USCIS Confirms Court Order Vacating Immigration Hold Policies: What Applicants Need to Know Now

Updated June 13, 2026

On June 12, 2026, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services issued a significant announcement titled Court Order on Hold Policies that may affect thousands of immigration applicants whose cases were delayed, frozen, or subjected to enhanced review over the past several months.

The announcement follows a federal court decision in Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS and represents the first official confirmation from USCIS regarding how the agency will respond to the ruling.

The most important language appears in the middle of the announcement.

USCIS states:

“With entry of final judgment this order is effective immediately, and pursuant to the court-ordered vacatur, applies agency-wide.”

The agency then makes an even more significant statement:

“Thus, the vacatur applies to PM 602-0192, PM 602-0194, and PA 2025-26, which should be treated as if they are not in effect.”

For immigration lawyers, employers, universities, healthcare systems, and affected applicants, those two sentences may be among the most important immigration policy developments of 2026.

Why?

Because USCIS is acknowledging that three major policies that had been used to freeze, delay, or subject immigration applications to enhanced review must now be treated as though they do not exist.

The announcement affects policies linked to:

• the June 2025 travel ban;
• the December 2025 expanded travel ban;
• nationality-based adjudication holds;
• affirmative asylum adjudication pauses;
• enhanced vetting procedures;
• re-review requirements for previously approved immigration benefits;
• discretionary adjudication guidance involving designated countries.

In practical terms, USCIS is telling adjudicators throughout the agency that the policies invalidated by the Rhode Island federal court can no longer serve as the basis for delaying or withholding immigration decisions.  This is USCIS Court Order Vacating Immigration Hold Policies

Key Takeaways

• USCIS has acknowledged that PM-602-0192, PM-602-0194, and PA-2025-26 must be treated as though they are not in effect.
• The court’s vacatur is effective immediately.
• USCIS states that the order applies agency-wide.
• The affected policies were tied to Presidential Proclamations 10949 and 10998.
• The policies impacted applicants from approximately 39 countries.
• Green cards, citizenship applications, asylum cases, work permits, and other immigration benefits were affected.
• USCIS has indicated that further guidance is forthcoming.
• On June 12, 2026, a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals has been filed by USCIS.

USCIS Is Complying — But It Is Not Conceding

The June 12 announcement contains another important sentence that should not be overlooked.

USCIS states:

“USCIS strongly disagrees with the Court’s order but will follow its terms pending possible further judicial review.”

That sentence accomplishes two things simultaneously.

First, USCIS confirms that it is currently complying with the court’s order.

Second, USCIS signals that additional litigation is likely.

The phrase “pending possible further judicial review” strongly suggests that an appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals is under consideration.

As a result, applicants should understand that the legal landscape could continue to evolve over the coming months. On June 12, 2026, a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals has been filed by USCIS.

For now, however, USCIS has publicly acknowledged that the challenged policies must be treated as though they are not in effect.

That is the operative fact.

 

What Exactly Did USCIS Say Is No Longer in Effect?

The June 12 announcement identifies three specific policies.

PM-602-0192

Official memorandum:

PM-602-0192

This memorandum established broad adjudication holds and enhanced review procedures affecting immigration benefits involving nationals from designated countries.

For additional background, see:

• Frozen Files: How Trump’s PM-602-0192 Quietly Halts USCIS Cases for Millions
• Is Your Case Frozen Under USCIS PM-602-0192?
• How the USCIS Memo PM-602-0192 National Security Hold Affects You

PM-602-0194

Official memorandum:

PM-602-0194

This memorandum expanded the hold framework and broadened enhanced-review procedures following the December 2025 Presidential Proclamation.

For additional background, see:

• January 1, 2026 USCIS Memo (PM-602-0194): USCIS Is Putting Certain Pending Immigration Benefits on Hold

PA-2025-26

Official memorandum:

PA-2025-26

The court also vacated USCIS Policy Alert PA-2025-26, which directed officers to treat nationality-based concerns identified in the Presidential Proclamations as discretionary adjudication factors.

Together, these policies formed the backbone of USCIS’s nationality-based hold and enhanced-review framework.

According to USCIS’s own June 12 announcement, all three policies must now be treated as though they are not in effect.

 

Why the USCIS Announcement Matters More Than the Court Decision Alone

Court decisions are important.

But agency implementation is what ultimately affects applicants.

The June 12 USCIS announcement is significant because it tells field offices, service centers, asylum offices, adjudicators, supervisors, and immigration officers how the agency intends to proceed.

Without this announcement, applicants might have faced uncertainty regarding whether USCIS would narrowly interpret the court’s ruling.

Instead, USCIS acknowledged that:

• the judgment is effective immediately;
• the order applies agency-wide;
• the policies must be treated as though they are not in effect.

Those statements are likely to become central citations in future litigation involving delayed immigration benefits, federal mandamus lawsuits, and Administrative Procedure Act challenges.

Why This May Become One of the Most Important Immigration Cases of 2026

The significance of the Dorcas litigation extends far beyond travel bans.

At its core, the case asks a simple but profound question:

Can USCIS effectively suspend adjudications for large groups of immigrants through internal policy memoranda without clear statutory or regulatory authority?

The Rhode Island federal court answered that question by vacating the challenged policies.

USCIS has now acknowledged that ruling and instructed officers nationwide to treat the policies as though they are not in effect.

For potentially thousands of applicants whose cases were delayed, frozen, or subjected to enhanced review, that development could be transformative.

What Comes Next?

The next questions are equally important:

• Which countries were affected?
• What immigration benefits were frozen?
• How many applicants were impacted?
• What hardships did the court identify?
• What exactly did the judge say?
• Will USCIS quickly adjudicate the backlog?
• Should applicants submit expedite requests?
• Should applicants file mandamus lawsuits?
• What happens during the government appeal, and will it seek and obtain a stay?

Those questions are examined in the next section.

Which Countries, Immigration Benefits, and Applicants Were Affected?

One of the most common questions following USCIS’s June 12, 2026 announcement is:

Who was actually affected by the now-vacated USCIS hold policies?

The answer is broader than many people realize.

The challenged policies did not merely affect visa issuance overseas.

They reached deep into the domestic immigration system and affected green card applicants, citizenship applicants, asylum seekers, workers, physicians, researchers, students, families, and other immigrants already living in the United States.

Many affected individuals had already filed applications, paid filing fees, completed biometrics appointments, attended interviews, and complied with every USCIS requirement.

Yet their cases were delayed, frozen, or subjected to enhanced review because of policies linked to the Administration’s travel-ban framework.

Which Countries and Nationalities Were Affected?

The challenged USCIS policies were implemented pursuant to Presidential Proclamation 10949 and Presidential Proclamation 10998.

Together, those proclamations formed the basis for PM-602-0192 and PM-602-0194.

The resulting USCIS hold framework ultimately affected nationals from approximately 39 countries, as well as certain individuals traveling on Palestinian Authority-issued or endorsed travel documents.

Countries Subject to Full Restrictions

Nationals of the following countries were subject to the most significant restrictions:

• Afghanistan
• Myanmar (Burma)
• Burkina Faso
• Chad
• Republic of the Congo
• Equatorial Guinea
• Eritrea
• Haiti
• Iran
• Laos
• Libya
• Mali
• Niger
• Sierra Leone
• Somalia
• South Sudan
• Sudan
• Syria
• Yemen

These countries formed the core group subject to the most restrictive portions of the travel-ban and enhanced-vetting framework.

Countries Subject to Partial Restrictions

Additional countries were subject to partial restrictions and enhanced scrutiny:

• Angola
• Antigua and Barbuda
• Benin
• Burundi
• Côte d’Ivoire
• Cuba
• Dominica
• Gabon
• Gambia
• Malawi
• Mauritania
• Nigeria
• Senegal
• Tanzania
• Togo
• Tonga
• Turkmenistan
• Venezuela
• Zambia
• Zimbabwe

Palestinians Were Also Affected

An important point frequently overlooked in discussions of the travel-ban framework is that the challenged policies extended beyond nationals of listed countries.

Under Presidential Proclamation 10998, restrictions also applied to certain individuals traveling on:

• Palestinian Authority-issued travel documents;
• Palestinian Authority-endorsed travel documents.

As a result, some Palestinians were subjected to the same adjudication holds, re-review procedures, and enhanced scrutiny applied to nationals of the designated countries.

For that reason, the affected population should be understood as including:

• nationals of the designated countries;
• individuals traveling on Palestinian Authority-issued or endorsed travel documents.

This distinction is important because many Palestinians do not appear on the country list itself but were nevertheless affected by the policies challenged in Dorcas.

What Immigration Benefits Were Frozen or Delayed?

A common misconception is that the policies affected only visa issuance abroad.

That is incorrect.

The challenged policies reached deeply into the domestic immigration system.

Green Card Applications

Perhaps the most significant category involved permanent residence applications.

Affected applications included:

• Form I-485 Adjustment of Status;
• family-based green cards;
• employment-based green cards;
• humanitarian adjustment applications.

Many applicants had already completed biometrics and interviews before their cases entered extended review.

 

Employment Authorization Documents (EADs)

The policies also affected work authorization requests.

This included:

• Form I-765 applications;
• initial EAD applications;
• EAD renewals;
• work permits linked to pending immigration benefits.

For many applicants, delayed EAD adjudications immediately threatened employment and financial stability.

Naturalization Applications

The hold policies also affected citizenship applicants.

This included:

• Form N-400 Naturalization applications;
• citizenship interviews;
• naturalization adjudications;
• oath-related processing.

For lawful permanent residents who had waited years to become eligible for citizenship, additional delays often carried significant consequences.

Affirmative Asylum Applications

One of the most controversial aspects of the litigation involved affirmative asylum adjudications.

The challenged framework reportedly prevented USCIS from issuing decisions in many asylum cases involving affected applicants.

For asylum applicants, delayed decisions can affect:

• employment authorization;
• family reunification;
• long-term stability;
• eligibility for permanent residence.

 

Previously Approved Immigration Benefits

The policies also extended beyond pending cases.

Certain approved immigration benefits were reportedly subjected to re-review procedures.

In some situations, USCIS reopened scrutiny of cases that had already received favorable decisions.

The Rhode Island court viewed these re-review procedures as part of the challenged framework.

Discretionary Immigration Benefits

The court also vacated guidance directing officers to treat nationality-based concerns as negative discretionary factors in adjudications.

As a result, officers may no longer rely upon the vacated guidance as a basis for discretionary decisions.

How Many Cases Were Affected?

One of the most frequently asked questions is:

How many immigration cases were frozen under PM-602-0192 and PM-602-0194?

The honest answer is that no definitive public number currently exists.

USCIS has not released a comprehensive accounting of:

• affected adjustment applications;
• delayed naturalization cases;
• impacted asylum cases;
• affected EAD applications;
• re-reviewed approved cases.

However, several facts suggest the impact was substantial.

The policies:

• operated nationwide;
• remained in effect for months;
• touched some of the most commonly filed immigration benefits;
• affected nationals from dozens of countries;
• were challenged by organizations representing millions of immigrants and workers.

As a result, the number of affected applicants may ultimately reach into the hundreds of thousands.

How Did the Delays Harm Applicants?

A central theme of the Dorcas litigation was that the challenged policies created real-world hardship.

The case was not merely about agency procedure.

It was about people.

According to the court, many affected applicants had:

• followed immigration laws;
• filed applications properly;
• paid filing fees;
• completed biometrics;
• attended interviews;
• complied with every USCIS requirement.

Yet many remained unable to obtain decisions.

Employment Consequences

Delayed adjudications threatened:

• employment opportunities;
• work authorization;
• professional licensing;
• research positions;
• business operations.

Researchers, physicians, scientists, and other professionals faced significant uncertainty because USCIS simply stopped making decisions.

Family Separation

Delayed green card adjudications often affected entire families.

Applicants frequently postponed:

• family reunification plans;
• international travel;
• educational decisions;
• employment opportunities.

For many families, uncertainty became the greatest hardship.

Educational and Research Disruption

Universities, laboratories, hospitals, and research institutions also experienced consequences.

Immigration delays can interrupt:

• academic programs;
• scientific research;
• medical training;
• healthcare staffing.

These effects extend beyond individual applicants and can impact entire institutions.

Humanitarian Consequences

For asylum applicants and humanitarian beneficiaries, delayed adjudications often create profound instability.

Many applicants remained unable to:

• plan for the future;
• reunite with family members;
• obtain long-term immigration security;
• move forward with permanent residence.

Emotional and Psychological Stress

Chief Judge McConnell repeatedly recognized the uncertainty created by indefinite delays.

Perhaps the most memorable line in the decision is:

“Plaintiffs and their members are stuck waiting.”

For many affected immigrants, that phrase accurately captures the practical impact of the challenged policies.

The issue was not denial.

The issue was the absence of any decision at all.

Richard Herman’s Observation

One reason the Dorcas decision has resonated so strongly is that many affected applicants were precisely the people policymakers often tell to “follow the law” and “get in line.”

According to the court, they did.

• They filed applications.
• They paid fees.
• They completed biometrics.
• They attended interviews.
• They complied with every requirement imposed by USCIS.
• Then they waited.

The Rhode Island court repeatedly returned to a simple principle:

Immigration agencies possess broad authority to adjudicate applications.

They do not possess unlimited authority to leave applicants in indefinite limbo after those applicants have complied with the law.

That principle may ultimately become one of the most important legacies of the Dorcas decision.

Coming in Part III

Next, we examine:

• the most important judicial findings in Dorcas;
• the strongest quotes from Judge McConnell;
• why the court rejected USCIS’s legal arguments;
• how the decision may affect future immigration litigation;
• whether USCIS is likely to appeal;
• what happens if the First Circuit grants a stay.

What the Judge Actually Said — And Why the Court Ruled Against USCIS

The Dorcas decision has attracted national attention not merely because the court vacated USCIS policies, but because of the unusually direct language used by Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr.

Readers can review the complete opinion here:

Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS

Throughout the decision, the court repeatedly returned to a simple theme:

People who follow the immigration rules should receive decisions on their applications.

That principle ultimately drove much of the court’s analysis.

“Follow the Law” and “Do Things the Right Way”

One of the most memorable passages appears near the beginning of the opinion.

Judge McConnell wrote:

“If people wish to immigrate to the United States, they ought to ‘follow the law’ and ‘do things the right way.'”

The court then observed that the plaintiffs and their members had done exactly that.

According to the court, affected applicants had:

• filed immigration applications;
• paid filing fees;
• submitted supporting documentation;
• completed biometrics appointments;
• attended interviews;
• complied with USCIS procedures.

Yet many remained unable to obtain decisions because of the challenged policies.

That fact became central to the court’s analysis.

The case was not about individuals attempting to bypass the immigration system.

The case involved individuals who had already entered the system and complied with its requirements.

“Plaintiffs and Their Members Are Stuck Waiting”

Perhaps the most quoted sentence in the opinion is also one of the simplest.

Judge McConnell wrote:

“Plaintiffs and their members are stuck waiting.”

The court viewed this as more than a bureaucratic inconvenience.

Many applicants had already invested years in the immigration process.

Some depended on pending applications for:

• work authorization;
• permanent residence;
• citizenship;
• family reunification;
• educational opportunities;
• professional advancement.

The court repeatedly emphasized that the challenged policies prevented many applicants from receiving the decisions Congress contemplated when creating immigration benefit programs.

The Court Rejected Indefinite Immigration Limbo

A recurring concern throughout the opinion was the concept of indefinite delay.

The court repeatedly noted that immigration statutes generally contemplate adjudication.

• USCIS may investigate.
• USCIS may request evidence.
• USCIS may approve.
• USCIS may deny.
• But the agency generally must decide.

The court was troubled by policies that effectively prevented decisions from being made.

As a practical matter, many applicants found themselves trapped in what commentators have described as:

“indeterminate legal limbo.”

The court viewed those consequences as real and substantial.

“The Rule of Law Has to Apply to Everyone Equally”

Another significant statement appears early in the opinion.

Judge McConnell wrote:

“The rule of law has to apply to everyone equally.”

That sentence reflects one of the broader themes running throughout the decision.

The case was not merely about immigration.

It was about administrative power.

The court examined whether USCIS could implement sweeping immigration-benefit restrictions through internal memoranda without adequate legal authority.

The court ultimately concluded that the challenged policies could not stand.

Why the Court Found Real Harm

The government argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing and had not shown sufficient injury.

The court disagreed.

The opinion describes numerous harms suffered by affected applicants.

These included:

• delayed employment authorization;
• interrupted careers;
• family separation;
• educational disruption;
• research interruptions;
• delayed citizenship;
• prolonged uncertainty.

