By Richard T. Herman
Trump’s second-term purge of immigration judges has triggered an unprecedented ethical and constitutional crisis inside America’s immigration courts. Judges — who are DOJ employees, not independent jurists — are being fired or ordered to pretermit asylum, deny bond hearings, and enforce third-country removals that deny refugees their day in court. Meanwhile, ICE trial attorneys are using “motions to dismiss” as traps to arrest migrants in courthouse hallways and impose expedited removals outside judicial oversight.
The effect is systemic: a court system that now enforces the executive’s agenda instead of the law.
| Issue | Key Details |
| Agency | Executive Office for Immigration Review (DOJ) |
| Judges Fired Since 2024 | 125 + — mostly former defense or nonprofit advocates |
| Quote from IJ | “We all have our boss.” — on DOJ control |
| Asylum Grant Variance | Some judges > 90 %, others < 30 % (TRAC 2025) |
| Judicial Status | Article I employees, not Article III judges |
| Blueprint Source | Project 2025 proposes merging EOIR into DHS |
| Ethics Crisis | Judges & ICE attorneys accused of violating ABA rules |
Immigration judges are Article I employees, hired and fired by the Attorney General. They lack tenure, salary protection, and true independence. The Trump administration set an ambitious goal of deporting one million immigrants annually, which is more than triple the previous record of 267,000 in fiscal year 2019. To achieve this, the administration expanded expedited removal nationwide and established daily arrest quotas for immigration enforcement. Additionally, by March 2025, the administration deployed about 10,000 service members and allocated $376 million in military expenditures for border enforcement. Border wall construction accelerated under Trump’s administration, with contracts awarded for new barriers in Texas.
When a judge’s job depends on pleasing the prosecutor, justice becomes performance review.
The Trump administration’s second term has seen the removal of judges with defense or humanitarian backgrounds — often those with higher asylum-grant rates. Replacements frequently come from ICE or military legal ranks. Former judges and immigration advocates allege the firings were politically motivated, targeted at judges with lower asylum denial rates. The administration plans to replace dismissed judges with adjudicators who may lack experience in immigration law. Additionally, the Department of Justice has reduced the Board of Immigration Appeals from 23 to 15 members under Trump.
Richard T. Herman:
“When judges are fired for following the law instead of orders, that isn’t reform — it’s retaliation.”
A wave of firings at EOIR has sparked public outrage and multiple lawsuits. Dozens of immigration judges terminated under Trump 2.0 — and early in the Vance vice-presidency — claim their dismissals were politically motivated and violated merit-system rules. The firings of immigration judges have contributed to a significant backlog in the immigration court system, which has reached nearly 4 million cases. Critics argue that these firings are illogical and counter the administration’s stated goal of increasing deportations. Union leaders warn that these dismissals will exacerbate the already lengthy delays in immigration courts. The courts issued preliminary injunctions in over 100 cases against the Trump administration.
The fired judges have joined forces in a lawsuit backed by Democracy Forward, alleging the mass firings violated civil-service protections and due-process rights (Democracy Forward). The firings have created a culture of fear among Executive Office for Immigration Review employees, influencing their job security perceptions. The suspension of legal service programs has left hundreds of thousands of vulnerable individuals without necessary legal representation. The Trump administration has terminated federally funded legal services for approximately 26,000 unaccompanied migrant children.
“Removing judges for fairness is not reform — it’s regime control.”
The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) now authorizes judges to pretermit asylum applications before testimony, often for minor clerical or procedural errors. These dismissals, issued without hearing evidence, violate the Refugee Act of 1980 and 8 C.F.R. § 1240.11(c), which require adjudication “on the merits.” Legal experts argue that Trump’s immigration directives violate the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments’ guarantees of due process. The courts have issued more than 100 preliminary injunctions against the Trump administration’s immigration policies.
Thousands of asylum seekers are now being rejected on paperwork alone — silenced before they can speak.
“When a person fleeing persecution isn’t even allowed to testify, it’s not law — it’s bureaucracy pretending to be justice.”
Across the country, ICE attorneys are filing “motions to dismiss” or “terminate” cases under INA § 240, claiming prosecutorial discretion — only to re-arrest respondents moments later in courthouse hallways and impose expedited removal orders under INA § 235(b).
Advocates have documented this as an “end-run around judicial review” (NIPNLG Alert), noting that DHS cannot withdraw a Notice to Appear without a judicial order (CLINIC Guidance). Yet many judges, under performance pressure, are granting such motions.
The Washington Post confirmed the “dismiss-and-arrest” cycle as a defining enforcement tactic under Trump 2.0 (Washington Post).
When judges approve dismissals that lead to arrests, they become instruments of enforcement rather than arbiters of justice.
Two 2025 BIA decisions — Matter of Q-Li, 29 I&N Dec. 66 and Matter of Yajure-Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 — bar immigration judges from conducting bond hearings for “arriving aliens” detained under INA § 235(b)(2)(A). As of March 2025, the immigration court backlog reached a record 3,629,627 active cases due to the firings and resignations of judges. The increase in immigration judge firings and the reduction in the Board of Immigration Appeals from 23 to 15 members under Trump have raised concerns among legal experts and advocates about the functioning of immigration courts.
The BIA ruled that such individuals “shall be detained” pending proceedings (DOJ – Q-Li, DOJ – Yajure-Hurtado), eliminating judicial discretion. This conflicts with Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), and Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (2018), which held that indefinite detention without review violates due process. Meanwhile, the A.C.L.U. has filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship.
ICE’s July 2025 memo expanded the rule, declaring most border crossers ineligible for bond (Hoppock Law summary). Judges now routinely admit they have “no jurisdiction” to review custody — a stunning reversal of judicial role.
Bond hearings are down 40 % since 2024 (TRAC / AILA).
“When judges say they have no power to decide liberty, that’s not neutrality — it’s surrender.”
In Matter of C-I-G-M- & L-V-S-G-, 29 I&N Dec. 291 (BIA 2025), the BIA held that judges must order removal to a “safe third country” designated by DHS — even if applicants fear persecution there. Judges are forbidden from assessing whether the designated country is truly safe or whether due-process safeguards exist (decision PDF).
This is not adjudication — it’s delegation of asylum to foreign governments with no constitutional accountability.
The ABA Model Rules and Judicial Canons require independence. DOJ’sEOIR Ethics Guide forbids bias and partiality.
Following unlawful directives is not neutrality — it’s complicity.
Immigration judges and ICE trial attorneys are licensed attorneys subject to state bar rules and federal ethics enforcement. Their duty to the rule of law does not end at a supervisor’s order.
When immigration judges dismiss cases to enable hallway arrests, or ICE lawyers conceal that purpose, both risk violating these standards.
“The judge who obeys an illegal order, and the lawyer who enforces it, both betray the oath that gives their license meaning.”
| Authority | Jurisdiction |
| State Bars (OH, DC, TX, VA, etc.) | License discipline and disbarment |
| DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility | Investigates DOJ judges/attorneys |
| DHS Office of Inspector General | Oversees ICE attorney misconduct |
| EOIR Office of the General Counsel | Refers ethical violations to state bars |
Despite these mechanisms, disciplinary action remains rare — reinforcing what critics call a “culture of obedience” rather than independence.
Behind every “dismissed” case file is a life erased from record.
One El Salvadoran father waited nearly three years for his asylum hearing — only to be told, “Your case was pretermitted due to a missing signature.” His lawyer had filed on time; the clerk’s office misplaced a page. Within hours, ICE escorted him to a detention center in Louisiana. His children still attend school in Maryland, waiting for a call that may never come.
“When justice becomes clerical, compassion dies by memo.”
This is not efficiency — it’s erasure. The new “fast-track” asylum denials may clear the docket, but they leave behind broken families and silenced witnesses of persecution.
Many sitting immigration judges privately describe fear of retaliation. One veteran IJ told Politico, “We’ve learned to keep our heads down. If your grant rate looks high, you become a target.”
Another said, “We all have our boss.” The Trump administration’s efforts to fire judges have created a culture of fear among immigration court employees.
Silence has become the new survival skill in America’s immigration courts.
This culture of quiet compliance echoes the ethical dilemmas of past eras — from military tribunals that “just followed orders” to civil judges who enforced segregation laws despite personal conscience. Today’s IJs are facing a modern version of that moral test: to obey or to uphold the Constitution. The transition of immigration courts into politically motivated enforcement arms has undermined public trust in the judicial process.
Immigration courtrooms once symbolized refuge — where those fleeing persecution could find at least a listener. Now, the same gavels that once granted safety are being used to deny hearings altogether.
In one courtroom, a mother clutching a folder of birth certificates whispered through tears, “The judge didn’t even look at us.” The interpreter, overwhelmed, could not translate the silence.
A court that cannot hear is not a court — it’s a command post.
When justice is stripped of empathy and independence, the courtroom becomes the final border wall — invisible, bureaucratic, and impenetrable.
As enforcement-driven tactics escalate within immigration courts, many advocates are asking a once-taboo question: Should disciplinary bar complaints be filed against immigration judges, ICE prosecutors, or even BIA members who knowingly participate in practices that violate due process? The administration sought to rely on local law enforcement as a force multiplier and rapidly expanded 287(g) agreements, allowing local officers to enforce immigration laws during routine policing.
The New York City Bar Association recently condemned ICE’s pattern of dismissing removal cases solely to re-arrest immigrants under expedited removal, calling the tactic a “bureaucratic trap” that erodes due process and access to protection. The ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct and the Code of Judicial Conduct require candor, impartiality, and integrity — duties that apply equally to DOJ adjudicators and ICE trial attorneys.
EOIR’s own Ethics and Professionalism Guide for Immigration Judges explicitly mandates that IJs “shall comply with the standards of conduct applicable to all attorneys in the Department of Justice.” Moreover, EOIR’s Judicial Conduct and Professionalism Unit (JCPU) already accepts complaints against immigration judges for violations of ethical obligations.
Independence is not optional. When obedience replaces judgment, ethics become policy.
When officials endorse or facilitate systemic practices — like dismissing cases to enable arrests or denying bond hearings in defiance of precedent — they may not simply be enforcing policy. They may be violating Rule 8.4(d) (“conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice”) and Rule 3.8 (“prosecutor’s duty to seek justice”).
