without a long wait for a visa number to become available. You can always find the most up-to-date USCIS Form I-130 instructions official site on the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) website. For those planning ahead, keeping an eye on the USCIS Form I-130 petition for alien relative parents I-130 instructions 2025 will be important for any potential updates.
Form I-130 is the initial petition filed by a U.S. citizen (or LPR) to establish a family relationship with a foreign relative who wishes to immigrate. For parents of U.S. citizens, it’s the first step towards obtaining a green card, falling under the “immediate relative” category with no visa quota waits.
The primary concern for many petitioners is how their parents’ age and existing medical conditions will impact the immigration process. This is where the process can become particularly complex, requiring careful planning and often, expert guidance.
All immigrant visa applicants, including elderly parents, are required to undergo a medical examination by a USCIS-approved civil surgeon in the U.S. or a panel physician abroad. This exam is crucial for determining if an applicant is medically inadmissible to the United States. For older applicants, navigating medical examinations for older immigrant visa applicants can be daunting, and their health conditions can raise specific concerns.
Common health issues for seniors such as heart conditions, diabetes, or mobility limitations are generally not grounds for medical inadmissibility unless they fall into specific categories outlined by the Immigration and Nationality Act. These categories include:
If your parents have health issues, it’s critical to gather all relevant medical records and discuss them with the examining physician. Understanding potential issues is the first step in seeking help with Form I-130 for parents with medical conditions.
If, after the medical examination, your parent is found to be medically inadmissible, it doesn’t automatically mean the end of their immigration journey. There are provisions for medical inadmissibility waiver for parents. Form I-601, Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility, is the primary mechanism for seeking such a waiver.
To successfully obtain medical inadmissibility waivers for parents immigration, you typically need to demonstrate that:
The process of preparing a strong waiver application is highly complex and requires extensive documentation, including medical records, expert opinions, and a compelling narrative. This is precisely why many seek an immigration lawyer for elderly parents medical issues or a dedicated medical inadmissibility waiver lawyer for parents to navigate the intricacies of waivers for medical inadmissibility for older immigrant applicants. Firms with law firms with high success rates in medical waiver applications for senior immigrants can be invaluable here.
Another critical component of petitioning for your parents is the affidavit of support for elderly parents, Form I-864. As the petitioner, you must demonstrate your financial ability to support your parents and ensure they will not become a public charge in the U.S. This involves meeting specific income requirements based on the poverty guidelines for your household size. Medical issues can also be considered.
The affidavit of support requirements for elderly parents can be challenging if the petitioner’s income alone isn’t sufficient. In such cases, a joint sponsor who meets the income requirements can be brought in. The joint sponsor must also be a U.S. citizen or LPR, at least 18 years old, and domiciled in the U.S. This document is a legally binding contract, so understanding its implications is paramount.
Many petitioners wonder if they can request an expedited I-130 for elderly parents health issues, especially if their parents’ conditions are serious. While USCIS does have criteria for expedited processing, it’s generally very difficult to get an I-130 petition expedited based solely on the beneficiary’s health.
USCIS considers expediting petitions on a case-by-case basis under very specific circumstances, which typically include:
To how to expedite i-130 for aging parents with health problems, you would need to submit a formal request with compelling evidence. While a parent’s serious illness might fall under “urgent humanitarian reasons,” USCIS usually prioritizes cases where the U.S. citizen petitioner is suffering extreme hardship or if the parent is facing a life-threatening situation with a specific, time-sensitive medical need that can only be met in the U.S. This is a high bar, and successful requests are uncommon for I-130s. Some immigration law firms with experience in humanitarian parole for parents might be able to advise on alternative, though often even more challenging, pathways in truly dire situations.
Even without the added complexities of health issues, the I-130 petition for parents with health issues can be confusing. Here’s a simplified breakdown of the process:
Thorough documentation is key to a smooth process. You will need:
Always refer to the official USCIS Form I-130 instructions official site for the most current list of required documents.
The I-130 petition for parents with medical conditions requires meticulous attention to detail. Any errors or omissions can lead to delays or even denial.
If you are struggling with the details, seeking help with Form I-130 for parents with medical conditions from an expert is highly recommended. Many find that obtaining I-130 help for elderly parents with health issues is essential to avoid common pitfalls. This is especially true for Form I-130 help for aging parents where medical disclosures are necessary.