The court concluded that these harms were neither speculative nor hypothetical.

They were occurring in real time.

That finding may become important in future immigration litigation because standing often represents one of the most significant barriers to federal court review.

Why the Court Viewed the Delays Differently Than Ordinary Processing Delays

Every immigration lawyer knows that USCIS processing delays occur.

The court recognized that reality.

But the court viewed the challenged policies differently.

The issue was not routine case processing.

The issue was whether USCIS had adopted policies that systematically prevented adjudications for broad groups of applicants.

According to the court, the challenged policies went beyond ordinary agency delay.

Instead, they created a framework under which many applicants could remain without decisions for extended and uncertain periods.

That distinction may become important in future litigation involving:

• USCIS processing delays;
• Adjustment of Status cases;
• Naturalization applications;
• affirmative asylum applications;
• federal mandamus actions.

The “Standing in Line” Principle

Perhaps the most powerful theme in the opinion is one that many Americans intuitively understand.

For years, policymakers have often told immigrants to:

• follow the law;
• file the proper applications;
• pay the required fees;
• wait their turn.

According to the court, many of the affected applicants did exactly that.

They complied with the rules.

They entered the process.

They waited.

Yet they remained unable to obtain decisions.

The court repeatedly returned to the idea that people who follow the legal process should not be left indefinitely waiting for the government to act.

That concept may ultimately become one of the most enduring aspects of the Dorcas decision.

Richard Herman’s Analysis

The most important lesson from Dorcas is not that the court disagreed with USCIS.

The most important lesson is that the court insisted on accountability.

The plaintiffs were not asking the court to order approval of their cases.

They were asking for decisions.

According to the court, many had already done everything required of them.

They filed applications.

They paid fees.

They attended interviews.

They completed background checks.

They followed the rules.

The court repeatedly returned to a simple proposition:

People who comply with the law should receive answers.

Whether those answers are approvals or denials is a separate question.

But according to the court, indefinite limbo was not an acceptable substitute for adjudication.

For that reason, the language in Dorcas is likely to be cited in future litigation involving USCIS delays, mandamus actions, Administrative Procedure Act challenges, asylum adjudications, naturalization cases, and Adjustment of Status applications for years to come.

Coming in Part IV

Next, we examine:

• whether USCIS is likely to appeal;
• what happens if the First Circuit grants a stay;
• whether USCIS could resume the hold policies;
• what applicants should do now;
• whether expedite requests make sense;
• whether delayed applicants should consider filing mandamus lawsuits.

This structure is more AI-friendly because it directly answers:

• What did the judge say?
• Why did the judge rule against USCIS?
• What quotes matter?
• What is the significance of Dorcas?
• How does the decision affect future immigration litigation?

 

 

What Happens Next? Appeals, Stays, Expedite Requests, Mandamus Lawsuits, and the Future of the USCIS Backlog

The Rhode Island court vacated PM-602-0192, PM-602-0194, and PA-2025-26.

USCIS has now publicly acknowledged that those policies must be treated as though they are not in effect.

For affected applicants, however, the most important question is no longer whether the policies were lawful.

The question is:

What happens next?

• Will USCIS immediately begin adjudicating delayed cases?
• Will applicants finally receive decisions?
• What direction will the government appeal go?
• Could a stay reinstate the hold policies?
• Should applicants file expedite requests?
• Should they file mandamus lawsuits?

The answers will vary from case to case, but several important observations can already be made.

USCIS Has Appealed

On June 12, 2026, a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals has been filed by USCIS.

This was not a surprise. USCIS included an important statement in its June 12, 2026 announcement:

“USCIS strongly disagrees with the Court’s order but will follow its terms pending possible further judicial review.”

That language is difficult to interpret as anything other than a signal that appellate review is being considered.

The government will likely challenge:

• the court’s standing analysis;
• the court’s Administrative Procedure Act analysis;
• the court’s vacatur remedy;
• the court’s conclusions regarding USCIS authority.

Immigration lawyers should therefore assume that the litigation may be protracted.

Could the Government Seek a Stay?

Yes.

One of the most important issues moving forward is whether the government seeks a stay pending appeal.

A stay would temporarily suspend the effect of the district court’s order while appellate litigation continues.

In practical terms, a stay could dramatically alter the landscape.

Without a stay:

• PM-602-0192 remains vacated;
• PM-602-0194 remains vacated;
• PA-2025-26 remains vacated;
• USCIS must treat the policies as though they are not in effect.

With a stay:

the government could argue that USCIS should once again be permitted to rely upon some or all of the challenged policies while the appeal proceeds.

The precise effect would depend upon the wording of any stay order.

If a Stay Is Granted, Will USCIS Resume the Hold Policies?

Not necessarily.

This is an important point.

Even if the First Circuit grants a stay, USCIS would still have discretion regarding how aggressively it implements the challenged policies.

Several practical realities may discourage a complete return to the prior framework:

Administrative Burden

The litigation has already generated significant public scrutiny.

Reinstating the policies may create additional operational complications.

Resource Constraints

USCIS now faces pressure to address delayed cases.

Restarting the hold process could further complicate agency operations.

Litigation Risk

Even if a stay is granted, additional lawsuits could follow.

The government may therefore seek narrower approaches rather than full reinstatement.

For these reasons, a stay would create uncertainty, but it would not automatically guarantee a return to the exact conditions that existed before the district court’s ruling.

Thousands of Cases May Now Be Ready for Adjudication

Perhaps the most important practical consequence of the decision is the backlog.

The challenged policies remained in effect for months.

During that time:

• adjustment applications accumulated;
• naturalization applications accumulated;
• asylum cases accumulated;
• work authorization requests accumulated;
• discretionary cases accumulated.

Some cases may now be ready for immediate adjudication.

Others may require additional review.

Still others may remain subject to ordinary background checks unrelated to the vacated policies.

The critical point is that many applicants who previously received little movement may now begin seeing activity.

That could include:

• Requests for Evidence;
• interview scheduling;
• approval notices;
• denial notices;
• transfer notices;
• updated case status information.

Applicants should therefore closely monitor their USCIS accounts and correspondence.

Should Applicants Submit Expedite Requests?

For some applicants, the answer may be yes.

USCIS maintains an expedite process that remains available in appropriate circumstances.

Official USCIS guidance is available here:

USCIS Expedite Requests

USCIS may consider expedite requests involving:

• severe financial loss;
• urgent humanitarian reasons;
• nonprofit organization interests;
• U.S. government interests;
• clear USCIS error.

The Dorcas decision itself does not automatically create eligibility for expedited processing.

However, applicants whose cases were delayed and who now face significant hardship should carefully evaluate whether they satisfy one of the existing expedite criteria.

Who May Have Strong Expedite Arguments?

Potential examples include:

Physicians and Healthcare Workers

Healthcare staffing shortages may strengthen government-interest arguments.

Researchers and Scientists

Projects involving grant deadlines, public health, or critical research may support expedite requests.

Individuals Facing Severe Financial Harm

Applicants who risk losing employment or significant income may have stronger arguments.

Humanitarian Cases

Medical emergencies, family crises, or other urgent circumstances may support expedited review.

Cases Delayed by Agency Error

If an applicant can demonstrate that a case was improperly delayed because of a now-vacated policy, that argument may deserve careful consideration.

Every case is different.

Applicants should consult experienced counsel before relying on an expedite strategy.

Should Applicants File a Mandamus Lawsuit Now?

This may be the most important strategic question arising from the decision.

A federal mandamus action seeks a court order compelling USCIS to act on a delayed application.

The answer depends heavily on the facts.

Arguments for Filing Now

Some applicants have already experienced substantial delays.

The Dorcas ruling strengthens the argument that USCIS cannot indefinitely avoid adjudicating applications.

Applicants with lengthy delays may wish to move aggressively.

Advantages may include:

• forcing agency attention;
• obtaining a decision sooner;
• preserving legal rights;
• avoiding additional uncertainty.

Arguments for Waiting

Other applicants may benefit from patience.

USCIS may now begin adjudicating many delayed cases voluntarily.

Filing litigation immediately could:

• create unnecessary legal expense;
• prove unnecessary if the case is adjudicated soon;
• complicate ongoing administrative review.

Some applicants may wish to observe agency behavior over the next several weeks before deciding whether litigation is necessary.

Does Waiting Carry Risk?

Yes.

Waiting carries both potential benefits and potential risks.

Potential Benefit

USCIS may begin rapidly adjudicating cases now that the challenged policies have been vacated.

If that occurs, litigation may become unnecessary.

Potential Risk

If the government obtains a stay, the legal landscape could change quickly.

Applicants who delay action may lose valuable time.

This does not mean every applicant should immediately file suit.

It does mean that applicants should think strategically about timing rather than simply assuming the situation will resolve itself.

What Should Applicants Do Right Now?

For most affected applicants, the best immediate strategy is relatively straightforward.

Step 1: Monitor Your Case

Review your USCIS online account regularly.

Watch for:

• Requests for Evidence;
• interview notices;
• case transfers;
• approval notices;
• status changes.

Step 2: Gather Evidence of Harm

If delays have caused hardship, begin documenting:

• financial losses;
• employment consequences;
• medical issues;
• family hardship;
• research disruptions.

That evidence may become important for expedite requests or litigation.

Step 3: Evaluate Expedite Eligibility

Review the USCIS expedite criteria and determine whether your circumstances may qualify.

Step 4: Consult Experienced Counsel

Applicants with significant delays should discuss:

• expedite requests;
• congressional inquiries;
• Ombudsman assistance;
• mandamus litigation;
• Administrative Procedure Act claims.

Step 5: Stay Informed

Additional guidance from USCIS and further court proceedings are likely.

The legal landscape may continue evolving rapidly.

Richard Herman’s Analysis

The biggest unanswered question is not whether the policies were unlawful.

The court has already answered that question.

The biggest unanswered question is operational:

How quickly will USCIS move?

The agency now faces the difficult task of processing applications that may have been delayed for months.

Some applicants may see movement quickly.

Others may continue experiencing delays.

The June 12 announcement represents an important victory for affected immigrants.

But for many applicants, the ultimate measure of success will be simple:

Receiving a decision.

Whether that decision is an approval or a denial, most applicants simply want the government to finally act.

That issue—more than the litigation itself—will determine the real-world significance of the Dorcas decision.

Coming in Part V

Next, we examine:

• frequently asked questions;
• who benefits most from the ruling;
• whether previously denied cases can be reopened;
• how the decision affects asylum applicants;
• how the decision affects green card applicants;
• what employers should know;
• what immigration lawyers should be doing now.

 

Frequently Asked Questions About the Dorcas Decision and the USCIS Hold Policies

The June 12, 2026 USCIS announcement and the Rhode Island federal court’s decision in Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS have generated significant confusion.

Many applicants are asking the same questions:

• Does this help my case?
• Will USCIS finally make a decision?
• Can previously denied cases be reopened?
• Does the ruling help asylum applicants?
• Does it affect green card applications?
• What should employers do?

Below are answers to the most common questions.

Does the Dorcas Decision Automatically Approve My Immigration Case?

No.

The decision does not require USCIS to approve any application.

The court did not order approvals.

The court ordered USCIS to stop relying on the challenged policies and to treat those policies as though they are not in effect.

Applicants must still satisfy all substantive eligibility requirements.

USCIS may:

• approve applications;
• deny applications;
• request additional evidence;
• schedule interviews;
• conduct ordinary background checks.

What USCIS generally may not do under the vacated policies is continue relying upon PM-602-0192, PM-602-0194, and PA-2025-26 as the basis for delaying adjudications.

Does This Decision Help Green Card Applicants?

Potentially yes.

The decision may be particularly significant for applicants whose:

• Form I-485 Adjustment of Status applications;
• employment-based green card cases;
• family-based green card cases;
• humanitarian adjustment cases

were delayed under the challenged policies.

Many applicants reported extended delays despite having already completed biometrics, interviews, and other requirements.

 

Does This Decision Help Citizenship Applicants?

Potentially.

Naturalization applicants were among the groups reportedly affected by the challenged policies.

The decision may help applicants whose:

• Form N-400 applications;
• citizenship interviews;
• naturalization adjudications

were delayed because of nationality-based review procedures or related hold policies.

 

Does This Decision Help Asylum Applicants?

Potentially yes.

One of the most controversial aspects of the litigation involved affirmative asylum adjudications.

The challenged policies reportedly prevented USCIS from issuing decisions in many asylum cases.

The Rhode Island court’s ruling may therefore have important implications for applicants whose asylum cases were affected by those policies.

Does the Decision Help Applicants Seeking Work Permits?

Potentially.

The challenged framework affected:

• Form I-765 applications;
• initial work permits;
• EAD renewals;
• employment authorization connected to pending immigration applications.

For applicants whose work authorization was delayed because of the challenged policies, the decision may help move cases toward adjudication.

Were Palestinians Affected by the USCIS Hold Policies?

Yes.

An important point frequently overlooked is that the challenged framework extended beyond nationals of the 39 designated countries.

The December 2025 Presidential Proclamation also applied restrictions to certain individuals traveling on:

• Palestinian Authority-issued travel documents;
• Palestinian Authority-endorsed travel documents.

As a result, some Palestinians were subjected to enhanced review, adjudication holds, and related procedures challenged in Dorcas.

Can Previously Denied Cases Be Reopened?

Possibly.

The answer depends on why the application was denied.

Applicants should carefully review:

• denial notices;
• Requests for Evidence;
• Notices of Intent to Deny;
• interview records.

If a denial appears directly connected to a now-vacated policy, applicants should discuss potential options with experienced counsel.

Possible remedies may include:

• Motions to Reopen;
• Motions to Reconsider;
• appeals;
• refiling;
• federal litigation.

The appropriate strategy will depend upon the specific facts.

If My Case Was Frozen, Will USCIS Automatically Restart It?

Not necessarily.

Some cases may move quickly.

Others may remain subject to:

• ordinary background checks;
• security reviews unrelated to the vacated policies;
• staffing limitations;
• general processing delays.

Applicants should not assume that USCIS will immediately issue decisions in every affected case.

However, the court’s ruling removes a significant obstacle that previously prevented adjudication.

What If USCIS Already Approved My Case?

Many applicants ask whether the decision affects approved cases.

For most individuals, the answer is probably no.

However, one aspect of the challenged framework involved re-review procedures affecting certain approved benefits.

The Rhode Island court vacated those policies as well.

As a result, the decision may provide reassurance to some applicants whose approved benefits had been subjected to additional scrutiny.

What Should Employers Know?

Employers should pay close attention to the ruling.

The challenged policies reportedly affected:

• physicians;
• researchers;
• engineers;
• professors;
• healthcare workers;
• scientists;
• technology professionals.

Many employers experienced disruptions when immigration benefits were delayed.

The decision may help reduce uncertainty for organizations relying upon foreign talent.

Employers should nevertheless continue monitoring:

• USCIS guidance;
• case processing developments;
• potential appeals.

What Should Universities and Research Institutions Know?

Universities were among the organizations most affected by the challenged policies.

Delays can impact:

• faculty recruitment;
• research programs;
• grant-funded projects;
• student transitions;
• postdoctoral appointments.

The Dorcas ruling may help alleviate some of these concerns, particularly if USCIS begins adjudicating delayed cases more quickly.

Does the Decision Mean the Travel Ban Is Gone?

No.

This is one of the most important distinctions.

The Dorcas case challenged USCIS hold policies and adjudication procedures.

The decision did not invalidate Presidential Proclamations 10949 or 10998 themselves.

The litigation focused on how USCIS implemented those proclamations through agency policies.

As a result, applicants should not assume that all travel-ban-related issues have disappeared.

What Happens During the Government Appeal?

On June 12, 2026, a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals has been filed by USCIS.

This was not a surprise,

USCIS has already stated that it:

“strongly disagrees with the Court’s order”

and may seek further judicial review.

Applicants should therefore continue monitoring developments closely.

Future proceedings may affect how the ruling is implemented.

What Is the Most Important Practical Lesson?

The most important practical lesson is simple:

The court did not order USCIS to approve applications.

The court ordered USCIS to resume adjudicating applications without relying on the challenged policies.

For many immigrants, that distinction is critical.

The goal is not guaranteed approval.

The goal is a fair decision.

For applicants who have spent months waiting for USCIS to act, that may be the most important development of all.

Richard Herman’s Analysis

The Dorcas decision is likely to become one of the most frequently cited immigration cases of 2026.

Not because it guarantees approvals.

Not because it eliminates travel restrictions.

Not because it resolves every delay.