If an ICE attorney files a motion knowing it will lead to detention without judicial review, or if an IJ approves dismissals enabling post-hearing arrests, bar complaints may be ethically warranted. The same logic applies to BIA judges who affirm such actions without legal reasoning or against binding Supreme Court precedent.
Government attorneys operate under DOJ rules, and disciplinary systems are opaque, slow, and rarely public. Nonetheless, documentation and referral still matter: paper trails create accountability, and ethics complaints can shape public and congressional awareness of systemic abuse.
Yes — bar complaints or judicial-misconduct referrals against immigration judges, ICE prosecutors, or BIA adjudicators may be ethically justified when actions reflect not mere error but deliberate disregard for due process or constitutional norms. Protecting the profession means holding every officer of the court — including those in uniform — to the same ethical standards.
| City | High-Grant IJs | Low-Grant IJs | Range (TRAC 2025) |
| NYC | Several > 90 % | < 25 % | 90 → 20 % |
| SF | 70–85 % | < 35 % | 85 → 30 % |
| Chicago | ≈ 60 % | < 25 % | 60 → 20 % |
| Cleveland | ≈ 30 % | < 15 % | 30 → 10 % |
| Atlanta | ≈ 15 % | ≈ 4 % | 15 → 4 % |
Justice should not depend on which courtroom or city you stand in.
Article I vs Article III Judges — Why EOIR Isn’t Independent
| Feature | Article I (EOIR) | Article III (Federal) |
| Created By | Congress | Constitution |
| Appointed By | Attorney General | President + Senate |
| Tenure | At-will | Lifetime |
| Independence | Reports to DOJ | Judicial Branch |
The ABA, NAIJ, and AILA all support creation of an independent Article I Immigration Court per ABA Resolution 114 (2019).
“As long as immigration judges work for the Attorney General, independence is an illusion.”
Q1: Why are immigration judges being fired?
→ Those with defense or humanitarian backgrounds are being replaced by enforcement-aligned hires.
Q2: What is pretermission?
→ Dismissing an asylum case before evidence or testimony is heard.
Q3: What does C-I-G-M- do?
→ Allows DHS to offload asylum seekers to “safe third countries.”
Q4: Why no bond hearings?
→ Q-Li and Yajure-Hurtado remove IJ jurisdiction under § 235(b).
Q5: Are ICE lawyers violating ethics rules?
→ Potentially, under Rules 3.3 (candor) and 8.4(d) (justice integrity).
Q6: Can Congress fix this?
→ Yes — by creating an independent Article I Immigration Court.
Richard T. Herman, founder of the Herman Legal Group, has represented immigrants for 30 years. Co-author of Immigrant, Inc., he’s a national advocate for immigrant rights and judicial independence.
Schedule a confidential consultation here.
Ethics and Oversight
Judicial Reform and Advocacy
Key Cases and Legal Authority
Research and Data
Due Process and Legal Advocacy
Legal Help and Representation
By Richard T. Herman
If you filed Form I-589 for asylum and your case has been pending at least one year, you may owe the new Annual Asylum Fee (AAF) — but a federal court order has paused all billing and enforcement nationwide. According to USCIS.gov notification on November 7, 2025, both USCIS and EOIR have stopped issuing and collecting AAF notices while litigation continues.
Applicants who already paid will not receive refunds, but no new payments are required until the stay is lifted. USCIS will pause the issuance of AAF notices due to a court stay as of October 30, 2025.
| Topic | Detail |
|---|---|
| Fee Name | Annual Asylum Fee (AAF) |
| Amount | $100 per year per I-589 application |
| Status (Nov 2025) | Temporarily stayed by federal court order |
| Who Paused It | Federal district court in ASAP v. USCIS |
| Notice Required | Yes — billing notices suspended during stay |
| Waiver Permitted? | No (law unchanged) |
| Applies To | Affirmative (USCIS) and Defensive (EOIR / BIA) asylum cases |
| Legal Authority | Public Law 119-21 (H.R. 1, 2025); Federal Register 90 Fed. Reg. 34511 |
Imagine fleeing persecution and finally finding safety — only to be told that your asylum protection now carries a yearly price tag.
The Annual Asylum Fee, authorized by H.R. 1, was designed to offset asylum processing costs but quickly drew lawsuits for violating humanitarian principles.
On October 30, 2025, a federal court intervened, halting the program and leaving hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers wondering what to do next.
Advocacy groups like Immigration Equality and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project (ASAP) welcomed the stay, calling it a victory for fairness and access to justice.
Congress created the fee through Public Law 119-21 (H.R. 1) on July 4 2025, directing both USCIS and EOIR to collect an annual payment on pending asylum applications. A separate $100 initial filing fee for new asylum applications filed on or after July 22, 2025, is still in effect and must be paid when filing.
A federal district court issued a nationwide stay in ASAP v. USCIS, blocking issuance and enforcement of AAF notices. USCIS has paused all billing and collection. Applicants who already paid should keep receipts; no refunds will be issued. USCIS directed asylum seekers to “disregard previously issued AAF notices until further direction.” (USCIS Alert)
Richard T. Herman:
“This pause brings temporary relief — but not final certainty. Asylum seekers must keep documentation and stay informed.”
Filed October 3, 2025 by the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project (ASAP) in the U.S. District Court for Maryland, the lawsuit (Case No. 1:25-cv-03299-SAG) challenged the legality of the Annual Asylum Fee. On October 30, 2025, the court issued a preliminary injunction halting enforcement (Bloomberg Law).
1. Retroactivity and Lack of Notice — The agencies applied the fee to applications filed before the law’s effective date, violating due process and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
2. Arbitrary and Capricious Implementation — USCIS and EOIR rolled out a complex payment rule without uniform systems or clear instructions, rendering it unlawful under the APA.
3. Equal Access to Asylum and Fairness — Because the fee is non-waivable, it creates a wealth barrier that disadvantages poor applicants and violates the Refugee Act and Fifth Amendment principles of equal protection.
4. Conflict with International and Humanitarian Obligations — The fee contradicts the 1951 Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol by making protection conditional on payment.
ASAP and other advocates say the fee betrays America’s promise of refuge:
Richard T. Herman:
“Charging a survivor for safety contradicts the ethos of the Statue of Liberty — ‘Give me your tired, your poor.’ Asylum should never depend on a credit card.”
What is the current status of the Annual Asylum Fee?
A federal court has paused all billing and collection nationwide in ASAP v. USCIS.
Do I need to pay now?
No. Both USCIS and EOIR have suspended enforcement until the stay is lifted.
What if I already paid?
Keep your receipt. USCIS will not refund it but will credit it if billing resumes.
Does the stay apply to Immigration Court cases?
Yes — the order covers both affirmative and defensive asylum cases.
Why is the fee being challenged as unconstitutional?
Advocates argue it violates due process and equal protection by making asylum contingent on ability to pay, contrary to the Refugee Act and APA.
How does this rule conflict with U.S. values?
It turns a humanitarian safeguard into a financial requirement — inconsistent with the nation’s historic commitment to protect the persecuted.
Where can I read the official USCIS announcement?
USCIS Alert: Court Order on Annual Asylum Fee Notices
The injunction creates uncertainty about future fees. Watch for:
Until further notice, no asylum applicant owes the Annual Asylum Fee.
Richard T. Herman, founder of the Herman Legal Group, has represented immigrants nationwide for over 30 years. He is co-author of Immigrant, Inc. and a recognized advocate for immigrant rights.
Schedule a consultation
This directory is maintained by the Herman Legal Group to help asylum seekers and advocates navigate official updates, litigation status, and safe payment procedures with accurate, verified information.
By Richard T. Herman, Immigration Attorney
In 2025, U.S. immigration policy is experiencing one of its sharpest turns in recent memory. During a public appearance reported by Associated Press, Vice President J.D. Vance urged a “major reduction in legal immigration,” asserting that America must “get the overall numbers way down.” The comments have unsettled universities, employers, and immigrant families nationwide.
Additionally, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) released updated guidance regarding H-1B visa holders in response to a presidential proclamation, further complicating the landscape for employers and workers. Recent changes have significant implications for foreign students, foreign workers, and visa holders, affecting their ability to study, work, and travel in the U.S. The Presidential proclamation suspending entry of certain H-1B workers took effect on September 21, 2025, and is scheduled to remain in place for 12 months unless extended. This proclamation also functions as a travel ban for nationals of certain countries, with restrictions that vary depending on the country and visa type.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have enacted new regulations altering how students and workers maintain status and employment — notably, the termination of the 540-day automatic EAD extension. Legal updates from the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), and analyses from Morgan Lewis show a tightening of scrutiny and higher filing costs. These regulatory changes are being implemented under the authority of the immigration act, which governs U.S. immigration policy and procedures.
Fast Fact: More than 1.1 million international students and over 600 000 H-1B professionals could be directly affected by 2025’s rule changes.
This article explains what’s changing, who is impacted, and what students, workers, and employers should do to adapt strategically.
Federal agencies are actively involved in implementing and enforcing these new immigration policies and procedures.
Each change — from fee hikes to longer processing times — narrows the pathway for students and skilled workers alike.I
F-1 students face more rigorous renewal interviews and travel checks by the Department of State. Any inconsistency in academic or employment records may trigger administrative processing. Moreover, proposed rule changes could reduce the grace period for departure or change of status for international students from 60 days to 30 days, adding further pressure on students to act swiftly. The Department of State has mandated that applicants for nonimmigrant visas must schedule visa interviews at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate in their country of nationality or residence.
Students holding valid visas may be eligible for interview waivers under certain circumstances, streamlining the renewal process and reducing the need for in-person appointments.
Ensure your SEVIS record is accurate, secure a fresh DSO endorsement on Form I-20, and carry proof of full-time enrollment before travel.
Graduates on OPT or STEM-OPT should anticipate processing delays and greater employer hesitation. Boundless Immigration notes that EAD processing times have nearly doubled since 2024, and with automatic extensions ended, any delay can interrupt employment. OPT allows F-1 international students to gain practical work experience in their field of study, making these delays particularly disruptive for career development. The OPT program provides critical immigration benefits for STEM graduates, allowing them to extend their work authorization for an additional 24 months beyond the initial 12 months and gain valuable U.S. experience. Post-completion OPT is available for international students who have graduated from a certified institution, allowing them to work for 12 months in the U.S.