Once completed and all supporting documents are gathered, you will mail the I-130 petition to the appropriate USCIS lockbox facility. The filing fee must be included. After filing, USCIS will send you a receipt notice (Form I-797C, Notice of Action), which includes your case number. You can use this number to track the status of your petition online.
- Gather Documents: Collect proof of citizenship, birth certificates, marriage certificates, and photos.
- Complete Form I-130: Fill out the form accurately, following official USCIS instructions.
- Attach Evidence: Include copies of all supporting documents.
- File with USCIS: Mail the petition and fee to the correct lockbox.
- Track Progress: Use your receipt number to monitor your case online.
Given the age and health status of your parents, the complexities involved go beyond a typical I-130 petition. This is where the expertise of an immigration lawyer becomes not just helpful, but often crucial. An immigration lawyer for elderly parents with health issues can provide invaluable guidance, ensuring all aspects are handled correctly and efficiently.
Engaging an experienced legal team can make a significant difference, especially when dealing with the nuances of Form I-130 process for elderly parents outside US with health problems and potential medical inadmissibility.
When considering an immigration lawyer for elderly parents with health issues, look for family immigration lawyer specializing in aging parents or lawyer for I-130 petition for parents with health problems. An immigration attorney experienced in consular processing for seniors is also vital if your parents are outside the U.S. This specialized knowledge is key to successfully navigating Form I-130 help for parents attorney family-based immigration Murthy Law Firm I-130 parents (as an example of what to look for).
Many firms, like those offering us immigration lawyer family petition parents medical services, also share valuable insights through an immigration lawyer blog elderly parents medical or attorney articles on medical waivers for senior immigrant visa applicants. Reviewing client testimonials for immigration lawyers handling cases of aging parents and immigration lawyer reviews for complex family visa cases involving health inadmissibility can also help in your decision. For specific situations, such as best immigration law firms for I-130 petitions for parents in India and from around the world, regional expertise can also be a factor.
For low-income families, non-profit immigration services for low-income families are invaluable. Organizations like the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC) provide crucial legal aid for family-based immigration. You can find legal help through their network at cliniclegal.org, which offers CLINIC immigration legal services find legal help Catholic Legal Immigration Network CLINIC. These organizations can offer guidance, and in some cases, direct representation at reduced or no cost.
While complex cases truly benefit from legal counsel, general information can be found on the USCIS website, reputable immigration blogs, and through organizations like the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). However, these resources are informational and cannot replace tailored legal advice.
The path your parents take after the I-130 is approved depends on their current location:
Given your parents’ age and potential health issues, most likely they will be going through consular processing. Attorney for consular processing for elderly parents is a specialized area, as it involves coordinating with foreign consulates and understanding specific country requirements.
The family-based immigrant visa timeline for parents over 70 medical concerns can vary significantly. While parents of U.S. citizens are immediate relatives and not subject to visa backlogs, processing times for the I-130 itself can range from several months to over a year, depending on the USCIS service center.
After I-130 approval, the National Visa Center (NVC) stage can take several more months for document collection and fee payments. Finally, scheduling a consular interview abroad can add additional time. It’s important to set realistic expectations and monitor processing times on the USCIS website. While there’s no specific I-130 petition for parents with medical conditions attorney fast track, a well-prepared petition can help avoid unnecessary delays.
Petitioning for your elderly parents, especially when they have health issues and you’re grappling with the complexities of Form I-130, is undoubtedly a challenging undertaking. However, with careful preparation, a thorough understanding of the process, and the right support, it is an achievable goal.
From navigating medical inadmissibility waivers for parents immigration to ensuring a robust affidavit of support for elderly parents, each step requires diligence. While Form I-130 is so confusing, remember that resources are available. Whether you choose to navigate the process independently or seek the specialized guidance of a firm like Herman Legal Group, your goal of reuniting with your parents is within reach. Don’t hesitate to consult a qualified family immigration lawyer specializing in aging parents to ensure the best possible outcome for your family.
CLEVELAND (HEADQUARTER)
© Copyright 2025, HLG, LLC. All Rights Reserved