But because it reinforces a basic principle:

People who comply with the immigration process should receive decisions.

According to the Rhode Island court, applicants should not be left indefinitely waiting because of agency-created policies that exceed the agency’s legal authority.

That message is likely to resonate far beyond the specific facts of this case.

It may influence future litigation involving USCIS delays, immigration adjudications, mandamus actions, Administrative Procedure Act challenges, and agency authority for years to come.

Coming in Part VI

Next, we provide:

• a comprehensive resource directory;
• related USCIS resources;
• related HLG resources;
• action steps for affected applicants;
• a consultation call-to-action;
• final conclusions and predictions.

 

What Applicants Should Do Now

The Rhode Island federal court’s decision in Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS and USCIS’s June 12, 2026 announcement do not automatically resolve every delayed immigration case.

However, applicants whose cases may have been affected by PM-602-0192, PM-602-0194, or PA-2025-26 should consider taking several practical steps immediately.

The goal is simple:

Be prepared if USCIS suddenly begins moving previously delayed cases.

Step 1: Monitor Your USCIS Account Frequently

Applicants should regularly review:

• USCIS online accounts;
• case status updates;
• email notifications;
• mailed correspondence.

Watch carefully for:

• Requests for Evidence (RFEs);
• interview notices;
• transfer notices;
• approval notices;
• denial notices;
• biometric appointments;
• case status changes.

Official resource:

USCIS Case Status Online

Many applicants affected by the hold policies may see movement before USCIS issues broader public guidance.

Step 2: Preserve Evidence of Delay and Harm

Applicants should begin organizing documentation demonstrating how the delay affected them.

Examples include:

• lost employment opportunities;
• rescinded job offers;
• financial hardship;
• medical hardship;
• family separation;
• delayed travel;
• educational disruption;
• research interruptions;
• professional licensing problems.

This evidence may later support:

• expedite requests;
• congressional inquiries;
• Ombudsman assistance;
• mandamus litigation;
• Administrative Procedure Act claims.

Step 3: Evaluate Whether an Expedite Request Makes Sense

Some applicants may benefit from requesting expedited processing.

Official USCIS guidance is available here:

USCIS Expedite Requests

USCIS may consider expedited processing involving:

• severe financial loss;
• urgent humanitarian reasons;
• nonprofit organization interests;
• U.S. government interests;
• clear USCIS error.

The Dorcas decision does not automatically create expedite eligibility.

However, applicants who have experienced substantial hardship because of delayed adjudication should carefully evaluate whether they satisfy one or more expedite criteria.

Step 4: Consider Congressional Assistance

Congressional casework remains an underutilized resource.

A U.S. Senator or Member of Congress may be able to:

• obtain status updates;
• identify processing issues;
• facilitate communication with USCIS;
• elevate concerns regarding delayed adjudications.

Congressional intervention does not guarantee approval.

However, it may provide useful information and sometimes helps move stagnant cases.

Step 5: Evaluate Whether Mandamus Litigation Is Appropriate

For some applicants, litigation may be worth discussing.

Potential options include:

• federal mandamus actions;
• Administrative Procedure Act lawsuits;
• unreasonable-delay litigation.

The proper strategy depends on:

• the type of immigration benefit;
• the length of the delay;
• the applicant’s circumstances;
• the government’s actions;
• the existence of documented harm.

Applicants should consult experienced immigration counsel before pursuing federal litigation.

Step 6: Stay Informed

The litigation is probably not over.

USCIS has already stated that it:

“strongly disagrees with the Court’s order”

and may seek further judicial review.

Future developments may include:

• appeals;
• stay requests;
• new USCIS guidance;
• revised policies;
• additional litigation.

Applicants should therefore continue monitoring developments closely.

Resource Directory

Primary Government Sources

USCIS Announcement

Court Order on Hold Policies

https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/alerts/court-order-on-hold-policies

---

Federal Court Decision

Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-rid-1_26-cv-00132/pdf/USCOURTS-rid-1_26-cv-00132-0.pdf

---

USCIS Policy Memoranda

PM-602-0192

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/policy-alerts/PM-602-0192-PendingApplicationsHighRiskCountries-20251202.pdf

PM-602-0194

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/policy-alerts/PM-602-0194-PendingApplicationsAdditionalHighRiskCountries-20260101.pdf

---

Presidential Proclamations

Presidential Proclamation 10949

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/06/restricting-the-entry-of-foreign-nationals-to-protect-the-united-states-from-foreign-terrorists-and-other-national-security-and-public-safety-threats/

Presidential Proclamation 10998

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/12/restricting-and-limiting-the-entry-of-foreign-nationals-to-protect-the-security-of-the-united-states/

---

USCIS Expedite Requests

https://www.uscis.gov/forms/filing-guidance/expedite-requests

Related Herman Legal Group Resources

Rhode Island Litigation

• Rhode Island Court Strikes Down USCIS Benefits Freeze: What It Means for Your Green Card, Work Permit, Citizenship and Asylum Case

---

PM-602-0192 Resources

• Frozen Files: How Trump’s PM-602-0192 Quietly Halts USCIS Cases for Millions
• Is Your Case Frozen Under USCIS PM-602-0192?
• How the USCIS Memo PM-602-0192 National Security Hold Affects You

---

PM-602-0194 Resource

• January 1, 2026 USCIS Memo (PM-602-0194): USCIS Is Putting Certain Pending Immigration Benefits on Hold

 

Richard Herman’s Final Analysis

The significance of Dorcas extends far beyond the 39 designated countries.

The case is not merely about travel bans.

It is not merely about screening procedures.

It is not merely about administrative delay.

At its core, the case concerns a fundamental principle:

When immigrants comply with the law, file applications, pay fees, complete biometrics, attend interviews, and satisfy agency requirements, they should receive decisions.

That principle appears repeatedly throughout Judge McConnell’s opinion.

It also explains why the court repeatedly emphasized that applicants were:

“stuck waiting.”

The decision does not guarantee approval of any immigration application.

USCIS retains authority to:

• approve applications;
• deny applications;
• request additional evidence;
• conduct investigations;
• perform background checks.

What the court rejected was the notion that applicants could be placed into indefinite limbo through agency-created policies lacking sufficient legal support.

The most important question moving forward is operational rather than legal:

How quickly will USCIS act?

The agency now faces the challenge of processing a potentially substantial backlog of delayed applications.

Some applicants may see movement immediately.

Others may continue experiencing delays.

Appeals may follow.

Stay requests may follow.

New guidance will almost certainly follow.

Nevertheless, one fact remains clear.

As of June 12, 2026, USCIS has formally acknowledged that PM-602-0192, PM-602-0194, and PA-2025-26 must be treated as though they are not in effect.

That alone makes this one of the most consequential immigration developments of 2026.

Need Help With a Delayed USCIS Case?

If your immigration application was delayed, frozen, subjected to enhanced review, or affected by PM-602-0192, PM-602-0194, the travel-ban framework, or related USCIS policies, the immigration attorneys at Herman Legal Group may be able to help.

We represent clients nationwide in:

• Adjustment of Status cases;
• Naturalization applications;
• Employment Authorization matters;
• Asylum cases;
• Federal mandamus litigation;
• Administrative Procedure Act lawsuits;
• USCIS delay cases;
• Complex immigration appeals and litigation.

Schedule a consultation:

https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/book-consultation/

Call: 1-800-808-4013

Every case is different. Before making strategic decisions regarding expedite requests, mandamus litigation, appeals, or refiling, obtain individualized legal advice regarding your circumstances.

Final Conclusion

The Dorcas decision may ultimately be remembered as more than a travel-ban case.

It may be remembered as a case about accountability.

The Rhode Island court repeatedly returned to a simple proposition:

People who follow the rules should receive answers.

For thousands of immigrants who have spent months waiting for USCIS to act, that principle may prove transformative.

 

 

USCIS Ends Most Telephonic Attorney Appearances: What the New Policy Means for Immigrants, Attorneys, and Access to Justice

Updated June 2026

Quick Answer

Beginning May 18, 2026, USCIS generally requires attorneys and accredited representatives to appear in person at adjustment of status interviews, naturalization interviews, affirmative asylum interviews, and certain NACARA interviews.

The new USCIS attorney interview policy is expected to impact many applicants.

Although immigrants continue to have the right to legal representation, the new policy significantly limits remote attorney participation and may increase costs for applicants who rely on counsel located outside their state. Understanding the USCIS attorney interview policy is crucial for navigating these changes.

The policy appears in USCIS guidance on Preparing for Your Affirmative Asylum Interview.

Key Takeaways

• USCIS generally no longer permits telephonic attorney participation in covered interviews.
• Attorneys must typically appear physically at the interview location.
• USCIS states that exceptions may exist in “limited circumstances,” but has not clearly defined those circumstances.
• The policy may increase legal fees and travel costs for immigrants.Overall, the USCIS attorney interview policy aims to streamline interview processes but raises concerns among immigrant communities.
• The change may reduce access to specialized immigration counsel.
• Federal regulations continue to recognize the right to representation before DHS.
• The policy appears difficult to justify from an efficiency and modernization perspective.
• Critics argue that the policy reflects a broader trend toward increasing procedural burdens in immigration adjudications.

 

What Exactly Changed?

USCIS now generally requires attorneys and accredited representatives to attend covered interviews in person.

The policy affects:

Adjustment of Status Interviews

Including:

• marriage-based green cards;
• family-sponsored green cards;
• employment-based green cards;
• diversity visa adjustment cases.

Naturalization Interviews

Including N-400 examinations involving:

• criminal history issues;
• selective service concerns;
• false claims to U.S. citizenship;
• unlawful voting allegations;
• lengthy absences from the United States.

Affirmative Asylum Interviews

The policy applies to interviews conducted by USCIS asylum offices.

NACARA Interviews

The policy also extends to certain NACARA proceedings.

USCIS announced the change without publishing a detailed explanation of what constitutes the “limited circumstances” under which remote participation may still be permitted.

What Has Not Changed?

Many reports incorrectly suggest that USCIS has prohibited attorneys from participating in interviews.

That is not accurate.

Applicants still have the right to legal representation.

Attorneys may still:

• file Form G-28;
• receive notices;
• prepare clients;
• submit evidence;
• attend interviews;
• raise legal concerns;
• advocate on behalf of clients.

The change concerns the method of participation.

In most cases, USCIS now requires physical attendance rather than telephonic participation.

What Are the “Limited Circumstances” Exceptions?

One of the most significant unanswered questions surrounding the new USCIS policy is the meaning of the phrase “limited circumstances.”

USCIS has announced that attorneys and accredited representatives generally may not participate remotely in covered interviews, but the agency has not publicly defined:

• what qualifies as a limited circumstance;
• how requests should be submitted;
• what evidence should accompany a request;
• who makes the decision;
• whether denials may be appealed;
• whether different field offices may apply different standards.

As of this writing, USCIS has provided little public guidance.

That uncertainty leaves applicants and attorneys attempting to predict what situations might justify an exception.

Circumstances That May Support a Remote Participation Request

Although USCIS has not established formal criteria, several situations appear likely to present stronger arguments.

Serious Medical Issues

An attorney suffering from a significant medical condition may have a compelling basis for requesting remote participation.

Examples may include:

• recent surgery;
• hospitalization;
• serious illness;
• physician-imposed travel restrictions;
• immunocompromised conditions.

Supporting documentation from a treating physician may strengthen the request.

Disability Accommodations

Attorneys with disabilities that substantially impair travel may have a strong argument for remote participation.

Potential examples include:

• mobility impairments;
• chronic medical conditions;
• disabilities requiring specialized accommodations.

Documentation supporting the accommodation request may be helpful.

Extraordinary Travel Burdens

The strongest practical arguments may arise where physical attendance would impose unusual burdens.

Examples might include:

• cross-country travel;
• international travel complications;
• severe weather disruptions;
• transportation emergencies;
• natural disasters.

While distance alone may not be sufficient, extraordinary travel obstacles could support an exception request.

Specialized Counsel in High-Stakes Cases

Another potential argument involves highly specialized representation.

Examples may include:

• EB-1A Extraordinary Ability cases;
• National Interest Waiver matters;
• denaturalization concerns;
• false claim to citizenship allegations;
• unlawful voting allegations;
• national security issues;
• complex asylum claims.

Applicants may argue that requiring physical attendance would effectively deprive them of meaningful access to the counsel they selected.

Whether USCIS will accept this argument remains unclear.

Asylum Cases Involving Vulnerable Applicants

Certain affirmative asylum cases may present compelling circumstances.

Examples could include:

• severe trauma;
• mental health conditions;
• interpreter complications;
• vulnerable populations;
• unusually complex evidentiary issues.

Attorneys may argue that remote participation would facilitate a fair and accurate interview without creating administrative burdens.

Emergencies Arising After Scheduling

Unexpected events occurring shortly before an interview may also justify a request.

Examples include:

• family emergencies;
• sudden illness;
• cancelled flights;
• natural disasters;
• transportation failures.

In these situations, remote participation may be preferable to cancelling and rescheduling the interview.

 

How Should Attorneys Request an Exception?

Because USCIS has not published a formal procedure, practitioners should consider creating a clear written record.

Submit the Request Early

Do not wait until the day of the interview.

Whenever possible, submit the request immediately after receiving the interview notice.

Early requests demonstrate good faith and provide USCIS time to evaluate the circumstances.

Make the Request in Writing

A written request creates documentation that may later become important.

The request should:

• identify the applicant;
• identify the attorney;
• provide the interview date and location;
• explain the specific circumstances;
• explain why remote participation is requested;
• attach supporting evidence where appropriate.

Emphasize Efficiency

This point may be particularly persuasive.

The request should explain that remote participation:

• avoids unnecessary delay;
• prevents rescheduling;
• conserves government resources;
• reduces costs;
• facilitates representation.

If remote participation would allow the interview to proceed as scheduled, that fact should be highlighted.

Cite Representation Rights

Although the new policy generally requires physical attendance, attorneys may wish to reference:

• 8 CFR § 292.5;
• 5 U.S.C. § 555(b).

The purpose is not to challenge USCIS authority but to emphasize the longstanding importance of meaningful attorney participation.

Offer Alternative Formats

Do not limit the request to telephone participation.

Consider offering:

• telephone appearance;
• video appearance;
• Microsoft Teams;
• Webex;
• any platform acceptable to USCIS.

Flexibility may increase the likelihood of approval.

What If USCIS Denies the Request?

If USCIS denies remote participation, attorneys should consider preserving the issue.

Potential steps may include:

• retaining copies of all requests;
• documenting communications with USCIS;
• documenting costs associated with compliance;
• documenting any hardship imposed on the applicant.

This documentation may become important if future litigation challenges the policy or if USCIS later publishes additional guidance.

Richard Herman’s Analysis

The phrase “limited circumstances” may ultimately become the most important part of the entire policy.

A rigid interpretation could dramatically increase costs and reduce access to counsel.

A flexible interpretation could preserve many of the benefits of remote participation while still allowing USCIS discretion in individual cases.

Until USCIS publishes clear standards, applicants and attorneys should assume that remote participation will be the exception rather than the rule and should submit any exception requests as early and as thoroughly as possible.

The reality is that the strongest exception requests will likely be those that demonstrate both hardship and efficiency—showing not only why physical attendance is difficult, but also why remote participation would allow USCIS to conduct the interview fairly, accurately, and without unnecessary delay.

 

Immigration Law Has Long Recognized the Importance of Legal Representation

The significance of the policy becomes clearer when viewed against the legal framework governing representation before DHS.

Federal Regulations Protect Representation Rights

The foundational regulation is 8 CFR § 292.5(b).

The regulation provides:

Whenever an examination is provided for in this chapter, the person involved shall have the right to be represented by an attorney or representative.

Importantly, the regulation contemplates active participation by counsel.

Attorneys may:

• introduce evidence;
• make objections;
• examine witnesses;
• cross-examine witnesses;
• submit briefs.

This is not the language of a system that views attorneys as passive observers.

It is the language of a system that recognizes representation as an important procedural safeguard.

Another key regulation is 8 CFR § 292.1, which identifies the attorneys and accredited representatives authorized to appear before DHS.

USCIS Built an Entire System Around Attorney Representation

USCIS has long recognized the importance of legal representation through Form G-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Accredited Representative.

The agency’s representation framework assumes that attorneys play a meaningful role in helping applicants navigate increasingly complex immigration laws.

Whether the case involves:

• adjustment of status;
• naturalization;
• asylum;
• waivers;
• humanitarian relief;

USCIS has historically facilitated attorney participation rather than discouraged it.