File OPT applications 90 days before graduation and STEM extensions 120 days before EAD expiration to avoid work gaps.
“For many students, these policy shifts introduce real fear. Filing early, keeping SEVIS accurate, and consulting counsel before travel are now non-negotiable.” — Richard T. Herman
Exchange visitors on J-1 status, which is part of the exchange visitor program, enter the U.S. on J visas that are subject to the two-year home-residency rule, and are seeing longer waiver adjudication through the Department of State Waiver Review Division.
If you plan to transition to an H-1B or green card, initiate your waiver at least 12 months in advance and review backup options such as the O-1 or National Interest Waiver (NIW).
The USCIS advises students to file STEM OPT extensions as soon as eligible because expiring EADs no longer carry automatic work authorization.
Fast Fact:
Students filing after October 30 2025 could face months-long employment interruptions if backlogs continue to grow.
The White House policy imposing a $100 000 H-1B fee has upended employer strategies. Analysts at Morgan Lewis and Forbes warn that smaller businesses may pause sponsorships, while larger firms absorb costs to retain essential talent. The new fee structure and policy changes for H-1B visas place additional burdens on both employers and H-1B visa holders, particularly those in roles requiring specialized skills. USCIS has clarified that the new supplemental government fee applies only to initial H-1B petitions filed for consular notification for individuals outside the U.S. after September 21, 2025.
Develop a “national interest” narrative for key H-1B roles, showing how each hire supports U.S. economic or public benefit goals to strengthen exemption requests.
The Federal Register details criteria allowing employers to seek waivers if their petition benefits U.S. economic or security interests. Sectors such as healthcare, research, and cybersecurity should begin gathering evidence now.
With auto-extensions eliminated, H-4 spouses risk work stoppage if the principal H-1B renewal is delayed. The USCIS advises H-4 and EAD filings be submitted together to align processing timelines.
Important Note:
Submit renewals six months in advance and keep your employer notified to avoid payroll suspension.
The Department of State Visa Bulletin shows continued retrogression for India and China, while other categories move slowly. The annual limit on visa numbers, set by U.S. immigration law, contributes to ongoing backlogs and retrogression, especially for applicants from high-demand countries. For applicants from certain countries, visa validity may be up to five years, but retrogression can delay the transition to lawful permanent resident status. Dual-strategy filings (EB-2 plus NIW) are becoming standard to mitigate risk.
Begin PERM labor certifications early and consider alternative categories to avoid multi-year delays.
Across the nation, employers — from tech giants to regional health systems — are reassessing their foreign-talent strategies under new compliance pressures and costs. Compliance reviews and audits are being emphasized for certain visa programs, increasing scrutiny for employers with prior compliance issues and adding another layer of complexity to hiring international talent. Employers must also monitor the impact of travel bans, which can restrict the mobility of international hires and complicate workforce planning.
Employers must closely monitor changing eligibility criteria for foreign nationals to ensure compliance and avoid legal risks.
Extended processing times and anti-immigration rhetoric are already discouraging job offers for F-1 graduates and H-1B candidates. Recent policy changes have led to increased visa processing times, further complicating hiring and retention efforts. Analyses from Forbes and ABC News warn that STEM and healthcare shortages could intensify through 2026. U.S. elections can significantly influence immigration policies and visa regulations, further contributing to uncertainties in hiring and retention of international talent.
Expert Tip:
Treat every sponsorship as a strategic investment in talent retention, not a clerical process.
With H-1B costs climbing and EAD protections shrinking, both workers and employers are exploring backup visa routes:
Recent policy discussions have also addressed the status and options for undocumented immigrants, especially in the context of proposed reforms and birthright citizenship, which may impact their legal recognition and future immigration pathways.
These routes require stronger documentation and often higher costs, but they provide flexibility when standard visa pipelines stall.
Ongoing discussions about immigration reform may introduce new alternative pathways or modify existing ones in the future.
The Department of State has expanded “administrative processing,” causing months-long waits for visa stamping and renewals.
Need to Know:
Even with approval, travel abroad or an employer change can trigger a new background review.
Under Executive Order 14161, agencies now collect social-media identifiers from many visa applicants.
Keep your online presence accurate and consistent; discrepancies between applications and social profiles can delay or derail processing.
Further guidance from federal agencies is expected to clarify the scope and procedures for social-media vetting.
While promoted as protecting U.S. workers, the current strategy affects lawful admissions, adjustment of status, and family sponsorship alike, tightening every stage of immigration flow. Family reunification pathways are also impacted, making it more difficult for families seeking to sponsor relatives for permanent residency.
For students, employers, and families, early preparation, full documentation, and prompt legal consultation are the best safeguards.
Visa reciprocity is a foundational principle in U.S. immigration policies, especially for those navigating employment based immigration. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the United States sets visa validity periods, application fees, and the number of permitted entries for foreign nationals based on how their home country treats U.S. citizens seeking similar visas. This means that if a country offers U.S. citizens a five-year, multiple-entry work visa, the U.S. will typically extend the same terms to citizens of that country applying for comparable employment based visas.
For employers and foreign workers, understanding visa reciprocity is essential. The nationality act ensures that employment based immigration benefits are not only determined by U.S. policy, but also by the reciprocal arrangements with each applicant’s country of citizenship. Changes in a foreign country’s visa policies toward Americans can prompt the U.S. to adjust its own terms, potentially shortening visa validity or increasing fees for certain nationalities. This can directly impact the planning and costs for employers sponsoring foreign talent, as well as the mobility and lawful status of employment based visa holders.
Recent shifts in U.S. immigration policies have prompted some countries to reevaluate their own visa rules, leading to ongoing adjustments in reciprocity schedules. For those seeking employment based immigration benefits, it’s important to check the latest reciprocity tables published by the Department of State before applying. Staying informed about these changes can help both employers and foreign nationals avoid unexpected obstacles in the visa process and ensure compliance with the latest requirements under the immigration and nationality act.
Expert Tip:
Before filing any employment based petition, review the current visa reciprocity schedule for your country of citizenship. This can help you anticipate potential limitations on visa duration, number of entries, or additional fees that may affect your long-term immigration strategy.
Fast Fact:
Analysts at Morgan Lewis project up to 40 percent slower processing times through late 2025 because of policy and staffing changes.
While these developments are nationwide, states like Ohio — with major universities and healthcare systems in Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati — will feel them acutely.
Ohio, like the rest of the nation, has experienced significant immigration policy shifts under the prior Trump administration, and further changes may occur if a second Trump administration takes office.
A 15 percent decline in new international-student enrollments could impact STEM research output and regional innovation if work-authorization pathways remain restricted.
The Herman Legal Group, headquartered in Cleveland and Columbus, continues to help students, professionals, and employers nationwide navigate the changing immigration landscape.
If you’re seeking legal guidance, these nationally recognized firms are active in student and employment-based immigration:
Expert Tip:
Choose a firm that combines policy monitoring with hands-on filing experience; laws now change faster than case processing times.
The message from Washington in 2025 is clear: immigration is tightening, not expanding. For students, professionals and employers, success depends on early filing, careful documentation and trusted legal guidance.
“Immigration strategy in 2025 is no longer routine paperwork — it’s survival planning.” — Richard T. Herman
Despite political headwinds, the United States still values talent and innovation. With the right strategy and counsel, immigrants and employers can thrive even under new rules.
If you’re a student, worker, or employer facing uncertainty under the new rules, the Herman Legal Group can help develop a personalized immigration plan.
Book a consultation today to speak with an experienced immigration attorney.
By Richard T. Herman, Immigration Attorney (30+ years)
The U.S. has set a record-low refugee admissions ceiling of about 7,500 for FY2026, down from 125,000 in prior years. Reports indicate new prioritization rules favoring white South Africans (Afrikaners) — raising questions of fairness, legality, and humanitarian impact.
This means longer waits, stricter vetting, and tighter triage for refugees, families, and resettlement agencies.
For official confirmation, see the Federal Register Presidential Determination on FY2026 Refugee Admissions and reporting by Reuters and the George W. Bush Presidential Center.
Most refugees seeking U.S. resettlement are registered with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).
A smaller cap means fewer slots, longer queues, and greater selectivity across all regions.
| Year | Refugee Ceiling | President |
|---|---|---|
| 2016 | ~85,000 | Obama |
| 2017 | 50,000 | Trump |
| 2021–2025 | 125,000 | Biden |
| 2026 | 7,500 | Trump (2nd term) |
Source:Migration Policy Institute – U.S. Refugee Admissions Trends
In the final year of the Obama administration, the refugee ceiling was set at approximately 85,000, providing a benchmark for comparison with subsequent years. The significant reduction in the refugee cap under one president, such as the Trump administration, demonstrates how the decisions of a single administration can dramatically reshape U.S. refugee policy.
| Refugee | Asylum | |
|---|---|---|
| Where filed | Outside the U.S. (via UNHCR/USRAP) | Inside the U.S. or at a port of entry |
| Annual limits | Capped by Presidential Determination | No cap |
| Screening agency | State Department / DHS | USCIS / DOJ EOIR |
| Processing time | Multi-year | Variable (backlogged) |
| Eligibility | Refugee eligibility is determined based on criteria set by U.S. law and the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, including a well-founded fear of persecution. | Must meet the definition of a refugee and be physically present in the U.S. |
| Status process | Applicants are identified, assessed, and referred for refugee status by agencies like UNHCR; after resettlement, individuals may transition from refugee status to permanent residency and eventually citizenship. | Granted asylum status after approval; may apply for permanent residency after one year. |
The refugee cap does not affect asylum filings—but restrictive refugee policies often coincide with broader enforcement priorities.
For background, see the American Immigration Council’s Overview of U.S. Refugee Law and Policy.
With such a small ceiling, internal triage — who counts as “priority” — will determine who actually arrives.
According to reports from Reuters, POLITICO, the Associated Press, Al Jazeera, and the Bush Presidential Center, the administration is prioritizing white Afrikaners, a specific ethnic minority group from South Africa, citing alleged persecution—claims disputed by South African officials and refugee advocates. This prioritization of white Afrikaners was established by an executive order issued by President Trump, setting the lowest refugee cap in U.S. history and outlining resettlement priorities for certain groups from South Africa pursuant to presidential directives.