An Important Historical Fact Most Commentators Have Missed

One of the most overlooked aspects of this story is that USCIS previously moved in the opposite direction.

In 2022, USCIS implemented a pilot program allowing remote attorney participation in asylum interviews.

The agency’s pilot documentation remains publicly available through the USCIS Remote Attorney Participation Pilot Program.

The pilot explicitly recognized that asylum applicants have the right to have an attorney present at their interviews.

This creates an obvious question:

If remote participation was sufficiently beneficial to justify a USCIS pilot program in 2022, what evidence now justifies eliminating it in 2026?

To date, USCIS has not publicly provided a detailed explanation.

The Board of Immigration Appeals Has Long Recognized That Attorneys Matter

Immigration law contains an entire body of precedent recognizing the importance of competent legal representation.

The leading case is Matter of Lozada, 19 I&N Dec. 637 (BIA 1988).

Lozada established the framework for reopening immigration cases based on ineffective assistance of counsel.

The significance of Lozada extends far beyond motions to reopen.

The case reflects a broader principle:

Attorney performance affects immigration outcomes.

If legal representation did not matter, immigration courts would have little reason to reopen cases because of attorney misconduct or attorney error.

The existence of ineffective-assistance doctrines demonstrates that immigration law recognizes counsel as a meaningful safeguard against erroneous outcomes.

Federal Administrative Law Also Protects Representation

The principle extends beyond immigration law.

The Administrative Procedure Act recognizes representation rights before federal agencies.

See 5 U.S.C. § 555(b).

For decades, federal administrative law has recognized that legal representation helps promote:

• fairness;
• accuracy;
• procedural integrity;
• informed decision-making.

This broader administrative-law framework reinforces the importance of access to counsel in immigration adjudications.

The Real Issue Is Not Whether Representation Exists

Supporters of the policy may correctly note that immigrants still possess the right to counsel.

The more important question is different:

How meaningful is a right if exercising it becomes substantially more expensive?

The policy does not eliminate representation.

It increases the burden of obtaining representation.

That distinction matters.

The Financial Burden Falls on Immigrants

The most immediate effect of the policy is financial.

Before the policy:

• attorney preparation could occur remotely;
• attorney participation could occur telephonically;
• travel expenses were unnecessary.

After the policy:

Applicants may be responsible for:

• airfare;
• hotels;
• transportation;
• meals;
• attorney travel time;
• additional legal fees.

A single interview may now generate hundreds or even thousands of dollars in additional expenses.

Consider a client in Ohio represented by an attorney in California.

Previously, the attorney could prepare the client remotely and attend by telephone.

Now the client may be required to cover:

• round-trip airfare;
• overnight accommodations;
• local transportation;
• attorney travel time.

For many families, the additional cost may be significant.

For some, it may be prohibitive.

The Policy Reduces Access to Specialized Counsel

Modern immigration practice has become highly specialized.

Many attorneys focus almost exclusively on:

• EB-1A extraordinary ability petitions;
• National Interest Waivers;
• complex asylum cases;
• inadmissibility waivers;
• denaturalization defense;
• false claims to citizenship;
• unlawful voting allegations.

Remote participation allowed applicants to retain the attorney they believed was best qualified, regardless of location.

The new policy may force applicants to choose between:

• specialized counsel located elsewhere; or
• local counsel who can attend without substantial travel expenses.

For many immigrants, that is a significant change.

Lower-Income Immigrants May Be Affected Most

The burden is unlikely to fall equally.

Wealthier applicants may absorb the added costs.

Middle-income families may struggle but proceed.

Many lower-income immigrants may simply decide they cannot afford attorney attendance.

This creates an access-to-justice concern.

The right technically remains available.

The practical ability to exercise that right becomes more difficult.

Why Asylum Cases Raise Special Concerns

The impact may be particularly significant in affirmative asylum cases.

Asylum interviews frequently involve:

• trauma survivors;
• language barriers;
• credibility determinations;
• complex country-condition evidence;
• vulnerable applicants.

Attorneys often help:

• clarify misunderstandings;
• ensure accurate interpretation;
• organize evidence;
• protect procedural fairness.

Many asylum applicants rely on nonprofit organizations and pro bono counsel operating under limited budgets.

Requiring physical attendance may force some organizations to reduce participation because of travel costs and staffing limitations.

The Efficiency Problem

Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the policy is that it appears difficult to justify from an efficiency perspective.

For decades, government agencies have embraced technology to reduce costs and improve access.

Federal courts routinely conduct proceedings remotely.

Immigration courts increasingly utilize video technology.

USCIS encourages:

• online filing;
• electronic communication;
• digital case management.

Telephonic attorney appearances generally:

• reduce travel costs;
• improve scheduling flexibility;
• increase access to counsel;
• conserve resources;
• reduce barriers to representation.

The new policy eliminates many of those benefits.

A Policy That Increases Costs for Everyone

The policy shifts costs from the government to applicants.

Instead of a lawyer participating by telephone, clients may now pay for:

• airfare;
• hotel expenses;
• transportation costs;
• attorney travel time.

The policy also imposes costs on attorneys.

A lawyer who previously devoted one hour to a telephonic interview may now spend an entire day traveling.

Those hours cannot be spent:

• meeting clients;
• preparing cases;
• attending hearings;
• filing motions.

Those costs are often reflected in legal fees.

USCIS May Also Lose Efficiency

Experienced attorneys often make interviews more efficient.

Counsel frequently helps:

• organize evidence;
• narrow issues;
• explain legal questions;
• prevent misunderstandings;
• facilitate communication.

When counsel cannot attend because travel costs are prohibitive, officers may spend more time addressing confusion, requesting additional evidence, or conducting follow-up review.

The policy may therefore increase administrative burdens rather than reduce them.

What Problem Is USCIS Trying to Solve?

A fair question remains unanswered.

USCIS has not publicly identified evidence demonstrating that telephonic attorney participation was causing:

• fraud;
• attorney misconduct;
• operational failures;
• significant delays;
• reduced adjudicative quality.

Without a clearly articulated problem, critics may reasonably ask why the agency chose to impose additional costs and burdens on applicants.

Is This Part of a Larger Trend?

Viewed in isolation, the policy may appear minor.

Viewed alongside other recent developments—including expanded vetting, increased scrutiny of immigration benefits, heightened fraud investigations, and broader discretionary review frameworks—some observers see a larger pattern.

The telephonic-attendance policy does not eliminate any legal right.

But it arguably increases the burden of exercising one.

Critics contend that the cumulative effect of these policies is to make immigration benefits more expensive, more procedurally demanding, and more difficult to obtain.

Richard Herman’s Analysis

The most important question is not whether immigrants still have the right to legal representation.

They do.

The more important question is whether that right remains meaningfully accessible.

For decades, Congress, DHS regulations, USCIS procedures, federal administrative law, the Board of Immigration Appeals, and federal courts have all recognized that attorneys help protect against governmental error.

Technology made it possible for immigrants to access qualified counsel regardless of geography.

The new USCIS policy moves against that trend.

It increases costs.

It increases barriers.

It reduces flexibility.

And it may make specialized representation more difficult to obtain.

For some applicants, the change will be inconvenient.

For others, it may determine whether an attorney is physically present during one of the most important interactions they will ever have with the federal government.

Ultimately, the debate is not about whether the right to counsel still exists.

The debate is about whether meaningful access to that right should depend on an immigrant’s ability to pay for an attorney’s airplane ticket.

 

Frequently Asked Questions About USCIS’s New Attorney Attendance Policy

Does USCIS still allow attorneys at immigration interviews?

Yes. USCIS still allows attorneys and accredited representatives to attend immigration interviews. The policy change does not eliminate the right to legal representation. Instead, USCIS now generally requires attorneys to appear in person rather than participate remotely.

When did the new USCIS attorney attendance policy take effect?

The policy became effective on May 18, 2026. USCIS announced that attorneys and accredited representatives generally may no longer participate remotely in field office interviews, affirmative asylum interviews, and NACARA interviews except in limited circumstances.

What USCIS interviews are affected by the policy?

The policy generally applies to:

• Adjustment of Status (I-485) interviews;
• Marriage-based green card interviews;
• Employment-based green card interviews;
• Naturalization (N-400) interviews;
• Affirmative asylum interviews;
• Certain NACARA interviews.

Can my immigration attorney still participate by telephone?

Possibly, but only in limited circumstances.

USCIS has stated that exceptions may exist, but the agency has not clearly defined:

• what circumstances qualify;
• how requests should be made;
• what evidence may be required;
• who decides whether an exception is granted.

Can my attorney participate by video instead of appearing in person?

As a general rule, USCIS now requires in-person attendance. Applicants should not assume that video participation will be approved unless USCIS specifically authorizes an exception.

Why is this policy controversial?

Critics argue that the policy:

• increases legal costs;
• reduces access to specialized counsel;
• requires unnecessary travel;
• creates barriers to representation;
• undermines efficiency.

Supporters may argue that in-person participation improves consistency and accountability during interviews.

Does the policy eliminate my right to legal representation?

No.

Federal regulations continue to recognize the right to representation before DHS. Applicants may still hire attorneys and accredited representatives to advise them, prepare their cases, submit evidence, and attend interviews.

What regulation protects the right to legal representation before DHS?

The primary regulation is 8 CFR § 292.5(b), which provides that individuals appearing before DHS generally have the right to be represented by an attorney or accredited representative at no expense to the government.

Why is attorney representation important during USCIS interviews?

Attorneys may help:

• prepare applicants for questioning;
• organize evidence;
• clarify legal issues;
• address misunderstandings;
• protect against inaccurate statements;
• respond to officer concerns;
• identify potential inadmissibility issues.

In complex cases, attorney participation can significantly affect the outcome.

Will this policy increase immigration legal fees?

In many cases, yes.

Applicants may now be responsible for:

• attorney travel time;
• airfare;
• hotel expenses;
• transportation costs;
• additional preparation costs.

For some cases, these expenses may increase the overall cost of representation substantially.

Will the policy affect applicants who hire attorneys in other states?

Yes.

The policy may have the greatest impact on applicants represented by attorneys located outside the state where the interview is scheduled.

Previously, telephonic participation allowed applicants to retain specialized counsel regardless of geography.

Now, applicants may need to consider travel expenses when selecting counsel.

Why does this policy affect access to specialized immigration attorneys?

Many immigration attorneys focus on highly specialized areas such as:

• EB-1A Extraordinary Ability;
• National Interest Waivers;
• asylum law;
• inadmissibility waivers;
• denaturalization defense;
• false claims to citizenship;
• unlawful voting cases.

Because these attorneys often represent clients nationwide, requiring in-person attendance may make specialized representation more expensive or less accessible.

Did USCIS previously allow remote attorney participation?

Yes.

USCIS previously implemented a pilot program permitting remote attorney participation in certain asylum interviews. The existence of that program has led some observers to question why USCIS reversed course in 2026.

Does the policy affect asylum seekers?

Yes.

The policy applies to affirmative asylum interviews conducted by USCIS.

Many immigration advocates are particularly concerned because asylum interviews often involve:

• trauma survivors;
• language barriers;
• credibility determinations;
• vulnerable applicants.

Is the policy part of a broader trend in immigration enforcement?

Some observers believe so.

Critics point to recent developments involving:

• increased vetting;
• heightened fraud investigations;
• expanded discretionary review;
• additional interview scrutiny;
• more demanding adjudication procedures.

Others view the attorney-attendance policy as a routine procedural change.

Could the policy be challenged in court?

Potentially.

Future challenges could focus on:

• administrative law principles;
• agency decision-making;
• access-to-counsel concerns;
• procedural fairness issues.

Whether such challenges will be successful remains uncertain.

Should I hire an attorney for my USCIS interview?

Every case is different.

Attorney representation may be particularly valuable if your case involves:

• criminal history;
• prior immigration violations;
• prior visa denials;
• fraud allegations;
• false claims to citizenship;
• unlawful voting issues;
• inadmissibility concerns;
• asylum claims;
• complex family or employment-based immigration matters.

Applicants facing high-stakes interviews should consider consulting experienced immigration counsel before appearing before USCIS.

Need Help Preparing for a USCIS Interview?

USCIS interviews are becoming more consequential, more discretionary, and more procedurally demanding. If your case involves a green card interview, naturalization interview, asylum interview, prior immigration violations, criminal history, alleged fraud, false claims to citizenship, unlawful voting, or prior denials, experienced legal preparation may be critical.

Herman Legal Group helps immigrants, families, professionals, students, employers, and asylum seekers prepare for high-stakes USCIS interviews nationwide.

To discuss your case, schedule a consultation with Herman Legal Group or call 1-800-808-4013.

Resource Directory

Official Government and Legal Authority

• USCIS: Preparing for Your Affirmative Asylum Interview
• USCIS Form G-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance
• 8 CFR § 292.5: Representation and Appearances
• 8 CFR § 292.1: Representation of Others Before DHS
• 5 U.S.C. § 555(b): Administrative Procedure Act Right to Counsel

HLG Resources

• Book a Consultation with Herman Legal Group
• Herman Legal Group Homepage
• Cleveland Immigration Lawyers
• Citizenship and Naturalization Lawyer
• Marriage Green Card 2026 Mega-Guide
• What Happens If Your Adjustment of Status Is Denied?
• Did USCIS Walk Back the I-485 Memo?
• Best Law Firms for Refugee and Asylum Cases
• Media Interview Expert on Immigration

 

 

USCIS’s New Signature Rule: Can USCIS Deny Your Immigration Case Over a Signature Mistake?

Updated June 12, 2026

The USCIS Signature Rule 2026 introduces significant changes to the signature requirements for immigration filings.

Key Takeaways

• USCIS may now deny, not merely reject, an immigration filing if it later determines that the filing contains an invalid signature.
• The new rule takes effect on July 10, 2026.
• USCIS may retain filing fees following a denial based on an invalid signature.
• Scanned copies of original handwritten signatures generally remain acceptable.
• The rule affects family-based petitions, employment-based petitions, adjustment of status applications, naturalization applications, waivers, humanitarian filings, and Form G-28 filings.
• Immigration attorneys, employers, petitioners, and applicants should immediately review signature collection procedures.

The Bottom Line

For years, many applicants assumed that once USCIS accepted a filing and issued a receipt notice, signature-related issues were behind them.

That assumption may no longer be safe.

Beginning July 10, 2026, under the USCIS Signature Rule 2026, USCIS may reject or deny an immigration benefit request if the agency later determines that the filing lacks a valid signature. In some situations, USCIS may keep the filing fees, deny the application, and require the applicant to start over.

The new rule raises the stakes for what many previously considered a routine administrative requirement.

For immigrants, families, employers, and attorneys, signature compliance should now be treated as a critical component of every immigration filing.

Understanding the USCIS Signature Rule 2026 is crucial for compliance and successful immigration filings.

 

What Is the New USCIS Signature Rule?

On May 11, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security published an Interim Final Rule entitled “Signatures on Immigration Benefit Requests.”

Official Source:

Federal Register: Signatures on Immigration Benefit Requests

The regulation amends existing USCIS rules governing signatures on immigration forms, petitions, and applications.

Historically, USCIS frequently rejected filings during intake if required signatures were missing or defective.

However, questions remained regarding what USCIS could do if a signature issue was discovered after the filing had already been accepted and receipted.

The new rule resolves that uncertainty.

USCIS now expressly states that it may reject or deny a filing if the agency later determines that the filing lacks a valid signature.

In practical terms, a case could survive intake review, receive a receipt notice, enter adjudication, and still be denied months later because USCIS concludes that the signature was invalid.

Why Did DHS and USCIS Issue This Rule?

According to DHS, USCIS has experienced a significant increase in questionable signature practices.

The agency cited concerns involving:

• copied signature images;
• unauthorized signatures;
• improper electronic signature practices;
• repeated use of identical signatures across multiple filings;
• increased litigation and administrative appeals involving signature disputes.

DHS concluded that stronger enforcement authority was necessary to preserve the integrity of the immigration system and reduce opportunities for fraud.

Why Is This Rule So Important?

The answer lies in the difference between a rejection and a denial.

Rejection

A rejection generally means:

• USCIS does not accept the filing;
• the case is not adjudicated;
• filing fees are often returned;
• the applicant may correct the issue and refile.

Denial

A denial generally means:

• USCIS adjudicates the filing;
• filing fees may be retained;
• new filing fees may be required;
• priority dates may be affected;
• additional delays may occur;
• appeals or motions may become necessary.

For applicants pursuing green cards, employment authorization, citizenship, waivers, or humanitarian relief, the consequences can be significant.

Which Immigration Cases Are Affected?

The new signature rule potentially affects nearly every filing submitted to USCIS.

Examples include:

• Form I-130 Petition for Alien Relative;
• Form I-485 Adjustment of Status;
• Form I-765 Employment Authorization;
• Form I-131 Travel Documents;
• Form I-129 Employment Petitions;
• Form I-140 Immigrant Worker Petitions;
• Form I-751 Removal of Conditions;
• Form N-400 Naturalization Applications;
• Form I-601 Waivers;
• Form I-601A Provisional Waivers;
• asylum-related filings;
• humanitarian applications and petitions.

Individuals pursuing permanent residence should also review Herman Legal Group’s guides on:

• Marriage Green Cards
• Adjustment of Status (Form I-485)

Does This Rule Apply to Immigration Attorneys?

Yes.

The rule has important implications for immigration lawyers and law firms.

Attorneys routinely submit:

• Form G-28;
• Form I-130;
• Form I-485;
• Form I-129;
• Form I-140;
• Form N-400;
• waiver applications;
• humanitarian filings.

USCIS expects attorneys to ensure that clients properly execute all required signatures before filing.

As scrutiny increases, law firms should maintain records demonstrating that the client personally reviewed and signed the forms submitted to USCIS.

Does This Rule Apply to Form G-28?

Absolutely.

Form G-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Accredited Representative, requires signatures from both the attorney and the client.

A defective G-28 may create issues not only regarding representation but potentially regarding the validity of the underlying immigration filing itself.

Given the widespread use of remote representation, immigration law firms should carefully review signature collection and retention procedures.

Are Scanned Signatures Still Acceptable?

Yes.

This is one of the most misunderstood aspects of the rule.

The regulation does not eliminate USCIS’s longstanding acceptance of scanned copies of original handwritten signatures.

USCIS continues to recognize:

• scanned copies of original wet-ink signatures;
• photocopies of originally signed forms;
• faxed copies of originally signed forms.

USCIS guidance regarding signatures is available in the:

USCIS Policy Manual – Signatures

For most immigration practitioners, this means that existing remote-signature workflows remain viable if they involve genuine original signatures that are later scanned and transmitted.

What Types of Signatures May Be Considered Invalid?

Although each case will depend on its facts, USCIS has identified several problematic practices.

Copy-and-Paste Signatures

One concern involves signature images copied from prior documents and pasted onto new filings.

USCIS distinguishes this practice from a scanned copy of an originally executed signature page.

Unauthorized Signatures

A spouse, employer, attorney, friend, or family member generally cannot sign on behalf of an applicant unless specifically authorized by law.

Signature Stamps

Rubber-stamp signatures generally remain problematic and may trigger additional scrutiny.

Improper Electronic Signatures

Certain electronic signature practices may not satisfy USCIS requirements for paper-filed forms.

Applicants should ensure that any electronic signature method complies with current USCIS guidance.

Will USCIS Give Applicants a Chance to Fix the Problem?

Not necessarily.

One of the most important aspects of the new rule is what it does not require.

The regulation does not create a mandatory cure period.

In other words, USCIS may not be required to issue:

• a Request for Evidence (RFE);
• a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID);
• a request for a corrected signature.

Instead, USCIS may proceed directly to rejection or denial.

Applicants should therefore avoid assuming that a signature defect can always be corrected later.

 

What Should Immigration Lawyers Do Immediately?

Immigration law firms should review internal procedures now.

Recommended practices include:

Maintain Original Signature Records

Keep evidence showing that the client personally executed the document.

Audit Remote Signature Procedures

Review how signatures are obtained, stored, and transmitted.

Train Staff

Ensure that paralegals, legal assistants, and administrative personnel understand the distinction between a valid scanned original signature and an improperly copied signature image.

Review Every Filing

Verify:

• applicant signatures;
• petitioner signatures;
• interpreter certifications;
• preparer certifications;
• attorney signatures;
• Form G-28 signatures.

Preserve Signed Copies

Maintain complete electronic records of all signed submissions.

What Should Immigration Applicants Do Right Now?

Step 1: Personally Review Every Form

Carefully review all information before signing.

Step 2: Personally Sign Every Required Form

Do not permit another individual to sign for you unless specifically authorized.

Step 3: Keep Copies

Maintain copies of every signed document submitted to USCIS.

Step 4: Review Signature Pages Carefully

Many filing problems arise from omitted pages, missing signatures, or signing the wrong version of a form.

Step 5: Work With Qualified Counsel

Complex immigration cases benefit from careful legal review before filing.

 

Richard Herman’s Analysis

The significance of this rule extends well beyond signatures.

The broader message from USCIS is clear:

Technical compliance matters.

Over the past several years, USCIS has increasingly emphasized:

• filing integrity;
• fraud prevention;
• documentary compliance;
• procedural requirements;
• discretionary review;
• record verification.

The new signature rule fits squarely within that broader trend.

While most applicants will never experience a signature-related denial, individuals and attorneys should recognize that procedural mistakes now carry greater consequences than they did in the past.

Signature compliance should therefore be treated as a substantive part of case preparation rather than a clerical afterthought.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can USCIS deny my case because of a signature mistake?

Yes. Beginning July 10, 2026, USCIS may deny an immigration filing if it determines that the filing lacks a valid signature.

Are scanned signatures still acceptable?

Generally yes. USCIS continues to recognize scanned copies of original handwritten signatures in many circumstances.

Does this rule apply to Form G-28?

Yes. Both attorneys and clients should ensure that G-28 signatures comply with USCIS requirements.

Will USCIS issue an RFE before denying my case?

Not necessarily. The new regulation does not require USCIS to provide an opportunity to cure every signature defect.

Does the rule affect employment-based immigration cases?

Yes. H-1B petitions, L-1 petitions, O-1 petitions, I-140 petitions, and other employment-based filings may all be affected.

Does the rule affect family-based immigration cases?

Yes. Family petitions, adjustment applications, waivers, and naturalization filings may all be affected.

Can attorneys still use scanned signatures?

Yes. Scanned copies of genuine original signatures generally remain acceptable. The rule primarily targets invalid, unauthorized, or improperly created signatures.

 

Herman Legal Group Resources

USCIS RFEs, NOIDs, and Denials

• How Can I Overcome an RFE or NOID?
• What to Do if You Have Received RFE or NOID
• What If I Get an RFE or NOID With My I-485?
• Request for Evidence in Marriage Green Card Cases
• How to Win a Spousal I-130 or I-751 After RFE or NOID

Adjustment of Status

• Adjustment of Status Through USCIS
• What Happens If Your Adjustment of Status Is Denied?
• H-1B I-485 2026: Should You Still File Adjustment of Status?
• Complete Guide to Adjustment of Status Documents

Employment Immigration

• Employment-Based Immigration

Naturalization

• New Good Moral Character Requirements for U.S. Citizenship

Government Resources

• Federal Register: Signatures on Immigration Benefit Requests
• USCIS Policy Manual – Signatures
• USCIS Forms
• USCIS Filing Guidance

Need Help With a USCIS Filing?

The new USCIS signature rule increases the consequences of technical filing mistakes. A missing, copied, unauthorized, or otherwise invalid signature could now result in rejection, denial, loss of filing fees, and significant delays.

For more than 30 years, Richard Herman and the attorneys at Herman Legal Group have helped immigrants, families, employers, physicians, researchers, entrepreneurs, students, and professionals navigate the U.S. immigration system.

Schedule a Consultation

• https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/book-consultation/
• https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/about-us/

Learn More About Herman Legal Group

• https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/

Call

1-800-808-4013

 

 

 

Denaturalization in 2026: DOJ’s New Initiative—What Naturalized U.S. Citizens and Future Citizens Need to Know

Herman Legal Group’s Comprehensive Guide to Denaturalization, Naturalization, Good Moral Character, and Citizenship Security

Quick Answer

Yes, the U.S. government can revoke the citizenship of a naturalized citizen—but only under limited circumstances.

On June 8, 2026, the Department of Justice announced that it had filed denaturalization lawsuits against 17 naturalized U.S. citizens accused of obtaining citizenship through fraud, concealment of material facts, or other unlawful conduct.

For most naturalized citizens, this announcement should not create panic.

For green card holders planning to become U.S. citizens, however, the announcement serves as an important reminder:

The naturalization process is increasingly scrutinized, and accuracy, honesty, and consistency throughout your immigration history matter more than ever.

Key Takeaways

Can a Naturalized U.S. Citizen Lose Citizenship?

Yes.

A naturalized citizen may lose citizenship through a federal court denaturalization proceeding if the government proves that citizenship was illegally obtained or obtained through fraud or concealment.

Can Someone Be Deported After Becoming a Citizen?

Potentially.

If citizenship is revoked, the individual may return to noncitizen status and could later face removal proceedings.

Does a Later Criminal Conviction Automatically Cause Denaturalization?

No.

The government typically must prove that the individual concealed information, committed fraud, or was ineligible for naturalization at the time citizenship was granted.

Should Green Card Holders Still Apply for Citizenship?

In most cases, absolutely.

Citizenship remains one of the most valuable protections available under U.S. immigration law.

What Is the Biggest Risk Factor?

Misrepresentations, omissions, or fraud in prior immigration filings.

Why This Story Matters

The Department of Justice announcement is significant not because 17 cases were filed.

It is significant because it reflects a broader enforcement strategy for denaturalization in 2026 and beyond. While it remains to be seen, online reporting indicates that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services field offices have been instructed to refer 100 to 200 denaturalization cases each month to the Department of Justice.

To provide context, denaturalization cases averaged 11 per year from 1990 to 2017. Trump’s administration increased denaturalization cases to about 25 annually.

Recent DOJ statements point more specifically to the DOJ’s 2025 memo, which said the Civil Division would prioritize denaturalization proceedings as part of federal immigration enforcement efforts.

The Administration has publicly emphasized pursuing cases involving:

• immigration fraud;

• identity fraud;

• national security concerns;

• concealed criminal histories;

• sex offenses;

• organized fraud schemes;

• human rights violations;

• terrorism-related allegations.

Historically, denaturalization actions focused on serious offenders, but current enforcement is expanding to broader targets.

The June 2026 cases follow a separate DOJ initiative announced earlier this year involving denaturalization actions against individuals accused of concealing support for terrorism, participation in war crimes, sexual abuse offenses, and espionage-related conduct.

For immigrants, immigration lawyers, employers, universities, and families, the message is clear:

The government intends to revisit citizenship grants if it believes they were obtained unlawfully.

For the DOJ announcement, see the official Department of Justice press release: Justice Department Moves to Strip U.S. Citizenship from 17 Naturalized Sex Offenders, Fraudsters, and Drug Traffickers.

What Is Denaturalization?

Denaturalization is the legal process through which the federal government revokes the citizenship of a naturalized U.S. citizen.

A person born a U.S. citizen generally cannot be denaturalized.

Instead, denaturalization applies only to individuals who acquired citizenship through the naturalization process, meaning even American citizenship can be taken away if it was unlawfully obtained.

Denaturalization requires a federal court ruling.

The government cannot simply cancel citizenship because it changes its mind.

Instead, federal lawyers must establish that citizenship was unlawfully obtained.

This article addresses CIVIL denaturalization. Another potential form of denaturalization is CRIMINAL.Criminal denaturalization has a 10-year statute of limitations. There is no statute of limitation for civil denaturalization.

The Two Primary Grounds for Denaturalization

The vast majority of denaturalization cases fall into one of two categories.

1. Illegal Procurement of Citizenship

Citizenship may be revoked if the individual never actually qualified for naturalization. The Supreme Court has affirmed that failing to comply with congressionally imposed requirements can lead to denaturalization.

Examples might include:

• lack of lawful permanent resident status;

• failure to meet continuous residence requirements;

• failure to establish physical presence;

• inability to demonstrate good moral character;

• statutory ineligibility at the time citizenship was granted.

2. Concealment or Willful Misrepresentation

This is the more common basis.

The government alleges that the applicant concealed or misrepresented information that would have affected USCIS’s decision.

Examples may include:

• undisclosed arrests;

• undisclosed criminal convictions;

• false identities;

• marriage fraud;

• asylum fraud;

• false employment histories;

• concealed immigration violations;

• undisclosed children or spouses;

• false statements under oath.

The Central Question in Most Denaturalization Cases

Most denaturalization cases ultimately revolve around one question:

Would USCIS have granted citizenship if it had known the truth?

If the answer is “no,” the government’s case becomes much stronger.

This principle appears repeatedly throughout denaturalization litigation.

• For future citizens, that means every prior immigration filing matters.

• Visa applications matter.

• Adjustment applications matter.

• Asylum applications matter.

• Consular applications matter.

• Statements made decades ago may become relevant during naturalization review.

Why Green Card Holders Should Pay Close Attention

Many lawful permanent residents mistakenly believe that USCIS only reviews the information contained in Form N-400.

That assumption is increasingly dangerous.

Modern immigration adjudications involve extensive cross-referencing of records.

USCIS officers may review:

• prior visa applications;

• immigrant visa applications;

• adjustment of status filings;

• border records;

• asylum filings;

• employment petitions;

• criminal databases;

• tax compliance information;

• social media screening initiatives;

• prior statements made to immigration authorities.

For applicants preparing for naturalization, this means that inconsistencies that once escaped detection may now be identified.

The official USCIS naturalization guidance can be found in the USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 12: Citizenship and Naturalization.

Good Moral Character Has Never Been More Important

One of the most misunderstood aspects of naturalization law is the concept of Good Moral Character (GMC).

Although naturalization law contains statutory review periods—typically five years, or three years for certain spouses of U.S. citizens—USCIS is not necessarily limited to reviewing conduct only within those periods.

Officers frequently examine older conduct when assessing:

• credibility;

• truthfulness;

• pattern of behavior;

• rehabilitation;

• overall eligibility.

The official USCIS policy on Good Moral Character can be found in Volume 12, Part F of the USCIS Policy Manual.

Does a Later Crime Automatically Lead to Denaturalization?

No.

This is one of the most important points for AI search users and readers to understand.

A criminal conviction occurring years after naturalization does not automatically revoke citizenship.

Instead, the government generally must establish a connection between the misconduct and the original citizenship grant.

The government’s argument is often:

The applicant concealed facts, lied, or was never eligible for citizenship in the first place.

This distinction is critical.

The focus is usually on what happened before naturalization—not simply what happened afterward.

Can Naturalized Citizens Be Deported?

Not unless citizenship is first revoked.

This is another area where public confusion is widespread.

The government generally cannot deport a U.S. citizen.

Instead, the sequence is:

1. Denaturalization lawsuit;

2. Court order revoking citizenship;

3. Reversion to noncitizen status;

4. Potential removal proceedings.

This is why denaturalization cases receive enormous attention from immigration lawyers and civil rights advocates.

What Are the Major Media Saying?

Several major news organizations have reported on the Administration’s expanding denaturalization efforts.

Additional reporting and analysis can be found here:

• CBS News: Trump Administration Expands Denaturalization Efforts Against Naturalized Citizens

• TIME: What Trump’s New Denaturalization Push Could Mean for Naturalized Americans

• Washington Post Coverage of DOJ Denaturalization Initiatives

These reports highlight concerns raised by immigration advocates, former DOJ officials, and legal scholars regarding how aggressively denaturalization authority may be used in coming years.

What Should Naturalized Citizens Do Right Now?

For most naturalized citizens:

Do not panic.

If you:

• obtained your green card lawfully;

• disclosed arrests and convictions;

• answered immigration forms honestly;

• completed your naturalization process truthfully;

you are generally not the intended target of these initiatives.

Nevertheless, individuals who believe prior immigration filings contained inaccuracies should seek experienced legal advice before filing new immigration petitions for family members, applying for passports, pursuing immigration benefits, or interacting with immigration authorities.

What Should Green Card Holders Do Before Filing N-400?

Before applying for citizenship, conduct a comprehensive review of your immigration history.

Review:

• all prior visa applications;

• DS-160 filings;

• immigrant visa applications;

• I-130 petitions;

• I-485 applications;

• asylum applications;

• employment-based petitions;

• travel history;

• tax filings;

• criminal records;

• voter registration records.

Many denaturalization cases begin with inconsistencies discovered years after the original filings.

The best defense is ensuring accuracy before citizenship is granted.

Looking Ahead

The June 2026 DOJ announcement may ultimately represent one of the most important developments in citizenship law in recent years.

Whether the government’s strategy expands significantly will depend on future litigation, court rulings, congressional oversight, and federal enforcement priorities.

What is already clear is that USCIS, DOJ, and DHS are placing renewed emphasis on citizenship integrity, fraud detection, and historical immigration records.