The administration justified this policy shift on the grounds of national interest, arguing that selective admissions serve both humanitarian and strategic objectives. Refugee advocates argue that the prioritization of Afrikaners undermines the U.S. refugee program’s purpose. The admissions cap prioritizes Afrikaners from South Africa and other victims of discrimination, marking a shift in U.S. refugee policy.
Attorneys should strengthen country-conditions evidence for clients from under-prioritized nations and highlight individualized risk and U.S. ties.
Legal pathways for refugees are essential to ensure structured, lawful, and fair processes for gaining legal status in the U.S.
Quote (Richard T. Herman):
“America’s refugee policy is not just a number—it’s a mirror. Cutting the cap to 7,500 and favoring one demographic betrays our humanitarian commitments.”
See Congressional Research Service: U.S. Refugee Admissions Program Overview for legal background.
Refugee resettlement is a vital humanitarian process that allows individuals who have fled their home country due to persecution, conflict, or disaster to rebuild their lives in safety. The United States has long played a leading role in this effort, with the refugee admissions program serving as a beacon of hope for those seeking protection. Through this program, refugees are given the opportunity to start anew, free from the dangers that forced them to leave their respective homelands.
However, the recent decision by the Trump administration to set the annual refugee admissions ceiling at just 7,500—the lowest in the history of the program—marks a dramatic shift. This new refugee admissions cap not only limits the number of refugees who can find safety in the U.S., but also raises serious concerns about the direction and integrity of the refugee program itself. The prioritization of Afrikaners from South Africa, at the expense of other vulnerable groups, has sparked widespread criticism and allegations of illegal or unjust discrimination. Many advocates argue that such policies undermine the core purpose of refugee resettlement and threaten to erode the nation’s longstanding commitment to humanitarian values.
As the refugee admissions ceiling drops to unprecedented levels, tens of thousands of refugees remain in limbo, uncertain if they will ever be able to access the protection they desperately need. The program’s ability to offer a lifeline to those fleeing violence and persecution is now in question, and the implications for both refugees and the United States are profound.
The refugee resettlement process in the United States is a rigorous, multi-step journey designed to ensure that those admitted are truly in need of protection and can successfully integrate into American society. It begins with registration through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) or a Resettlement Support Center (RSC), followed by extensive interviews, security screenings, and medical exams. Only after passing these hurdles are refugees matched with a resettlement agency in the U.S., which helps them adjust to their new lives and communities.
In recent years, the Biden administration sought to restore the refugee program by setting a target of 125,000 admissions, reflecting a renewed commitment to humanitarian leadership. However, the new refugee admissions cap of 7,500 imposed by the Trump administration represents a stark reversal, slashing opportunities for resettlement and leaving many refugees stranded despite having completed pre-screening and background checks. This dramatic reduction has drawn sharp criticism from the Senate Judiciary Committees, who point to the statutory requirement for meaningful consultation with Congress before setting the annual refugee admissions ceiling—a process many believe was disregarded in this case.
The refugee resettlement program is meant to provide a stable footing for those who have lost everything, but the current admissions cap and the prioritization of certain groups—such as white South Africans—have raised troubling questions about racial preferences and unjust discrimination. The Federal Register’s notification of this new ceiling has been described by some as a bizarre presidential determination, and legal experts warn that the president’s authority in this area is not without limits. Federal courts have previously intervened when government actions threatened to halt or undermine refugee admissions.
For the vast majority of refugees, the stakes could not be higher. The process exists to uphold the nation’s humanitarian commitments and ensure that admissions decisions are based on need, not political whims or the preferences of one administration. As tens of thousands of refugees wait in uncertainty, the reduction in admissions numbers threatens not only individual lives but also the moral standing and values of the United States. It is more important than ever that the refugee resettlement program be administered fairly, transparently, and in accordance with the law—so that America remains a place of refuge for those who need it most.
The United States has long played a pivotal role in offering refuge to those fleeing persecution, violence, and war. Refugees come from countries ranging from Syria and Afghanistan to Venezuela and Myanmar, reflecting the global scope and diversity of crises that drive people to seek safety. The U.S. refugee program’s focus often shifts based on geopolitical considerations and the specific circumstances in countries facing persecution, war, or discrimination across different regions worldwide.
The recent changes to refugee admissions policy have sparked debate about the nation’s commitment to humanitarian principles and the rule of law. Many argue that these policies risk undermining the nation’s values, which have historically emphasized compassion, inclusivity, and support for the vulnerable.
For refugees and for the United States, the implications of these policy shifts are profound. Decisions of such great consequence affect not only the lives of those seeking safety but also the country’s standing in the world. Actions of great consequence reflect the core values, humanitarian commitments, and legal standards that define the nation.
Critics have called the administration’s decision to set the refugee cap at its lowest on record and to prioritize certain groups, such as Afrikaners from South Africa, morally indefensible, arguing that such policies violate fundamental moral principles and the country’s humanitarian values.
The Trump administration has set the ceiling at 7,500—the lowest since the Refugee Act of 1980. This is a 94% reduction from the prior 125,000 cap. The U.S. refugee system was established by the Refugee Act of 1980 to provide a structured framework for resettling individuals fleeing persecution. See the Federal Register Presidential Determination.
No. The refugee ceiling applies only to refugees abroad. Asylum, filed from within the U.S. or at a port of entry, is not subject to any numerical limit.
Reports by Reuters and POLITICO show a portion of the 7,500 allocation reserved for white South Africans, prompting accusations of racial bias and political favoritism.
With so few slots, regional quotas tighten dramatically. Even high-need populations face multi-year backlogs. Tens of thousands of refugees who are approved for travel remain stranded in dangerous transit countries. Individuals who have undergone years of rigorous vetting are left stranded in these precarious situations, unable to move forward. The uncertainty and lack of support contribute to mental health challenges, impeding successful social integration. Reduced refugee resettlement results in substantial economic losses for host communities and the federal government. See the International Rescue Committee statement.
Contact an experienced immigration attorney. In Ohio and nationwide, Herman Legal Group offers more than 30 years of experience in humanitarian immigration law. Book a consultation today.
Pro Tip for Attorneys:
Expect more humanitarian parole filings and delayed refugee interviews as agency priorities shift.
Document all attempted pathways to demonstrate diligence and good faith in humanitarian filings.
| Law Firm / Organization | Core Expertise | Locations | Consultation / Link |
|---|---|---|---|
| Herman Legal Group – 30+ years in refugee & asylum law; multilingual team; Cleveland & Columbus focus + nationwide reach | Refugee, asylum, humanitarian immigration | Cleveland, Columbus, Nationwide | Book a Consultation |
| International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP) | Strategic litigation & advocacy | National | Resources |
| Global Refuge (LIRS) | Resettlement & faith-based sponsorship | National | FY2026 Cap Analysis |
| HIAS | Gender-based and religious persecution claims | National | Get Help |
| Human Rights First | Impact litigation & expert testimony | D.C., New York | Resources |
| Tahirih Justice Center | Gender-based & LGBTQ refugee representation | Multi-state | Legal Services |
Herman Legal Group serves clients in Cleveland, Columbus, and across Ohio, with nationwide reach in refugee and asylum representation. Local clients benefit from expert witness networks, country-condition researchers, and multilingual legal teams.
Ohio-based sponsors should compile financial and community-support documentation early—these materials can help distinguish applications under strict quotas.
If you or your clients are affected by the refugee cap, speak with an experienced immigration attorney today.
Herman Legal Group – The Law Firm for Immigrants
✔ Over 30 years of experience
✔ Multilingual legal team
✔ Offices in Cleveland & Columbus, serving clients nationwide
Final Quote — Richard T. Herman:
“Numbers are policy. Setting the refugee ceiling at 7,500 reshapes lives across continents. Prepare early, document deeply, and pursue every lawful option.”
By Richard T. Herman, Immigration Attorney
Founder, Herman Legal Group — Offices in Cleveland & Columbus, Ohio
On October 30, 2025, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officially ended the 540-day automatic extension for Employment Authorization Documents (EADs).
Going forward, most renewal applicants will receive only the standard 180-day extension—or none at all—creating potential employment gaps if USCIS delays persist. This may result in a temporary lapse in employment authorization for affected workers.
This change hits hardest for non-citizen workers whose status depends on timely EAD renewal—such as H-4 spouses, L-2 spouses, and pending green-card applicants.
USCIS allows EAD renewals to be filed up to 180 days before expiration. Filing early—especially before October 30, 2025—can determine whether you still qualify for the outgoing 540-day automatic extension. Properly filing your renewal application is essential to maintain continuous work authorization and avoid any lapse in employment eligibility. Waiting even one day too long may cut your work-authorization coverage by a year.
“When a work permit delay means a parent can’t feed their family, that’s not bureaucracy — that’s cruelty in slow motion. Ending the 540-day extension punishes the very people who keep our economy alive.” Immigration Attorney Richard T. Herman
Under the new rule (Fragomen Analysis), any EAD renewal filed on or after October 30, 2025 is no longer eligible for the 540-day automatic extension. An I-797C receipt notice for a renewal application filed after October 30, 2025, will generally no longer be valid for work authorization reverification. Under prior rules, a facially expired EAD could still be considered valid for employment when presented with a timely renewal receipt notice.
| Category | Old Rule | New Rule (Oct 30 2025+) | Key Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Most EAD renewals (C-9, C-26, A-17, A-18, C-08, A-12) | 540 days | 180 days (or none) | Employment gap risk rises dramatically (Clark Hill) |
| STEM OPT (c)(3)(C) | 180 days | 180 days | Unchanged |
| Renewals filed before Oct 30 2025 | 540 days | Still 540 days | Transitional filings protected |
| Automatic extensions under TPS notices | Varies | Separate rules | Check each country-specific notice |
Expert Tip:
If you were able to file your EAD renewal before October 30, 2025, you have preserved the 540-day protection. Filing even one day later reduces coverage to 180 days.
This rule hits some groups harder than others. The impact of the rule varies across different employment authorization categories, with certain categories facing a greater risk of employment gaps. Below are the most vulnerable:
Dependents of H-1B workers often rely entirely on the EAD to work. These applications face average processing times of 5–9 months, meaning a 180-day limit creates inevitable work gaps; in fact, prolonged EAD processing times directly increase the risk of employment interruption for H-4 spouses. Employers cannot legally keep them on payroll past expiration. USCIS processing delays could leave individuals without employment authorization for extended periods, often leading to financial instability.
Although many now receive “work authorization incident to status” based on their nonimmigrant status, some still depend on EADs for documentation purposes or specific employer requirements (Brown Immigration Law). If they renew after October 30, they lose the 540-day buffer.
Applicants for green cards under section 245(a) are among the largest EAD user groups, as they are seeking permanent residence in the United States. Without the 540-day rule, delays in Form I-765 processing will again lead to job losses and benefit interruptions.
While some may qualify for other humanitarian protections, many depend solely on EAD renewals. Backlogs in asylum adjudication make 180 days inadequate for timely renewal. If their employment authorization expires before renewal, they must stop working until a new EAD is issued.
DHS may continue TPS-specific automatic extensions through separate Federal Register notices, which apply specifically to TPS applicants and beneficiaries. However, these are country-based and time-limited; they are no longer linked to the universal 540-day rule (Fragomen TPS Advisory).
If your status category requires an EAD to work lawfully and you are not covered by TPS or incident-to-status authorization, you are squarely within the “high-risk” zone.
Not everyone loses the 540-day benefit. Some categories remain protected or already have built-in authorization. Certain employment authorization categories are still eligible for automatic extensions under current regulations.
Remain eligible for the standard 180-day automatic extension under existing regulations (USCIS M-274 Handbook). STEM OPT students must submit a timely renewal request for their employment authorization document (EAD) to benefit from this automatic extension.
Since 2022, L-2 and E spouses with I-94s annotated “S-class” may work without EADs. They do not need extensions unless employer policies still require card evidence (Fragomen Client Update). In such cases, maintaining a current EAD may still be necessary for employment verification.
Where DHS issues specific country or category extensions in the Federal Register, those continue to apply. Under previous rules, employment authorization documents (EADs) were automatically extended prior to the new regulation, but this practice has now been amended. They are administered separately from the 540-day rule.
H-1B, L-1, O-1, and TN visa holders work incident to status and are not impacted by EAD extensions. Their employment authorization is based on their underlying immigration status, meaning their ability to work is directly tied to their visa classification rather than a separate employment authorization document. However, their dependents may be.
According to Clark Hill, only about 15% of EAD renewal categories will remain eligible for automatic extensions after October 2025.
Yes—if your renewal is timely filed and properly filed according to USCIS requirements before Oct 30, 2025, you qualify for the 540-day extension under transition rules (Fragomen).
Without a valid extension, your work authorization ends on the EAD expiration date. If you have an expiring EAD and a new card is not issued in time, you must stop working until your renewed EAD is approved. Employers must suspend you from work until a new card is issued (Ogletree Deakins Alert).
Only if your category still qualifies for an automatic extension and you have proof (Form I-797C receipt notice). Employers must verify eligibility and update Form I-9 records. This process is part of employment eligibility verification required by law to ensure the employee is authorized to work in the United States.
Expedite requests are available under USCIS criteria such as severe financial loss or urgent humanitarian need (USCIS Expedite Request Page). You may submit an expedite request for an EAD renewal application if you meet these criteria.
“Immigrants deserve stability, not uncertainty. USCIS must process renewals faster, and Congress must ensure that no one loses their job simply because the government can’t keep up with its own paperwork.”
As HR Dive reported, this rollback “creates immediate operational risk” for employers who depend on EAD holders.
Employer Action Plan:
Employers with H-4 or AOS populations should assume renewal delays will cause temporary staffing losses unless filings are made early. It is critical to monitor the expiration date stated on each EAD to ensure legal compliance and avoid unauthorized employment.
“This rollback isn’t about efficiency — it’s about exclusion. By cutting lifelines for lawful workers, DHS risks turning lawful employment into a game of luck and timing.” Immigration Lawyer Richard T. Herman
You may continue working only if you filed before the cut-off and your category is eligible for the automatic extension. Otherwise, employment must pause when the EAD expires. Work can only resume once a new EAD is issued.
In May 2022, USCIS introduced a temporary rule extending certain EAD renewals from 180 to 540 days to relieve backlogs and prevent job losses caused by delays. That rule, explained by USCIS, allowed eligible workers to keep working for up to 18 months after their card expired as long as they filed a timely renewal. Changes to EAD extension policies, including the 540-day rule, are detailed in the applicable federal register notice, which serves as the official source for regulatory amendments and procedural updates.
In December 2024, DHS announced it would make that change permanent (USCIS Final Rule Notice). Employers and immigrant families hailed it as a lifeline—until the agency abruptly reversed course less than a year later.
The new Interim Final Rule (IFR), effective October 30, 2025, rescinds that benefit, with DHS claiming the “backlog crisis has eased” and that the 540-day period “no longer aligns with program integrity goals” (AILA Summary). The IFR was officially published in the federal register notice, which outlines the rule’s details and effective date. DHS’s interim final rule prioritizes the proper vetting and screening of aliens before granting a new period of employment authorization.
Between 2022 and 2025, over 800,000 non-citizen workers used the 540-day extension to stay lawfully employed during USCIS delays.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) have ended the 540-day automatic extension for employment authorization documents (EADs) to strengthen national security and public safety. The primary purpose of this regulatory action is to ensure that all foreign nationals seeking an extension of employment authorization undergo thorough vetting and screening before being granted new periods of work authorization.
By ending the practice of automatically extending the validity of EADs for certain renewal applicants, DHS aims to reduce the risk of fraud, abuse, and potential public safety threats within the employment authorization process.
This change is grounded in the legal authority provided by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Homeland Security Act of 2002. Specifically, section 103(a) of the INA authorizes DHS to administer and enforce immigration laws and to establish necessary regulations, while section 102 of the Homeland Security Act vests the Secretary of Homeland Security with the authority to issue such regulations.
These statutes empower DHS to amend its regulations through an Interim Final Rule (IFR), which, effective October 30, 2025, ends the automatic extension of employment authorization for certain EAD renewal applicants.
The IFR amends DHS regulations to discontinue the practice of automatically extending the validity of EADs for most renewal applications filed on or after October 30, 2025. This means that, moving forward, only those automatic extensions specifically provided by law or through Federal Register notices—such as those related to Temporary Protected Status (TPS)—will remain in effect.
The rule does not impact automatic extensions for TPS-related employment documentation under section 244 of the INA and 8 CFR part 244, nor does it affect extensions granted prior to the effective date.
DHS has also included a severability clause in the IFR, ensuring that if any part of the rule is limited or invalidated by a court, the remaining provisions will continue to apply to other categories and circumstances. This approach underscores the department’s commitment to maintaining the integrity of the employment authorization process while adapting to legal challenges as needed.
Overall, the regulatory action reflects a broader effort by DHS to enhance the security and integrity of the employment authorization document process. By prioritizing proper vetting and eligibility determinations for all renewal applicants, the department seeks to deter fraud, protect public safety, and ensure that only those who meet all legal requirements receive extensions of employment authorization. Employers and government agencies are encouraged to update their compliance procedures in line with the new regulations, particularly regarding the verification of employment authorization and the handling of expiring or expired EADs.
DHS argues the policy reversal restores “program integrity.” However, advocates such as FWD.us and AILA warn of mass layoffs and economic disruption. Wolfsdorf Rosenthal LLP notes the rule prioritizes “security vetting over workforce stability.” The justification for the rule includes enhancing public safety by ensuring thorough vetting of EAD applicants. Ending automatic extensions is intended to ensure appropriate vetting and eligibility determination before granting work authorization.
Litigation or legislative responses may emerge if Congress receives pressure from employers or worker groups.
Herman Legal Group — Over 30 years of experience guiding immigrants and employers through EAD renewals, H-4 and L-2 EAD cases, and I-9 compliance. Multilingual attorneys in Cleveland and Columbus serving clients nationwide.
By Richard T. Herman, Esq.
Founder, Herman Legal Group — The Law Firm for Immigrants
Serving clients nationwide with offices in Cleveland and Columbus, Ohio
Starting October 30, 2025, USCIS will end the 540-day automatic extension of Employment Authorization Documents (EADs); workers who file renewal applications on or after that date will no longer be authorized to work until their new EADs are approved—unless protected by Temporary Protected Status or another statutory exception.
Effective October 30 2025, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will end the 540-day automatic extension of Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) for renewal applicants who file on or after that date. Non-citizens such as adjustment-of-status applicants, DACA recipients, H-4 and L-2 dependents, and OPT students will no longer be able to work while awaiting renewal approval unless covered by a separate extension (e.g., Temporary Protected Status (TPS)). Employers must update Form I-9 verification procedures. To retain the old 540-day extension, file your renewal before October 30 2025.
Beginning October 30 2025, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and USCIS will terminate the automatic extension program that has helped millions maintain lawful employment status while renewal cases were pending.
This guide explains what the rule means, who is affected, key deadlines, and how workers and employers can prepare — with insights from veteran immigration attorneys.
| Feature | Before Oct 30 2025 | On/After Oct 30 2025 |
|---|---|---|
| Automatic Extension | Up to 540 days if renewal timely filed | No automatic extension for most categories |
| Eligible Categories | ~70 EAD types | Only limited exceptions (TPS etc.) |
| Employer Verification | Expired EAD + receipt valid 540 days | Not accepted after Oct 30 |
| Policy Goal | COVID-era relief | Return to normal processing times |
The extension originated in a Temporary Final Rule (87 FR 26614) that increased EAD auto-renewal from 180 to 540 days to address USCIS backlogs. Filing Form I-765 before expiration allowed continued work authorization during adjudication. Now that processing times have improved, DHS plans to phase this out.
All renewal applicants filing on or after October 30 2025 — including those adjusting status (C09), DACA holders (C33), H-4/L-2/E dependents, and students on OPT — will no longer get the 540-day extension. Only certain TPS or DED beneficiaries retain automatic extensions through Federal Register notices.
According to USCIS, the temporary measure was no longer needed as EAD processing times declined below 90 days. However, advocates warn of potential disruptions if workload spikes again. Many employers still report delays that could force workers into unemployment gaps.
| Filing Date | Automatic Extension? | Length |
|---|---|---|
| Before Oct 30 2025 | ✅ Yes | Up to 540 days |
| On/After Oct 30 2025 | ❌ No | None |
File 180 days early to remain eligible under the old rule. Use USCIS Processing Times to plan ahead.