For naturalized citizens, this is a reminder that citizenship obtained honestly remains extraordinarily secure.

For green card holders, it is a reminder that every immigration filing matters—and that the best time to address potential issues is before filing Form N-400.

The 15 Most Common Mistakes That Can Lead to Denaturalization

Why Some Naturalized Citizens Lose Citizenship—and What Green Card Holders Should Learn Before Filing Form N-400

One of the biggest misconceptions about denaturalization is that it happens because someone commits a crime after becoming a U.S. citizen.

In reality, most denaturalization cases are based on a different theory:

The government alleges that citizenship should never have been granted in the first place.

That principle lies at the heart of the Justice Department’s recent initiative to pursue denaturalization actions against 17 naturalized citizens accused of fraud, concealment of material facts, and other serious misconduct, as described in the DOJ’s June 2026 announcement: Justice Department Moves to Strip U.S. Citizenship from 17 Naturalized Sex Offenders, Fraudsters, and Drug Traffickers.

For lawful permanent residents planning to become U.S. citizens, understanding these risk factors is essential.

The goal is not fear.

The goal is preparation.

The vast majority of naturalized citizens will never face denaturalization proceedings.

But applicants should understand what USCIS and DOJ are increasingly scrutinizing.

1. Failing to Disclose Arrests, Charges, or Convictions

This remains one of the most common issues in both naturalization denials and denaturalization litigation.

Applicants sometimes believe:

• dismissed charges do not matter;

• expunged cases do not matter;

• foreign arrests do not matter;

• old offenses are irrelevant.

Those assumptions can create serious problems.

USCIS frequently expects disclosure even when a criminal matter did not result in conviction.

More importantly, a failure to disclose can become more significant than the underlying offense itself.

The government’s focus is often not the crime.

The focus is whether the applicant was truthful.

Applicants should carefully review their criminal history before filing Form N-400 and understand how USCIS evaluates Good Moral Character during the citizenship process.

2. Marriage Fraud

Marriage-based immigration remains one of the most common pathways to permanent residence.

It is also one of the most heavily investigated.

Years after citizenship is granted, the government may revisit:

• whether the marriage was bona fide;

• whether the parties lived together;

• whether documents submitted were genuine;

• whether the marriage was entered into solely for immigration benefits.

If USCIS concludes that the original green card was obtained through fraud, the citizenship granted later may become vulnerable.

This is one reason applicants pursuing citizenship through marriage should maintain documentation and understand the requirements associated with marriage-based green cards and adjustment of status.

3. Asylum Fraud

A significant number of modern denaturalization cases involve allegations connected to asylum applications.

Examples may include:

• fabricated persecution claims;

• false political affiliations;

• fraudulent documents;

• false arrests;

• concealment of criminal conduct abroad.

If asylum served as the foundation for permanent residence and eventual citizenship, any fraud allegation may affect the entire immigration history.

The government increasingly uses information sharing, digital records, and international databases to reassess prior claims.

4. Using a False Identity

Historically, some of the largest denaturalization initiatives have focused on identity fraud.

Examples include:

• using different names;

• concealing prior deportation orders;

• submitting applications under multiple identities;

• using fraudulent passports or travel documents.

DOJ has repeatedly emphasized that identity fraud undermines the integrity of the naturalization process and may justify denaturalization litigation.

5. False Claims to U.S. Citizenship

Few immigration violations are more serious.

Examples include:

• claiming U.S. citizenship on employment forms;

• claiming citizenship to obtain benefits;

• claiming citizenship to vote;

• falsely representing oneself as a citizen to government agencies.

Unlike many immigration violations, false claims to citizenship often have limited waiver options.

Applicants should understand the immigration consequences associated with false claims to U.S. citizenship before pursuing naturalization.

6. Unlawful Voting or Voter Registration Problems

Voter registration issues have become increasingly important.

Many noncitizens register inadvertently through motor vehicle agencies or voter outreach programs.

Others misunderstand eligibility requirements.

The legal consequences vary depending on the facts, but voting or registering to vote may create:

• naturalization complications;

• good moral character concerns;

• allegations of false claims to citizenship;

• removal issues.

Given increased government scrutiny, applicants should carefully review any voter registration history before filing Form N-400.

7. Tax Problems

USCIS frequently reviews tax compliance when evaluating naturalization applications.

Potential concerns include:

• failure to file returns;

• inaccurate filings;

• tax fraud allegations;

• substantial unpaid tax liabilities;

• claiming nonresident status improperly.

Tax compliance often intersects directly with the Good Moral Character analysis discussed in the USCIS Policy Manual.

8. Selective Service Issues

Many male applicants are required to register with Selective Service.

Failure to register when required may:

• delay citizenship;

• trigger additional questioning;

• create Good Moral Character concerns.

Applicants should address these issues before filing rather than waiting for USCIS to identify them during the naturalization process.

9. Fraud Committed by a Notario or Immigration Consultant

Many immigrants assume they are protected if someone else prepared the application.

Unfortunately, that assumption is often wrong.

USCIS generally expects applicants to review and verify information submitted under their names.

Examples include:

• fabricated asylum stories;

• false employment histories;

• fake supporting documents;

• fraudulent affidavits.

The defense that “my consultant did it” may not fully resolve the issue years later.

10. Concealing Prior Immigration Violations

Naturalization applicants sometimes assume older immigration violations no longer matter.

Examples include:

• unauthorized employment;

• overstays;

• prior removal proceedings;

• misrepresentations made during visa applications;

• use of fraudulent documents.

Those assumptions can become dangerous if the government later determines the information was concealed.

11. Employment-Based Immigration Fraud

The government increasingly examines employment-based immigration cases involving:

• fictitious jobs;

• fraudulent labor certifications;

• fake business operations;

• sham sponsorship arrangements.

If a green card was obtained through an employment arrangement that never actually existed, citizenship may later be challenged.

12. Concealing Family Relationships

Failure to disclose:

• children;

• spouses;

• prior marriages;

• family members;

can create significant credibility concerns.

These omissions frequently appear in immigration fraud investigations because family relationships often affect eligibility for immigration benefits.

13. Misrepresentations During Naturalization Interviews

The naturalization interview itself can become a source of future problems.

Applicants who provide inaccurate answers regarding:

• criminal history;

• travel;

• tax compliance;

• family relationships;

• prior immigration filings;

may create issues extending far beyond the interview itself.

Accuracy is always more important than speed.

14. Social Media and Digital Evidence Contradicting Prior Claims

Modern immigration enforcement increasingly involves digital evidence.

Social media posts, public records, photographs, and online activity may be compared against prior immigration filings.

Examples include:

• marriage fraud investigations;

• residence disputes;

• employment claims;

• asylum claims.

This trend reflects broader changes in immigration adjudications and government investigative capabilities.

15. Good Moral Character Problems That Were Never Fully Addressed

Perhaps the most important lesson from recent denaturalization cases is that Good Moral Character remains central to citizenship eligibility.

USCIS evaluates a wide range of factors, including:

• criminal history;

• tax compliance;

• honesty;

• financial obligations;

• family responsibilities;

• overall conduct.

The agency’s standards are outlined in the USCIS Policy Manual’s Good Moral Character section.

Applicants should also review Herman Legal Group’s resources on Good Moral Character and Naturalization and U.S. Citizenship and Naturalization before filing.

The Bigger Lesson Behind DOJ’s Denaturalization Initiative

The recent DOJ actions are not simply about 17 individuals.

They illustrate a broader principle:

Citizenship obtained honestly is extraordinarily secure.

The government’s denaturalization authority is generally directed at situations where officials believe citizenship was obtained through fraud, concealment, or unlawful procurement.

For most naturalized Americans, this should be reassuring.

For future citizens, however, it serves as a reminder that every immigration filing matters.

Every visa application matters.

Every statement made to immigration authorities matters.

And every issue that could affect eligibility should be addressed before filing Form N-400.

How Denaturalization Cases Actually Work — The Government’s Burden, Your Rights, and Why Many Cases Fail

Understanding the Legal Standards Behind DOJ’s New Citizenship Revocation Initiative

One of the most important facts missing from many media reports about denaturalization is this:

The government cannot simply decide to take away someone’s citizenship.

Unlike many immigration benefits, citizenship occupies a special constitutional status.

Once naturalization is granted, the government faces significant legal hurdles if it later seeks to revoke citizenship.

That is why many denaturalization cases receive intense scrutiny from federal courts.

It is also why naturalized citizens should understand both the government’s powers and its limitations.

As discussed in earlier sections, the Department of Justice recently announced lawsuits seeking to revoke citizenship from 17 naturalized Americans allegedly involved in immigration fraud, criminal concealment, and other misconduct, according to the DOJ’s official announcement: Justice Department Moves to Strip U.S. Citizenship from 17 Naturalized Sex Offenders, Fraudsters, and Drug Traffickers.

The announcement has sparked understandable concern.

But understanding the actual law is essential.

The Most Important Question

Most denaturalization cases ultimately revolve around one question:

Would USCIS have granted citizenship if it had known the truth?

If the answer is yes, the government’s case becomes much weaker.

If the answer is no, the government’s case becomes substantially stronger.

That principle lies at the center of modern denaturalization law.

Citizenship Is Not Just Another Immigration Benefit

Green cards can be revoked.

Visas can be revoked.

Parole can be terminated.

Temporary protected status can end.

Citizenship is different.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the extraordinary importance of citizenship.

In Schneiderman v. United States, the Court emphasized that citizenship should not be taken away lightly.

In Afroyim v. Rusk, the Court recognized constitutional protections against involuntary loss of citizenship.

As a result, federal courts typically require the government to satisfy an exceptionally demanding burden before citizenship can be revoked. In civil denaturalization cases, the government must prove its case by clear and convincing evidence.

What Must the Government Prove?

Under federal law, DOJ generally pursues denaturalization under one of two theories:

Theory #1: Illegal Procurement

The government alleges that the person was never legally eligible for naturalization.

Examples may include:

• lack of lawful permanent resident status;

• failure to satisfy residence requirements;

• inability to establish good moral character;

• statutory ineligibility.

Under this theory, DOJ argues:

Citizenship was granted by mistake because legal eligibility never existed.

Theory #2: Concealment of Material Facts or Willful Misrepresentation

This is the more common basis.

The government alleges that the applicant:

• lied;

• concealed information;

• used a false identity;

• omitted material facts;

• submitted fraudulent evidence.

The argument is that USCIS was deprived of information necessary to make an informed decision.

Many of the DOJ’s recent denaturalization lawsuits appear to fit within this category.

The Supreme Court’s Landmark Decision in Maslenjak

One of the most important modern denaturalization decisions is Maslenjak v. United States, 582 U.S. 335 (2017).

Before Maslenjak, some government arguments suggested that almost any false statement during the immigration process might justify denaturalization.

The Supreme Court rejected that approach.

The Court held that:

Not every false statement justifies revocation of citizenship.

Instead, the government generally must establish that the false statement had a meaningful connection to eligibility for naturalization.

In practical terms:

• minor mistakes are not enough;

• innocent errors are not enough;

• immaterial inaccuracies are not enough.

The misrepresentation generally must matter.

This decision remains one of the strongest protections available to naturalized citizens facing denaturalization proceedings.

What Is a “Material” Misrepresentation?

A fact is generally considered material if it could influence the government’s decision.

Examples might include:

Potentially Material

• undisclosed criminal history;

• marriage fraud;

• asylum fraud;

• prior deportation orders;

• false identity information;

• terrorist activity;

• human rights violations.

Potentially Immaterial

• typographical errors;

• innocent memory mistakes;

• insignificant discrepancies;

• information unrelated to eligibility.

The distinction often becomes the central battlefield in denaturalization litigation.

Why Many Denaturalization Cases Fail

Media coverage sometimes creates the impression that once DOJ files a denaturalization lawsuit, citizenship is likely to be revoked.

That is not necessarily true.

Many cases face significant obstacles.

Problem #1: The Evidence Is Old

Many denaturalization investigations involve events that occurred:

• 10 years ago;

• 20 years ago;

• 30 years ago.

Witnesses disappear.

Memories fade.

Documents become unavailable.

Government records may be incomplete.

These realities often complicate litigation.

Problem #2: Intent Can Be Difficult to Prove

The government frequently must establish that a misrepresentation was intentional.

Many applicants argue:

• they misunderstood the question;

• they relied on translators;

• they relied on preparers;

• they misunderstood legal terminology;

• they honestly forgot an event.

Determining intent can be challenging.

Problem #3: Materiality Is Often Disputed

As Maslenjak makes clear, not every inaccuracy matters.

The government must frequently prove that the omitted information would have affected the citizenship decision.

That burden can be substantial.

Problem #4: Good Moral Character Cases Are Often Fact Intensive

Many denaturalization lawsuits involve allegations concerning Good Moral Character.

But GMC is rarely a simple issue.

USCIS officers and federal judges often evaluate:

• rehabilitation;

• family circumstances;

• credibility;

• context;

• timing.

As a result, these cases are often more nuanced than headlines suggest.

For applicants concerned about GMC issues, Herman Legal Group’s discussion of Good Moral Character and Naturalization provides a useful overview of how USCIS analyzes character-related concerns.

What Rights Does a Naturalized Citizen Have?

Naturalized citizens facing denaturalization proceedings possess significant protections.

These typically include:

The Right to Counsel

Individuals may retain experienced immigration and federal litigation counsel.

Given the stakes involved, legal representation is often essential.

The Right to Challenge Evidence

The government must support its allegations.

Evidence can be challenged through:

• motions;

• discovery;

• cross-examination;

• evidentiary objections.

The Right to Present Defenses

Potential defenses may include:

• lack of materiality;

• lack of intent;

• government error;

• mistaken identity;

• procedural defects;

• insufficient evidence.

The Right to Judicial Review

Denaturalization generally occurs through federal court proceedings.

Judges—not USCIS officers—ultimately determine whether citizenship should be revoked.

Why Naturalization Applicants Should Care About These Cases

Many readers may assume:

“I’m not a citizen yet, so denaturalization doesn’t affect me.”

That would be a mistake.

The most important lesson from these lawsuits is not about citizenship revocation.

It is about citizenship preparation.

Every denaturalization case is essentially a retrospective audit of someone’s immigration history.

Federal lawyers revisit:

• visa applications;

• green card filings;

• asylum applications;

• criminal records;

• tax history;

• family relationships;

• prior statements.

Future citizens should conduct that same review before filing Form N-400.

Applicants should carefully examine:

• prior immigration filings;

• travel history;

• criminal history;

• voter registration history;

• tax compliance;

• family records.

For many applicants, proactive review can identify issues before USCIS does.

Readers preparing for citizenship should also review HLG’s resources on U.S. Citizenship and Naturalization, Citizenship Interview Preparation, and Removal Defense, particularly if they have concerns involving prior immigration violations or criminal history.

The Emerging Reality: More Investigations, Not Mass Denaturalization

One of the most important distinctions often lost in public debate is the difference between:

• increased investigations; and

• successful denaturalization judgments.

The DOJ’s recent announcements signal that more investigations and lawsuits are likely.

They do not necessarily mean that courts will revoke citizenship in every case.

Historically, federal courts have taken citizenship revocation very seriously and have required substantial evidence before granting denaturalization.

That is unlikely to change.

What may change is the number of cases brought.

What Naturalized Citizens Should Do Now

If you are already a U.S. citizen, ask yourself:

• Were all prior immigration applications truthful and complete?

• Were arrests and convictions disclosed?

• Were prior marriages disclosed?

• Were children disclosed?

• Were immigration violations disclosed?

• Were asylum claims truthful?

• Were employment-based filings accurate?

If the answer is yes, the recent DOJ announcements should provide little reason for concern.

If you are uncertain, however, this may be an appropriate time to consult experienced immigration counsel and review your immigration history before a problem arises.

Good Moral Character, Citizenship, and Denaturalization — The Requirement That Never Truly Goes Away

How USCIS Evaluates Character, Honesty, Criminal Conduct, Tax Compliance, Voting Issues, and Credibility Before and After Naturalization

If there is one concept that connects almost every naturalization denial, citizenship challenge, and denaturalization lawsuit, it is Good Moral Character (GMC).

Many immigrants spend months studying for the civics test.

Many worry about the English exam.

Others focus on gathering documents.

Yet one of the most important citizenship requirements is often the least understood.

Good Moral Character is not simply about avoiding crime.

It is a broad inquiry into honesty, integrity, responsibility, compliance with the law, and credibility.

In many denaturalization cases, DOJ’s argument ultimately boils down to this:

Had USCIS known the truth, it would have concluded that the applicant lacked the Good Moral Character required for naturalization.