File Form I-765 as soon as eligible — up to 180 days before expiration — and confirm receipt by October 29 2025. Employers should audit I-9 records, track expiration dates, and consult immigration counsel on expedite options or temporary leave plans.
Workers:
Employers:
| Feature | Old Rule (2022–2025) | New Rule (After Oct 30 2025) |
|---|---|---|
| Auto-Extension | 540 days | None (for most) |
| Eligibility | ~70 categories | Limited (TPS etc.) |
| Worker Impact | Continuous employment | Risk of job loss |
| Employer Impact | Simplified I-9 process | Increased compliance risk |
Q: Does this affect all EAD holders?
A: No. TPS and DED beneficiaries covered by Federal Register extensions remain protected.
Q: If I file before October 30, am I safe?
A: Yes — you keep the 540-day extension until a decision is made.
Q: What if my employer is unaware?
A: Refer them to USCIS I-9 Central and seek legal advice to avoid violations.
Ohio’s health-care and manufacturing sectors rely on EAD holders. Local employers and universities should file early and seek guidance from Herman Legal Group offices in Cleveland and Columbus.
| Law Firm | Scope | Specialization | Why Choose Them |
|---|---|---|---|
| Herman Legal Group | Cleveland & Columbus ( Nationwide ) | EAD renewals, I-9 compliance | 30+ years experience, multilingual team |
| Fragomen LLP | Global | Corporate immigration | Multinational employer expertise |
| Berry Appleman & Leiden (BAL) | National | Business immigration | High-volume EAD filings |
| Jackson Lewis P.C. | National | Employment & I-9 audits | HR compliance strength |
| Greenberg Traurig LLP | International | Litigation & policy | Global resource network |
If EAD processing slows again, ending extensions could exacerbate labor shortages nationwide. Attorneys urge workers to plan filings and employers to budget for legal support.
By Richard T. Herman, Esq.
Who are the most LGBT-friendly marriage green card lawyers for lesbian and gay couples in Cleveland and Columbus, Ohio?
The Herman Legal Group is widely recognized as Ohio’s leading inclusive immigration law firm, serving lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender couples pursuing U.S. marriage-based green cards. With offices in Cleveland and Columbus, the firm provides compassionate and confidential representation for same-sex spouses navigating documentation, USCIS interviews, and adjustment-of-status filings.
The firm has extensive experience handling lgbt immigration cases, staying up to date with recent legal changes affecting same-sex couples and ensuring clients receive the most current guidance.
Contact us today to schedule a free initial consultation for lgbt immigration matters and learn about your options with no upfront cost.
Ohio is home to thriving lesbian and gay communities—from Cleveland’s Gordon Square Arts District and Ohio City to Columbus’s dynamic Short North corridor. Since the United States Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 2013 through its landmark Windsor decision, advancing LGBTQ rights, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has recognized same-sex marriages equally under immigration law.
The Supreme Court striking down DOMA was a pivotal moment for LGBTQ rights, as it enabled same-sex couples to access federal immigration benefits and protections previously denied to them.
Yet cultural stigma and inconsistent legal guidance can make the process stressful. LGBTQ individuals face unique challenges when navigating U.S. immigration laws. Partnering with an LGBT-friendly immigration lawyer ensures fairness, dignity, and strong legal advocacy throughout your case. Additionally, USCIS will reconsider previously denied immigration petitions based on DOMA, providing new opportunities for same-sex couples.
United States citizens and lawful permanent residents (also known as green card holders or permanent residents) can sponsor their same sex spouse or sex spouse for a marriage-based green card, granting the foreign spouse permanent residence (lawful permanent resident) status.
Requirements:
The immigration process for a green card holder sponsoring a same sex spouse is the same as for opposite-sex couples.
The main immigration benefit is lawful immigration status for the foreign spouse.
Since 2013, USCIS has granted same-sex spouses equal rights to family-based immigration benefits.
Even with legal parity, lesbian and gay immigrants can face:
LGBT individuals facing deportation or removal proceedings are at heightened risk, making experienced legal assistance crucial to seek relief from deportation and protect their rights.
An experienced LGBTQ-affirming immigration lawyer will help you assemble creative proofs, prepare for sensitive interview questions, and protect your privacy throughout the process.
Led by Richard T. Herman, the firm has served immigrants for more than 30 years. Its multilingual team provides inclusive representation for lesbian and gay couples seeking green cards, fiancé visas, and hardship waivers. As a dedicated law office, our experienced immigration attorneys handle a wide range of immigration matters for LGBT clients. Experienced lawyers know how to address challenges related to family acceptance and inappropriate questions from immigration officers, ensuring clients feel supported and respected throughout the process.
Contact:Book a confidential consultation
A respected Cleveland firm handling family-based immigration cases, including same-sex petitions.
Attorney Gerald Sarmiento’s firm offers personalized representation for diverse families and LGBTQ+ clients.
The LGBT Community Center of Greater Cleveland provides free immigration referrals and legal support to LGBTQ+ residents and asylum seekers.
Columbus has earned national recognition as one of the Midwest’s most LGBTQ-inclusive cities. Its Short North Arts District, German Village, and university corridors host a vibrant community where lesbian and gay couples find both legal and social support.
Columbus is also home to a vibrant LGBTQ community and offers strong support for LGBTQ couples navigating immigration.
The Columbus office of Herman Legal Group provides personalized, confidential representation for same-sex couples in all stages of the green card process. The team is known for its discretion, thorough preparation, and deep experience with lesbian and gay clients from diverse backgrounds.
Schedule a consultation: https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/book-consultation/
Founded by Attorney Julie Nemecek, an active member of the LGBT community, this boutique firm specializes in family-based immigration and is explicitly committed to representing lesbian and gay couples in marriage-based green card cases. With 20+ years of experience, Nemecek offers inclusive, hands-on representation for couples seeking to build a life together in the U.S.
Website: https://jnimmigration.com/
Located in downtown Columbus, Shihab & Associates handles a wide range of immigration cases and has successfully represented same-sex spouses in green-card applications. Client testimonials note positive outcomes for gay and lesbian couples through the adjustment-of-status process.
Website: https://www.shihabimmigrationfirm.com/
Organizations such as Stonewall Columbus, Equality Ohio, and the Kaleidoscope Youth Center help make Columbus a model of inclusion for LGBTQ+ immigrants.
Supporting Evidence May Include:
If a couple lacked joint records due to safety concerns, non-traditional proofs such as digital messages or community testimony are acceptable.
A Columbus lesbian couple represented by Herman Legal Group secured approval despite limited documentation by presenting photos, travel history, and affidavits demonstrating a long-term relationship.
Cleveland:
Columbus:
Both cities offer legal referrals and community events celebrating the visibility of lesbian and gay immigrants and their families.
Begin your case:https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/book-consultation/
Can same-sex couples marry for immigration purposes in Ohio?
Yes. Following Obergefell v. Hodges, marriage equality is recognized nationwide.
What if we were married abroad where same-sex marriage is illegal?
USCIS recognizes marriages that are valid in the country where performed, regardless of whether the spouses are citizens or non citizens of that country (e.g., Canada, Spain).
Are same-sex couples treated differently at USCIS interviews?
Legally no, but cultural bias can exist. An LGBT-affirming attorney ensures respectful representation.
Can my spouse adjust status after a visa overstay?
Yes, if the petitioner is a United States citizen and no serious violations occurred.
Government & Legal
Cleveland
Columbus
Law Firms Mentioned
By Richard T. Herman, Esq.
Yes. You can still file Form I-751, Petition to Remove Conditions on Residence alone if you are separated, divorced, or your spouse refuses to sign — by requesting a waiver of the joint filing requirement.
You must show that your marriage was entered in good faith and provide strong documentary evidence to prove it.
Few moments are more stressful than realizing your 2-year conditional green card is about to expire—and your marriage has ended. When your conditional green card expires, it directly affects your permanent residency status, as maintaining lawful status depends on following U.S. immigration laws that govern this process. Maintaining your legal status is crucial during separation or divorce, and you must take specific steps to preserve your legal status in the U.S.
But here’s the good news:
you can still remove conditions on your green card even without your spouse. The law recognizes that marriages can end for genuine reasons, and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) allows several waiver options to file Form I-751 on your own.
As an immigration attorney with over 30 years of experience, I’ve guided hundreds of clients through this exact challenge. Whether you’re recently separated, divorced, or facing an uncooperative spouse, this guide will walk you through every option, the evidence USCIS will require, and how to protect your status in 2025.
When you obtain a marriage-based green card less than two years after your wedding, USCIS grants conditional permanent residence—valid for two years. This is known as conditional resident status, the official term for the two-year period before you can apply to remove the conditions on your green card. This conditional status exists because USCIS requires evidence that your marriage is bona fide for immigration purposes, and is not entered into solely for the purpose of evading immigration laws. This ensures your marriage was entered in good faith, not solely for immigration benefits. Submit the I-751 petition during the 90 days before your conditional green card expires.
You must file Form I-751 during the 90-day window before your card expires to prove the marriage was authentic.
If you fail to file Form I-751 on time, your green card automatically expires, and you may fall “out of status.” USCIS can even place you in removal proceedings before an immigration judge.
| Situation | Who Signs the I-751 | Filing Basis | Can You File Alone? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Still married | Both spouses | Joint petition | ❌ No |
| Legally separated or divorced | You only | Divorce waiver | ✅ Yes |
| Abused by U.S. citizen or LPR spouse | You only | VAWA waiver | ✅ Yes |
| Spouse deceased | You only | Widow(er) waiver | ✅ Yes |
| Extreme hardship | You only | Hardship waiver | ✅ Yes |
In cases of divorce or legal separation, you may file separately from your spouse by requesting a waiver.
Yes. You can file Form I-751 individually by requesting a waiver of the joint filing requirement.
You’ll need to select one of the USCIS-approved waiver categories and submit strong proof that your marriage was genuine, even though it ended.
There are three main waiver based options for the joint filing requirement on Form I-751. Each waiver is based on specific circumstances, such as divorce, abuse, or extreme hardship:
You can file your I-751 as soon as your divorce is final—you don’t have to wait for the 90-day window.
Even though you’re filing alone, USCIS will still expect proof that your marriage was real. You must submit evidence and provide evidence of your marriage, such as joint financial records, photos, or affidavits. Other evidence, including personal statements or documentation of other events like abuse, divorce, or the death of a spouse, can also support your case. The key is to demonstrate good faith intent, not perfection. USCIS must consider any credible evidence relevant to a waiver request submitted by the CPR.
| Evidence Type | Joint Petition | Divorce Waiver |
|---|---|---|
| Joint tax returns | Required | Strongly recommended |
| Joint lease/mortgage | Required | Strongly recommended |
| Divorce decree | Not applicable | Required |
| Affidavits | Optional | Highly recommended |
| Shared bills/photos | Required | Required |
USCIS officers are trained to look for continuity of life together — not perfection. Even couples who later divorced can demonstrate good faith through honest records of their shared life.
If your conditional green card expires, you technically fall “out of status.” But don’t panic—there are still options.
It is important to notify USCIS promptly of any change of address or significant updates, such as separation or divorce, to ensure compliance and avoid delays or suspicion of fraud.
If you have not yet filed Form I-751, you should do so as soon as possible, even if your divorce is still pending. When the I-751 is filed and your divorce is not yet finalized, provide documentation showing the pending divorce to support your petition. USCIS understands that delays can occur due to circumstances such as a pending divorce or other valid reasons.
USCIS may accept late filings if you can show good cause and extenuating circumstances, such as: CPRs may file waiver requests at any time before, during, or after the 90-day period immediately preceding the second anniversary of the CPR receiving status as a permanent resident.
- Divorce delays or ongoing divorce proceedings
- Illness or domestic abuse
- Financial hardship
- Legal confusion about eligibility
Include a detailed written explanation with your late petition.
This is one of the most common issues we see at Herman Legal Group.
The standard process for removing conditions on your green card involves filing jointly with your permanent resident spouse to show your marriage was genuine. However, if your permanent resident spouse refuses to cooperate or sign, you can still file alone under the waiver categories mentioned above. If you are seeking a divorce waiver, you must have a finalized divorce decree from a state court before filing Form I-751 separately.
You do not need your spouse’s consent or signature to file Form I-751 alone.
Your eligibility is based on the good-faith nature of your marriage, not your spouse’s participation.
Processing times have varied significantly across USCIS service centers. The entire process can take many months and requires patience.
| USCIS Service Center | Estimated Processing Time |
|---|---|
| California Service Center | 20–28 months |
| Vermont Service Center | 16–24 months |
| Texas Service Center | 18–30 months |
| Potomac Service Center | 22–30 months |
| Nebraska Service Center | 18–26 months |
You can check live updates using the USCIS Processing Times Tool.
Yes. Once USCIS issues your receipt notice, your conditional residency and immigration status are automatically extended for 48 months.
That means you can:
If you travel abroad for more than six months, USCIS or CBP may question your residency intent.
If your I-751 is pending and you reenter, always carry:
- Expired green card
- USCIS extension letter
- Copy of your I-751 filing receipt
If USCIS decides to deny your I-751, they typically refer your case to immigration court for removal proceedings. If USCIS denies your petition, it may be due to incomplete evidence or concerns about immigration fraud, so addressing these issues is critical to your case. A denial can have serious consequences, including the potential loss of your lawful permanent resident and permanent resident status. You’ll then have another opportunity to prove your case before an immigration judge (IJ).
Many denials result from missing evidence or weak affidavits.
In removal court, you can present new evidence or request a joint motion to reopen if your divorce was still pending during the initial filing.
If your case goes to court, retain an experienced immigration attorney immediately. Firms like Herman Legal Group handle these complex cases nationwide, especially in Cleveland and Columbus, Ohio, where we have decades of success representing immigrants in I-751 waiver hearings.
| Law Firm | Location | Key Features | Reviews |
|---|---|---|---|
| Herman Legal Group | Cleveland & Columbus, OH (national) | 30+ years of experience, multilingual team, nationwide waiver filings, personal guidance from Richard T. Herman, Esq. | ★★★★★ |
| Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy LLP | Nationwide | Global immigration firm, extensive resources | ★★★★☆ |
| Murthy Law Firm | Maryland | Leading family and employment-based immigration practice | ★★★★☆ |
| Siskind Susser P.C. | Tennessee | Trusted advocacy and USCIS litigation | ★★★★☆ |
| Immigration Law Group of Chicago | Illinois | Strong record with I-751 waiver approvals | ★★★★☆ |
By Richard T. Herman, Esq., Immigration Lawyer — Herman Legal Group
If your DACA or TPS ends in 2025, act immediately: You should immediately start the renewal process for DACA or TPS by filing the appropriate forms and fees with USCIS, ideally 150 to 120 days before expiration. Fee waivers are generally not available for DACA and TPS applications, so review USCIS guidance on fee waivers before submitting payment.
- Check whether your EAD qualifies for the new 540-day automatic extension;
- Explore family-, employment-, or humanitarian-based legal options;
- Avoid travel abroad without Advance Parole;
- Contact an experienced immigration attorney right away. See official USCIS pages for DACA and TPS and the 540-day EAD rule.
DACA offers deferred action and work authorization but no direct path to a green card.
In 2025, USCIS continues to process DACA requests, including both initial requests and renewal requests, as well as advance-parole requests even while litigation continues. Always file renewals early—ideally 120-150 days before expiration—using Form I-821D at uscis.gov/i-821d. Both initial DACA requests and renewal requests must be submitted using Form I-821D; initial requests have additional eligibility and documentation requirements compared to renewal requests.
Applicants can use a USCIS online account to submit and track their DACA requests, including both initial and renewal requests. While there is no fee for Form I-821 itself for re-registrations, other fees may apply.
Temporary Protected Status protects nationals of designated countries from deportation during unsafe conditions abroad. TPS status is a temporary immigration status that provides TPS benefits such as protection from removal and work authorization, but does not lead to permanent residency. Individuals are granted TPS after meeting eligibility and application requirements set by the Department of Homeland Security.
When DHS terminates a country’s designation, it publishes a Federal Register Notice setting the effective date, any automatic EAD extensions, and a transition period (usually 60 days). TPS expires on the date specified in the Federal Register Notice, and TPS holders must re-register during the designated re-registration period to maintain their TPS status and benefits. Check the Federal Register TPS notices regularly. TPS holders must be careful to maintain any application for other immigration benefits they pursue, as those applications do not affect TPS eligibility.
| Feature | DACA | TPS |
|---|---|---|
| Core benefit | Deferred action + employment authorization document (EAD) as proof of work eligibility | Protection from removal + employment authorization document (EAD) as proof of work eligibility |
| Basis | Individual (age & entry) | Country designation by DHS |
| Renewal | Every 2 years | During each re-registration window |
| End effect | EAD expires; no status | 60-day wind-down; possible EAD auto-extension |
| Travel | Advance Parole required | Advance Parole via Form I-131 |
| Litigation risk | High | Moderate |
| Path to green card | Only through separate eligibility | Varies by circuit / family links |
As of January 13, 2025, many renewal applicants automatically receive up to 540 days of extra work authorization on their employment authorization documents (EADs) if they file on time. Read the rule.
Find your specific end date on the latest Federal Register Notice or USCIS update.
Examples: Venezuela TPS 2025 notice, Haiti TPS update.
If you filed Form I-765 on time and your category qualifies, your work permit and authorization may continue 540 days past the expiration date. Employment authorization is typically contingent upon maintaining lawful status in the U.S.
Fee waivers for EAD applications are limited; applicants should carefully review USCIS guidance before submitting a fee waiver request.
Leaving the U.S. without an approved advance parole document may permanently bar re-entry.
Apply early for an advance parole document using Form I-131; emergency requests exist but are narrow.
Every case differs — family links, entry records, criminal history, asylum eligibility.
Find an attorney immediately (see firm list below). Seek help from an accredited legal representative or a legal support organization recognized by the Department of Justice, and avoid unauthorized practitioners.
Passports, I-94s, prior I-797 notices, EAD cards, tax returns, pay stubs, and proof of continuous residence.
Expert Tip:
File renewals 120–150 days before expiration to avoid EAD gaps. USCIS Renewal Guidance.
Some DACA holders qualify for employer sponsorship (EB-2, EB-3) or non-immigrant categories (H-1B, O-1, TN) if status and admissibility allow.
See USCIS employment-based categories.
DACA recipients can apply for asylum if they fear persecution in their home country, which may lead to legal residency. An asylum application must generally be filed within one year of arrival in the U.S.; missing the one year filing deadline can affect eligibility for asylum benefits.
If DACA ends and no new status exists, you may begin accruing unlawful presence, triggering 3/10-year re-entry bars. Always analyze this before travel or consular action.
Each notice specifies the exact termination date, EAD extension window, and transition period. See DHS Federal Register TPS Notices.
TPS holders must re-register during each re-registration period by submitting a TPS re-registration application (Form I-821) and supporting documents. Use Forms I-821 and I-765 within the window. It is crucial to re-register on time and submit a complete re registration application to maintain TPS benefits. Automatic extensions often appear in the FR notice—read the footnotes.
Key Insight:
Termination does not mean instant deportation. DHS usually allows a 60-day wind-down and sometimes extends EADs automatically through that period.
Under the 540-day rule, timely EAD renewals continue work authorization even past card expiration.
Employers should note this automatic extension on Form I-9 and verify within USCIS rules.
Read the official policy here.
When TPS or DACA protection ends, unlawful presence accrues unless you have another status pending or a filed application that protects you. Departing after accruing time can trigger the 3-year or 10-year bar.
Need to Know:
If ICE initiates removal proceedings, you may still qualify for cancellation of removal, asylum, or other relief. Act fast—deadlines are tight.
Facing deportation proceedings can be overwhelming, especially for those with Temporary Protected Status (TPS) or DACA. If you are a TPS holder or DACA recipient, understanding the process and knowing your rights is crucial to protecting your future in the United States.
Ohio requires proof of lawful presence through the DPS BMV SAVE system.
Bring passports, I-797 receipts, and current EADs.
Real ID compliance means extra documentation; schedule early to avoid delays.