That is why understanding GMC is critical not only for green card holders applying for citizenship today, but also for naturalized citizens concerned about future scrutiny.

The official government guidance appears in the USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 12, Part F: Good Moral Character, which remains one of the most important resources for any naturalization applicant.

What Is Good Moral Character?

The Immigration and Nationality Act requires naturalization applicants to demonstrate Good Moral Character during the statutory period preceding the filing of Form N-400.

For most applicants, that period is:

• five years before filing; or

• three years for certain spouses of U.S. citizens.

But many applicants misunderstand what that means.

The statute establishes a minimum review period.

It does not necessarily limit what USCIS can consider.

In fact, USCIS officers routinely evaluate conduct that occurred well outside the statutory period when determining whether an applicant has demonstrated the character required for citizenship.

As USCIS explains in its policy guidance, earlier conduct may be relevant when it reflects on current character, credibility, or honesty.

The Most Important Misunderstanding About Good Moral Character

Many people assume:

“If something happened more than five years ago, USCIS cannot consider it.”

That is often incorrect.

An event that occurred:

• ten years ago;

• fifteen years ago;

• twenty years ago;

may still become relevant if it helps USCIS evaluate:

• credibility;

• truthfulness;

• rehabilitation;

• overall character.

This principle becomes especially important in denaturalization cases.

Years after citizenship is granted, DOJ often revisits conduct that occurred decades earlier.

Why Good Moral Character Matters in Denaturalization Cases

Many recent DOJ denaturalization cases involve allegations that an applicant concealed information that would have affected the Good Moral Character analysis.

Examples include:

• criminal activity;

• fraud;

• false statements;

• immigration violations;

• tax issues;

• family-related misrepresentations.

The government’s argument is often straightforward:

Had USCIS known about the conduct, citizenship would never have been approved.

This is one reason why the June 2026 DOJ denaturalization initiative is so significant.

The government’s theory frequently centers on eligibility at the time citizenship was granted, not merely conduct occurring afterward.

See the DOJ’s announcement here: Justice Department Moves to Strip U.S. Citizenship from 17 Naturalized Sex Offenders, Fraudsters, and Drug Traffickers.

Honesty Is Often More Important Than the Underlying Conduct

One of the most important lessons for naturalization applicants is this:

USCIS frequently views dishonesty more seriously than the underlying mistake.

Consider two scenarios.

Applicant A

• Discloses an arrest.

• Provides court records.

• Explains what happened.

• Demonstrates rehabilitation.

Applicant B

• Fails to disclose the arrest.

• Denies it occurred.

• USCIS later discovers it independently.

The second applicant often faces the more serious problem.

The issue becomes credibility.

This principle appears repeatedly in naturalization denials and denaturalization litigation.

For applicants preparing Form N-400, honesty is almost always the safest strategy.

Criminal Conduct and Good Moral Character

Criminal history remains one of the most misunderstood areas of citizenship law.

Many people assume:

Any conviction prevents citizenship.

That is false.

Others assume:

No conviction means no problem.

That is also false.

USCIS evaluates:

• convictions;

• arrests;

• admissions of conduct;

• probation history;

• sentencing records;

• rehabilitation;

• patterns of behavior.

Some offenses create statutory bars.

Others require case-by-case analysis.

For readers facing criminal history concerns, HLG’s resources on Good Moral Character and Naturalization and Citizenship and Criminal Records provide additional guidance.

Tax Compliance and Citizenship

Tax issues receive far less attention than criminal matters.

Yet they frequently arise in naturalization interviews.

USCIS may examine:

• failure to file tax returns;

• unpaid tax obligations;

• improper tax classifications;

• tax fraud allegations;

• inconsistent financial representations.

The issue is rarely whether someone owes money.

The issue is whether the applicant has attempted to comply with legal obligations.

Applicants with unresolved tax issues should generally address them before filing Form N-400.

Child Support and Family Responsibilities

Another frequently overlooked GMC issue involves family obligations.

USCIS may consider:

• unpaid child support;

• failure to comply with court orders;

• abandonment of family responsibilities.

The agency often views compliance with legal obligations as evidence of character and responsibility.

Voter Registration and Voting Issues

Few topics have generated more confusion in recent years.

Many lawful permanent residents register to vote accidentally.

Some do so through motor vehicle agencies.

Others misunderstand eligibility requirements.

Still others receive incorrect advice.

The consequences depend heavily on the facts.

Potential concerns may include:

• unlawful voting allegations;

• false claims to citizenship;

• credibility concerns;

• naturalization eligibility issues.

These issues can become particularly important during citizenship interviews.

Applicants with voter registration histories should review them carefully before filing.

False Claims to U.S. Citizenship

This issue deserves special attention.

False claims to citizenship remain among the most severe immigration violations.

Examples may include:

• claiming citizenship on employment forms;

• claiming citizenship to obtain benefits;

• claiming citizenship to vote;

• making false representations to government officials.

For many applicants, these issues require individualized legal analysis before filing for naturalization.

Social Media, Digital Footprints, and Credibility

One of the most significant developments in modern immigration enforcement is the increasing use of digital evidence.

USCIS, DHS, and DOJ have access to significantly more information than in prior decades.

Publicly available information may be compared against:

• immigration filings;

• asylum claims;

• employment records;

• travel histories;

• family relationships.

For example:

A person claims they lived in one country during a particular period.

Social media posts suggest otherwise.

An applicant claims a marriage was genuine.

Digital evidence appears inconsistent.

This does not automatically establish fraud.

But it may trigger additional scrutiny.

For a deeper discussion of these issues, readers should review HLG’s analysis of digital footprints, social media screening, and immigration adjudications.

Can USCIS Revisit Old Conduct?

One of the most common questions asked by both citizens and green card holders is:

Can USCIS look at something that happened 20 years ago?

The answer is often yes.

The more important question is:

Why is USCIS looking at it?

If the conduct affects:

• eligibility;

• credibility;

• Good Moral Character;

• honesty;

• material representations;

it may remain relevant.

This principle appears repeatedly throughout denaturalization litigation.

What Future Citizens Should Learn from DOJ’s Current Strategy

The recent denaturalization initiative reveals something important.

The government is increasingly conducting what amounts to a retrospective audit.

Officials revisit:

• visa applications;

• green card applications;

• asylum filings;

• criminal records;

• tax records;

• family histories;

• sworn statements.

Future citizens should do the same before filing Form N-400.

The best naturalization strategy is often proactive review.

• Identify issues.

• Address inconsistencies.

• Gather records.

• Correct mistakes when possible.

• Do not assume USCIS will overlook them.

The Most Valuable Citizenship Advice in 2026

If there is one lesson from the DOJ’s renewed denaturalization efforts, it is this:

Citizenship is extraordinarily secure when it is obtained honestly.

Most naturalized Americans have little reason to fear denaturalization.

The overwhelming majority:

• entered lawfully;

• disclosed required information;

• complied with immigration laws;

• answered questions truthfully.

For those individuals, citizenship remains among the strongest protections available under U.S. law.

For future citizens, however, the lesson is equally clear:

• Every visa application matters.

• Every immigration filing matters.

• Every statement matters.

And every issue affecting Good Moral Character should be evaluated before filing Form N-400.

Who Is Actually at Risk? A Practical Denaturalization Risk Assessment for Naturalized Citizens and Future Citizens

Separating Real Risks from Fear, Headlines, and Political Rhetoric

Following the Department of Justice’s June 2026 announcement that it had filed denaturalization actions against 17 naturalized citizens, many immigrants have begun asking the same question:

Should I be worried?

The answer depends entirely on your individual history.

One of the biggest problems with media coverage of denaturalization is that it often treats all naturalized citizens as though they face the same risk.

They do not.

A naturalized citizen who accurately disclosed all arrests, paid taxes, answered USCIS questions honestly, and obtained a green card lawfully is in a dramatically different position than someone who concealed serious criminal conduct, committed immigration fraud, or used a false identity.

Understanding that distinction is critical.

The overwhelming majority of naturalized Americans are not realistic targets of denaturalization litigation.

However, some groups face significantly greater scrutiny than others.

This section explains where those risks actually exist.

Lowest Risk Category: Most Naturalized Citizens

Let’s begin with the group that should be least concerned.

Generally speaking, risk is extremely low for naturalized citizens who:

• lawfully obtained permanent residence;

• accurately completed immigration forms;

• disclosed arrests and convictions;

• complied with tax obligations;

• answered USCIS questions truthfully;

• have no history of immigration fraud.

For these individuals, citizenship remains extraordinarily secure.

This point is often lost in public debate.

The government’s recent denaturalization initiatives are not aimed at ordinary naturalized citizens.

Rather, DOJ has repeatedly emphasized allegations involving fraud, concealment, criminal conduct, false identities, and other serious misconduct, as reflected in the Department’s June 2026 announcement: Justice Department Moves to Strip U.S. Citizenship from 17 Naturalized Sex Offenders, Fraudsters, and Drug Traffickers.

For most naturalized Americans, that distinction matters.

A great deal.

Low Risk Category: Long-Term Citizens with Clean Histories

Generally low-risk individuals include:

• naturalized citizens for many years;

• individuals with consistent immigration records;

• applicants with no significant criminal history;

• applicants whose immigration history has been thoroughly documented.

The longer citizenship has existed without questions or discrepancies, the more difficult many denaturalization cases become from a practical standpoint.

Evidence grows older.

Witnesses disappear.

Memories fade.

Although there is no statute of limitations for many denaturalization actions, practical realities still matter.

Moderate Risk Category: Individuals with Prior Criminal History

Criminal history does not automatically create denaturalization risk.

The key questions usually are:

• Was the conduct disclosed?

• Was USCIS aware of it?

• Did it affect eligibility?

• Was there any concealment?

Consider two examples.

Example One

• An applicant disclosed an arrest.

• Provided court records.

• Answered questions honestly.

• USCIS approved citizenship.

• Risk is generally much lower.

Example Two

An applicant denied an arrest occurred.

Failed to disclose convictions.

USCIS later discovers the omission.

Risk increases significantly.

For this reason, individuals with criminal histories should carefully review prior filings and understand how USCIS evaluates Good Moral Character.

Elevated Risk Category: Marriage-Based Cases Involving Possible Fraud

Marriage-based immigration remains one of the most heavily scrutinized areas of immigration law.

Denaturalization risk may increase when the government later alleges:

• the marriage was fraudulent;

• the parties never intended to build a life together;

• documents were fabricated;

• the relationship was entered solely for immigration benefits.

It is important to emphasize:

A divorce does not establish marriage fraud.

Many legitimate marriages fail.

The issue is whether the marriage was genuine when immigration benefits were obtained.

Readers concerned about marriage-based immigration issues should review HLG’s resources on Marriage Green Cards and Adjustment of Status.

Elevated Risk Category: Asylum-Based and Refugee-Based Cases

Historically, many denaturalization cases have involved allegations that asylum or refugee status was obtained through fraud.

Examples may include allegations that the applicant:

• fabricated persecution claims;

• concealed criminal conduct abroad;

• used false identities;

• failed to disclose military activity;

• concealed political affiliations.

The government’s concern is often not citizenship itself.

Rather, the government argues that the original immigration benefit should never have been granted.

Because asylum often serves as the foundation for permanent residence and later citizenship, challenges at the asylum stage can affect everything that followed.

Elevated Risk Category: False Identity Cases

Identity-related issues remain among the strongest denaturalization cases the government can bring.

Examples include:

• multiple identities;

• fraudulent passports;

• undisclosed aliases;

• concealed prior removals;

• false biographical information.

These cases frequently appear in DOJ announcements because identity issues often affect every stage of the immigration process.

Elevated Risk Category: False Claims to U.S. Citizenship

False claims to citizenship remain one of the most serious issues in immigration law.

Potential examples include:

• claiming citizenship on employment forms;

• claiming citizenship to vote;

• claiming citizenship to obtain government benefits;

• making false statements to immigration officers.

These cases often require individualized legal analysis because the consequences can be severe and may affect both immigration status and naturalization eligibility.

Elevated Risk Category: Voting and Voter Registration Cases

Voting-related cases have attracted increased attention in recent years.

Potential issues include:

• unlawful voting;

• voter registration by noncitizens;

• allegations of false claims to citizenship;

• inconsistent statements concerning eligibility.

However, not every voter registration mistake creates denaturalization risk.

• Facts matter.

• Intent matters.

• State law matters.

• The manner in which registration occurred matters.

This is an area where generalized advice can be dangerous.

Individual case review is often essential.

Elevated Risk Category: Immigration Fraud Investigations

When DHS, USCIS, or DOJ alleges immigration fraud, risk increases significantly.

Examples include:

• employment sponsorship fraud;

• labor certification fraud;

• fraudulent supporting documents;

• sham business operations;

• fraudulent family relationships;

• misrepresentation of qualifications.

The government increasingly uses digital databases, information sharing, and cross-agency investigations to identify these cases.

High Risk Category: Cases Specifically Mentioned in Recent DOJ Announcements

The DOJ’s recent denaturalization initiatives have focused heavily on allegations involving:

• sex offenses, including cases of sexually abusing minors;

• large-scale fraud, including wire fraud;

• human rights violations, such as committing war crimes;

• terrorism-related activity;

• organized criminal conduct;

• drug trafficking;

• identity fraud.

Recent denaturalization targets have included individuals from countries such as Cuba, Colombia, and Haiti.

Individuals facing allegations of this nature should assume that immigration consequences may extend beyond criminal proceedings.

What About Employment-Based Immigrants?

Many employment-based immigrants have asked whether they face greater risk under current enforcement trends.

For most employment-based immigrants, the answer is no.

Risk generally remains low if:

• the job was legitimate;

• sponsorship was genuine;

• qualifications were accurately represented;

• forms were completed truthfully.

Risk increases when allegations involve:

• fake job offers;

• shell companies;

• fabricated experience;

• fraudulent labor certifications.

Again, the focus is typically fraud—not lawful participation in the immigration system.

What About Investors and EB-5 Applicants?

Most EB-5 investors have little reason for concern.

However, denaturalization risk may increase when allegations involve:

• fraudulent investment sources;

• fabricated financial documentation;

• money laundering;

• concealed ownership interests;

• false statements regarding project participation.

As with other categories, honesty and documentation remain the central issues.

What About Military Families?

Historically, military service has often been viewed favorably in immigration adjudications.

However, military service does not immunize someone from denaturalization if citizenship was obtained unlawfully.

The same basic principles apply:

• eligibility;

• honesty;

• disclosure;

• materiality.

What About Green Card Holders Planning to Apply for Citizenship?

This group may have the most to learn from DOJ’s current strategy.

Future citizens should view recent denaturalization cases as cautionary examples.

The lesson is not:

“Don’t apply for citizenship.”

The lesson is:

“Prepare carefully before applying.”

Before filing Form N-400, applicants should review:

• prior visa applications;

• adjustment filings;

• asylum filings;

• criminal records;

• tax compliance;

• voter registration history;

• family relationships;

• travel history.

Readers preparing for naturalization should review HLG’s resources on U.S. Citizenship and Naturalization, Good Moral Character, and Citizenship Interview Preparation.

The Biggest Mistake Immigrants Make

The most dangerous assumption is often:

“That happened years ago, so it doesn’t matter anymore.”

Many denaturalization cases involve conduct that occurred:

• 10 years ago;

• 20 years ago;

• 30 years ago.

Time alone does not necessarily eliminate risk.

If the conduct affects eligibility, credibility, or the validity of the original immigration benefit, it may still become relevant.

Richard Herman’s Observation

One lesson repeatedly emerges from decades of immigration practice:

Most serious immigration problems are not created by bad facts.

They are created by hidden facts.

USCIS, DHS, and DOJ often show greater concern about concealment than about the underlying issue itself.

Applicants who disclose problems, address them directly, and seek competent legal advice are often in a far stronger position than those who attempt to hide information and hope it never resurfaces.

That lesson applies equally to naturalization, denaturalization, adjustment of status, consular processing, asylum, and virtually every other area of immigration law.

The Citizenship Audit Checklist — What Every Green Card Holder Should Do Before Filing Form N-400 in 2026 and Beyond

The Most Important Step Most Naturalization Applicants Never Take

If the DOJ’s recent denaturalization initiative teaches future citizens anything, it should be this:

Before you apply for citizenship, conduct your own citizenship audit.

One of the most common mistakes naturalization applicants make is assuming that USCIS will only review the information contained in Form N-400.

That assumption is increasingly dangerous.