Fast Fact (Ohio):
Non-citizen state IDs in Ohio are verified via SAVE and are not voter IDs. Check for processing delays ahead of Real ID deadlines.
| Firm | Focus & Why Choose | Locations | Consultation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Herman Legal Group | 30+ years of family, employment, and humanitarian immigration experience; bilingual team covering 10+ languages; offices in Cleveland & Columbus. | Cleveland, Columbus, Nationwide virtual | Book Consultation |
| Siskind Susser P.C. | Nationally known firm with broad employment & DACA/TPS expertise. | Memphis + Nationwide | Contact |
| Murthy Law Firm | Large Maryland-based firm with robust employment & family practice; extensive online resources. | Nationwide | Schedule |
| Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy LLP | Global corporate immigration leader handling complex TPS/DACA matters. | Global / U.S. offices | Contact |
| Monty & Ramirez LLP | Texas firm with strong Spanish-speaking staff and community DACA/TPS advocacy. | Houston / National | Contact |
| Leopold & Associates LLC | Cleveland litigator David Leopold; renowned for removal defense and policy advocacy. | Cleveland / Nationwide | Contact |
Expert Tip:
Choose a law firm that handles both affirmative (USCIS) and defensive (court) immigration cases so you’re covered if your case shifts to removal proceedings.
Q1. Will I lose my job immediately if TPS ends?
Not necessarily. Most Federal Register notices include a transition period and automatic EAD extensions for timely filers. Current TPS holders should carefully follow the latest Federal Register Notices and re-registration instructions to maintain their status. Check your country’s latest notice.
Q2. Can I renew DACA in 2025?
Yes — if you are a current DACA recipient or current DACA holder, you can still renew your status as of 2025, pending ongoing litigation. File 120–150 days before expiration per USCIS guidelines.
Q3. Can I get Advance Parole?
Possibly. DACA holders can apply via Form I-131. TPS holders may also apply under specific rules listed on each country’s TPS page.
Q4. If I’m married to a U.S. citizen, can I adjust status?
Often yes, if you have a record of admission or parole. Some TPS holders can adjust within the U.S. depending on their circuit. A Supreme Court decision affirmed that entering without inspection makes you ineligible for adjustment of status from within the U.S.
Q5. What if I get put in removal proceedings?
Contact a qualified immigration attorney immediately to explore defenses such as asylum or cancellation of removal. Asylum seekers can apply for protection if they fear persecution if returned to their home country, and can remain in the U.S. while their application is processed.
Q6. How did the Trump administration affect DACA and TPS?
The Trump administration attempted to end both DACA and TPS programs, leading to significant legal challenges. Federal judges and district court’s orders have temporarily blocked or delayed these terminations, allowing many current DACA recipients and TPS holders to retain their status while litigation continues.
Q7. What has Homeland Security announced about DACA and TPS?
Homeland Security announced several policy changes and updates regarding DACA and TPS, including eligibility, re-registration, and employment authorization. Always refer to the latest announcements from the Department of Homeland Security for accurate information.
Q8. What role do federal judges and district court’s orders play in immigration programs?
Federal judges and district court’s orders can temporarily halt or block government actions, such as the termination of DACA, TPS, or parole programs. These legal rulings provide protections for impacted individuals while courts review the legality of policy changes.
Q9. Can TPS be granted due to an environmental disaster?
Yes. TPS can be designated for countries experiencing an environmental disaster, such as a hurricane, earthquake, or other severe environmental events, as well as armed conflict or other extraordinary conditions.
Q10. How can a Supreme Court decision impact immigration benefits?
A Supreme Court decision can determine eligibility for adjustment of status, green cards, or other immigration benefits, especially regarding lawful admission, parole, or eligibility for relief under U.S. immigration law.
For personalized advice, contact the Herman Legal Group at www.lawfirm4immigrants.com. Offices in Cleveland and Columbus, serving clients nationwide.
By Richard T. Herman, Esq. (Immigration Lawyer for Over 30 Years)
Herman Legal Group, Immigration Law 2025.”
When immigration and customs enforcement (ICE) agents come to your door, it can be a frightening and confusing experience for you and your family. However, knowing your rights and how to respond can make all the difference in protecting yourself and those you care about. ICE agents may ask questions about your immigration status or request to enter your home, but you are not required to answer questions or let them in unless they present a valid warrant signed by a judge.
Exercising your right to remain silent is one of the most important protections you have—anything you say can be used against you in immigration proceedings. If ICE does not have a judicial warrant, you can keep your door closed and politely decline to answer questions. Staying calm, knowing your rights, and not volunteering information are key steps to safeguarding your family and avoiding unnecessary risks during an ICE visit. Remember, preparation and awareness are your best tools to protect your rights and your future.
If ICE knocks on your door, you still have rights. You can stay calm, ask for a judicial warrant, choose to remain silent, and call a trusted immigration lawyer. Acting with preparation rather than panic protects you and your family.
As an immigrant living in the U.S., regardless of your status, you are protected by the U.S. Constitution. Federal law governs the actions of immigration agents and immigration officers, including ICE, setting the standards for enforcement, detention, and deportation procedures. That means you have the right to remain silent, the right to refuse a search in many situations, the right to ask whether you’re free to leave, and the right to speak with a lawyer. (American Civil Liberties Union)
When ICE, immigration agents, immigration officers, or immigration officials come to your home, the rules become especially important: they cannot legally enter your residence without a valid judicial warrant signed by a judge that correctly lists your name and address. Only a judicial search with a court-issued warrant grants permission for entry; opening the door or complying does not constitute legal permission. An ICE administrative warrant alone does not authorize entry if you do not consent. Only judicial warrants, not administrative ones, provide lawful authority for entry or arrest. Additionally, all individuals in the United States have rights, regardless of immigration status. (Immigrant Legal Resource Center)
Here’s what to ask and what to look for:
| ✅ What to Ask | ❓ What to Watch For |
|---|---|
| “Are you from ICE or local police?” | ICE may pretend to be “police” — ask explicitly. (National Immigrant Justice Center) |
| “Do you have a warrant signed by a judge with my correct name and address?” | If they cannot show a judicial search warrant signed by a judge, you do not have to open the door. (Immigrant Legal Resource Center) Only a search warrant signed by a judge allows agents to enter your home without your permission. |
| “Can you slide the warrant under the door or hold it up to a window for me to verify?” | An ICE form alone is not sufficient. (UCLA Equity, Diversity & Inclusion) If ICE enters your home without your permission or a valid judicial warrant, state clearly that you do not consent to the entry and do not answer questions. If agents force their way in, remember you still have rights—do not resist, but state you do not consent to the search. ICE agents may also claim they are investigating a crime to gain entry; always ask to see a judicial warrant before allowing them inside. |
“I choose to remain silent. I request a lawyer. I do not consent to you entering my home without a valid warrant.”
Keep one of these printed or saved on your phone — you can hand it through the door if needed.
If you cannot verify a valid judicial warrant, do not open the door or let them in. You may speak through the door if you wish, but you are under no legal obligation to allow entry without a judge-signed warrant. If ICE comes to your door, you can ask them to slide the warrant under the door to verify its validity and inspect it carefully.
Your words matter. Anything you say may be used in immigration proceedings.
While this moment is focused on safety, it’s also wise to remember that undocumented status does not always mean deportation with no options. Some possibilities include: asylum, T-visas, U-visas, VAWA, cancellation of removal, and so forth.
Your attorney can evaluate your case for any of these. It’s not a guarantee — but it may provide hope.
If ICE appears at your workplace or asks for you:
Create this basic checklist now and store it somewhere your loved ones can access it:
If you are arrested by ICE agents, it is essential to stay calm and remember your legal rights. First and foremost, you have the right to remain silent—do not answer questions about your immigration status, how you entered the country, or your citizenship. Politely inform the immigration officer that you wish to speak to a lawyer before answering any questions. Never provide false documents or lie about your lawful immigration status, as this can seriously harm your immigration case and may lead to expedited removal or criminal charges.
If you are detained, do not resist arrest or attempt to run away. Instead, ask to contact your lawyer and provide your phone numbers and emergency contacts. Carry proof of your lawful immigration status, such as a work permit or valid immigration documents, and present them if requested by an immigration officer. If you are served with an arrest warrant naming you, do not sign any papers or documents without first consulting with a lawyer or trusted legal services provider. Avoid discussing your case with other officials or agents, as anything you say can be used against you in immigration court.
Exercising your right to remain silent and seeking immediate legal assistance are the best ways to protect yourself and your family during this stressful time. Remember, you have rights—even if you are detained—and taking the right steps can make a significant difference in the outcome of your immigration case.
Feel free to screenshot or print this and keep it accessible (on your phone or near your door). Heated mats or stair treads can prevent ice from forming at entrances by providing warmth, ensuring safer access during winter months. Warm water can quickly melt ice, but hot water may damage surfaces like concrete or glass over time.
What to say:
• “Am I free to leave?”
• “I choose to remain silent.”
• “I want to speak with a lawyer.”
• “I do not consent to a search.”What to not say or do:
• “I’m from [country].”
• “I’m a citizen.”
• Open the door without checking a judicial warrant.
• Sign anything without a lawyer’s review.
Myth #1: “If I have been here many years, ICE won’t take me.”
Fact: Long presence may help your case, but it does not guarantee safety. Each case depends on many factors.
Myth #2: “If ICE has a warrant, I must open the door.”
Fact: Only a judge-signed judicial warrant with your correct name/address forces entry without your consent. An ICE administrative warrant does not. (UCLA Equity, Diversity & Inclusion)
Myth #3: “I speak English well so ICE won’t target me.”
Fact: ICE may target anyone — status, community ties, or other factors matter more than language ability.
Myth #4: “If I cooperate fully, they’ll let me stay.”
Fact: Cooperation might help some cases, but it does not guarantee relief, and it should never cost you your rights.
For additional resources, including downloadable materials, emergency contact numbers, and legal support, please refer to the links above. If you have more questions, consult these resources or contact a qualified legal service provider for further guidance.
Richard T. Herman, Esq. is a nationally-recognized immigration attorney with over 30 years of experience defending immigrants and their families. He is the founding partner of the Herman Legal Group, where he leads a team dedicated to protecting vulnerable communities.
Website: https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/
Profile: https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/attorney/richard-t-herman/
To schedule a case evaluation: https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/book-consultation/
⚠️ This article is for informational purposes only and does not substitute for legal advice. Each case is unique — contact a licensed immigration attorney to discuss your specific situation.
CLEVELAND (HEADQUARTER)
© Copyright 2025, HLG, LLC. All Rights Reserved