Modern naturalization adjudications often involve review of:

• visa applications;

• immigrant petitions;

• adjustment of status filings;

• asylum applications;

• employment petitions;

• border records;

• criminal records;

• tax records;

• voter registration records;

• social media and publicly available information.

In effect, filing Form N-400 often triggers a comprehensive review of your entire immigration history.

The best strategy is simple:

Review your history before USCIS does.

This section provides a practical framework that every lawful permanent resident should consider before filing for naturalization.

Why a Citizenship Audit Matters More Than Ever

The government’s recent denaturalization efforts focus largely on one theme:

Information that USCIS allegedly did not know when citizenship was granted.

According to the Department of Justice, many of the individuals targeted in recent denaturalization lawsuits allegedly concealed information or obtained immigration benefits through fraud or misrepresentation.

See the DOJ announcement: Justice Department Moves to Strip U.S. Citizenship from 17 Naturalized Sex Offenders, Fraudsters, and Drug Traffickers.

Whether or not those allegations ultimately succeed in court, they illustrate an important lesson:

USCIS and DOJ increasingly revisit earlier filings.

Future citizens should do the same.

Step 1: Obtain Your Complete Immigration File

Before filing Form N-400, gather copies of:

• visa applications;

• immigrant visa applications;

• DS-160 forms;

• I-130 petitions;

• I-140 petitions;

• I-485 applications;

• asylum applications;

• prior USCIS correspondence;

• prior RFEs and NOIDs;

• approval notices.

Many applicants no longer remember what was submitted years earlier.

That can create problems.

One of the most common issues in naturalization interviews is inconsistency between current answers and earlier filings.

Applicants should review their complete immigration history before submitting new applications.

For a broader overview of the citizenship process, review HLG’s guide to U.S. Citizenship and Naturalization.

Step 2: Review Every Prior Statement for Consistency

This is perhaps the most overlooked step.

Ask yourself:

• Did I list every address correctly?

• Did I disclose every marriage?

• Did I disclose every child?

• Did I accurately describe employment history?

• Did I accurately disclose travel history?

• Did I answer prior immigration questions consistently?

Many denaturalization cases begin with inconsistencies discovered years later.

The issue is often not the inconsistency itself.

The issue is whether USCIS concludes it was intentional.

Step 3: Obtain Criminal Records Before USCIS Does

Do not rely on memory.

Obtain official records.

Review:

• arrests;

• citations;

• dismissals;

• expungements;

• diversions;

• probation records;

• foreign criminal matters.

Many applicants incorrectly assume that dismissed or expunged cases do not matter.

USCIS frequently expects disclosure even when a criminal case did not result in conviction.

For additional guidance, review HLG’s discussion of Good Moral Character and Naturalization.

Step 4: Evaluate Good Moral Character Before Filing

Many naturalization denials occur because applicants never performed a serious GMC analysis before filing.

USCIS examines far more than criminal convictions.

Potential issues include:

• arrests;

• tax problems;

• unpaid child support;

• fraud allegations;

• false statements;

• probation violations;

• gambling issues;

• substance abuse concerns.

The official USCIS guidance appears in Volume 12, Part F of the USCIS Policy Manual.

Applicants should understand these standards before filing—not after receiving a denial.

Step 5: Review Tax Compliance Carefully

Tax issues are frequently underestimated.

USCIS may examine:

• whether returns were filed;

• whether taxes remain unpaid;

• whether payment arrangements exist;

• whether filings were accurate;

• whether financial representations are consistent with immigration filings.

Questions involving tax compliance often arise during naturalization interviews.

Applicants with unresolved tax matters should generally address them before filing.

Step 6: Check Your Voter Registration History

This issue deserves special attention.

Many lawful permanent residents discover years later that they were registered to vote.

Common situations include:

• registration at a motor vehicle office;

• voter outreach drives;

• mistaken assumptions regarding eligibility.

Before filing Form N-400:

• verify whether you are registered;

• determine whether voting occurred;

• obtain records if necessary.

These issues can become significant because they may implicate both Good Moral Character and allegations involving false claims to citizenship.

Step 7: Review Social Media and Public Records

Modern immigration investigations increasingly incorporate publicly available information.

Applicants should ask:

• Are my public statements consistent with immigration filings?

• Are employment claims accurate?

• Are relationship representations consistent?

• Do public records contradict information previously submitted to USCIS?

This does not mean applicants should delete information.

It means applicants should understand what information exists and whether inconsistencies require explanation.

For a broader discussion, review HLG’s articles regarding digital footprints, social media screening, and immigration adjudications.

Step 8: Verify Family Information

Many immigration problems arise from incomplete family disclosures.

Review:

• current spouse;

• former spouses;

• children;

• stepchildren;

• dependents.

USCIS frequently compares current applications against prior filings.

Missing family information often attracts scrutiny because family relationships frequently affect immigration eligibility.

Step 9: Review Employment History

Employment records often become important in both naturalization and denaturalization cases.

Review:

• job titles;

• dates of employment;

• employers;

• sponsorship information;

• self-employment activities.

Particular care should be taken if immigration benefits were based on employment sponsorship.

Step 10: Review Travel History

Naturalization eligibility often depends upon:

• continuous residence;

• physical presence;

• travel patterns.

Applicants should verify:

• departure dates;

• return dates;

• extended trips abroad;

• residence patterns.

USCIS frequently compares travel records against information provided during interviews.

Step 11: Determine Whether Prior Immigration Violations Exist

Many applicants incorrectly assume older violations no longer matter.

Potential issues include:

• unauthorized employment;

• status violations;

• overstays;

• prior removal proceedings;

• misrepresentations;

• fraudulent documents.

Not every violation prevents citizenship.

But every significant issue should be analyzed before filing.

Step 12: Identify Any Potential Fraud Allegations

This step may be the most important of all.

Ask yourself:

Could the government later claim that any prior immigration benefit was obtained through:

• fraud?

• concealment?

• misrepresentation?

• false documents?

• inaccurate statements?

If the answer is potentially yes, consult counsel before filing.

Many denaturalization cases originate from allegations involving the original immigration benefit rather than the naturalization application itself.

Step 13: Prepare for Difficult Questions Before the Interview

Naturalization interviews increasingly involve detailed questioning.

Applicants should be prepared to discuss:

• prior arrests;

• travel history;

• tax issues;

• family history;

• employment history;

• immigration filings.

Preparation matters.

Readers should review HLG’s guidance on Citizenship Interview Preparation before appearing for an interview.

Step 14: Consider Filing FOIA Requests

Some applicants benefit from obtaining government records before filing.

Potential sources include:

• USCIS;

• CBP;

• ICE;

• Department of State.

FOIA requests can reveal discrepancies, missing records, and issues requiring explanation before naturalization.

Step 15: Obtain a Professional Case Review

Many citizenship problems are entirely avoidable.

An experienced immigration attorney can identify:

• Good Moral Character concerns;

• criminal issues;

• voter registration problems;

• fraud allegations;

• documentary inconsistencies.

Addressing issues before filing is usually far easier than responding to a denial, RFE, NOID, or investigation later.

The Citizenship Audit Most People Never Conduct

One of the striking themes emerging from DOJ’s denaturalization initiative is that many targeted cases allegedly involved information hidden somewhere in the person’s immigration history.

That history may span:

• decades;

• multiple applications;

• several immigration agencies;

• different countries.

Future citizens should not wait for the government to perform that review.

They should perform it themselves.

The strongest naturalization cases are rarely the cases with perfect facts.

They are the cases where applicants understand their history, disclose issues honestly, and prepare thoroughly before filing.

A Question Every Future Citizen Should Ask

Before submitting Form N-400, ask yourself:

If USCIS reviewed every immigration filing I have ever submitted, every travel record, every criminal record, every tax return, and every public statement, would the information be consistent?

If the answer is yes, you are likely well-positioned for the naturalization process.

If the answer is uncertain, now is the time to investigate—not after USCIS does.

Can a Naturalized Citizen Be Deported? What Happens After Denaturalization, Passport Revocation, Family Consequences, and Available Defenses

The Practical Consequences of Losing Citizenship—and Why Most Naturalized Americans Will Never Face This Situation

Perhaps no question generates more fear than this one:

Can a naturalized U.S. citizen be deported?

The short answer is:

Not unless citizenship is first revoked.

That distinction is critically important.

Many headlines discussing the Department of Justice’s renewed denaturalization efforts leave readers with the impression that naturalized citizens are suddenly at risk of immediate deportation.

That is not how the process works.

Under U.S. law, citizenship generally must be stripped first through a successful denaturalization action before removal proceedings can occur.

Understanding that sequence is essential for both naturalized citizens and lawful permanent residents considering naturalization.

The Three Stages of a Denaturalization Case

Most denaturalization matters proceed in three separate phases.

Phase One: Government Investigation

The process often begins when USCIS, DHS, DOJ, or another agency identifies information suggesting that citizenship may have been unlawfully obtained.

Potential triggers include:

• criminal investigations;

• immigration fraud investigations;

• national security investigations;

• audits of prior immigration files;

• information received from foreign governments;

• inconsistent statements in later immigration filings.

In recent years, agencies have increasingly relied upon digital records, database matching, and interagency information sharing.

Phase Two: Denaturalization Litigation

The government files a denaturalization action in federal court.

At this stage:

• citizenship remains intact;

• the person remains a U.S. citizen;

• the person remains entitled to constitutional protections;

• the government bears the burden of proof.

As discussed above, citizenship cannot simply be canceled by USCIS.

Federal courts play a central role.

This remains one of the most important safeguards in the denaturalization process.

Phase Three: Immigration Consequences

Only after citizenship is revoked do immigration consequences typically become possible.

The individual may then return to whatever immigration status existed before naturalization—or, in some circumstances, may be left without lawful status.

At that point, DHS may seek removal.

This is why immigration lawyers often describe denaturalization as the gateway to deportation rather than deportation itself.

What Happens Immediately After Citizenship Is Revoked?

The answer depends heavily on the individual’s immigration history.

Several different scenarios are possible.

Scenario One: Return to Lawful Permanent Resident Status

In some cases, the individual may revert to lawful permanent resident status.

This does not necessarily mean removal will occur.

However, DHS may still examine whether grounds of removability exist.

Scenario Two: No Underlying Lawful Status Exists

In other cases, the government may argue that:

• the green card was fraudulently obtained;

• lawful permanent residence never legally existed;

• immigration benefits were invalid from the beginning.

These situations often present significantly greater risk.

Scenario Three: Additional Removal Grounds Exist

Some denaturalization cases involve allegations of:

• fraud;

• criminal conduct;

• national security concerns;

• human rights violations.

In such cases, DHS may pursue removal proceedings after citizenship is revoked.

Does the Government Take Away the Passport?

Potentially yes.

If citizenship is revoked, a U.S. passport generally loses its legal foundation.

A passport is evidence of citizenship.

Once citizenship no longer exists, passport validity may be affected.

This is one reason denaturalization cases can have immediate practical consequences.

Issues may arise involving:

• international travel;

• passport renewal;

• reentry into the United States;

• consular protection abroad.

What Happens to Your Spouse?

This is one of the most frequently asked questions.

The answer depends on the facts.

Generally speaking:

Denaturalization of one person does not automatically strip immigration status from a spouse.

However, complications may arise if the spouse’s immigration benefits depended upon fraud allegedly committed by the denaturalized individual.

For example:

If the government alleges that a marriage was fraudulent from the beginning, the immigration consequences may extend beyond the principal applicant.

These situations require individualized analysis.

What Happens to Your Children?

Again, facts matter.

In many situations:

• children remain U.S. citizens;

• derivative citizenship remains valid;

• citizenship already acquired remains protected.

However, there are circumstances where a denaturalization case may raise questions concerning derivative citizenship.

Because citizenship law is highly technical, these issues should be analyzed carefully.

Can Citizenship Be Restored?

Potentially.

Several avenues may exist.

These can include:

• appeals;

• motions;

• federal court challenges;

• procedural defenses.

Whether citizenship can ultimately be restored depends on the basis for the denaturalization order and the procedural posture of the case.

Can Someone Appeal a Denaturalization Decision?

Yes.

Federal court decisions are generally subject to appellate review.

The exact procedures depend upon:

• the type of proceeding;

• the court involved;

• the issues being challenged.

Appeals often focus on:

• legal errors;

• evidentiary issues;

• materiality;

• due process concerns;

• interpretation of immigration statutes.

What Defenses Are Available?

One of the biggest misconceptions about denaturalization is that citizenship revocation is automatic once DOJ files a lawsuit.

That is simply not true.

Potential defenses may include:

Lack of Materiality

As discussed in Maslenjak v. United States, not every false statement justifies denaturalization.

The government generally must show that the alleged misrepresentation mattered.

Lack of Intent

Many cases involve disputes concerning intent.

Applicants may argue:

• misunderstanding;

• language barriers;

• translation problems;

• reliance on preparers;

• innocent mistakes.

Government Error

Sometimes government records are incomplete or inaccurate.

Immigration files spanning decades can contain errors.

Those errors may become important during litigation.

Insufficient Evidence

The government still bears the burden of proof.

Old cases often involve:

• missing witnesses;

• missing records;

• faded memories.

These realities can complicate litigation.

Constitutional and Procedural Defenses

Citizenship enjoys unique constitutional protections.

Federal courts carefully scrutinize denaturalization cases because the stakes are extraordinarily high.

Why Many Denaturalization Cases Never Reach Court

Another important reality rarely discussed in media coverage is that many investigations never result in lawsuits.

Government agencies may:

• investigate;

• review files;

• conduct interviews;

• analyze records;

and ultimately determine that no action is warranted.

This distinction is important.

An investigation is not a denaturalization order.

A lawsuit is not a judgment.

An allegation is not proof.

What Current Citizens Should Learn from DOJ’s 2026 Initiative

The Department of Justice’s June 2026 announcement has understandably generated concern.

But the broader lesson is not that citizenship has become fragile.

The broader lesson is that the government is increasingly willing to revisit citizenship grants when it believes fraud, concealment, or unlawful procurement occurred.

For most naturalized Americans, that does not create significant risk.

For individuals who knowingly concealed serious information during the immigration process, the risk may be considerably greater.

What Future Citizens Should Learn

For green card holders, these cases offer an important lesson.

Naturalization should never be viewed as merely a form-filling exercise.

It is a legal process that builds upon every immigration application that came before it.

That is why future applicants should review:

• visa applications;

• adjustment filings;

• asylum applications;

• criminal records;

• tax history;

• voter registration history;

• travel records;

• family information.

Readers considering citizenship should familiarize themselves with HLG’s resources on U.S. Citizenship and Naturalization, Good Moral Character, Removal Defense, and Citizenship Interview Preparation.

The strongest citizenship cases are not necessarily those with perfect facts.

They are the cases where applicants fully understand their history, disclose issues honestly, and prepare carefully before filing.

The Bottom Line

Can a naturalized citizen be deported?

Yes—but only after citizenship is successfully revoked.

Can the government revoke citizenship?

Yes—but only under limited circumstances and typically only after satisfying demanding legal standards in federal court.

Should most naturalized Americans be worried?

No.

The overwhelming majority obtained citizenship lawfully and honestly and face little realistic risk of denaturalization.

Should green card holders pay attention?

Absolutely.

The most important lesson from today’s denaturalization cases is not about losing citizenship.

It is about obtaining citizenship correctly in the first place.

The Future of Denaturalization in America — Where DOJ, USCIS, the Courts, and Congress May Be Heading Next

How Naturalized Citizens, Green Card Holders, and Immigration Lawyers Should Think About the Next Decade of Citizenship Enforcement

The Department of Justice’s June 2026 denaturalization announcement is important not simply because of the 17 cases that were filed.

It is important because it raises a larger question:

Is this the beginning of a major expansion of denaturalization enforcement in the United States?

For naturalized citizens, lawful permanent residents, immigration lawyers, employers, universities, and policymakers, this may be the most important question raised by the current debate.

No one can predict with certainty how aggressively future administrations will pursue denaturalization.

However, several trends are already becoming clear.

• The government is investing more resources in fraud detection.

• Immigration records are becoming increasingly digitized.

• Information-sharing between agencies continues to expand.

• Artificial intelligence and advanced analytics are making it easier to identify inconsistencies that previously might have gone unnoticed.

At the same time, federal courts continue to impose substantial constitutional and evidentiary limits on the government’s ability to revoke citizenship.

The future of denaturalization will likely be shaped by the tension between those two forces.

Trend #1: More Investigations, More File Reviews, and More Referrals

One of the clearest lessons from recent DOJ announcements is that federal agencies are devoting greater attention to reviewing historical immigration files.

This does not necessarily mean there will be mass denaturalization.

It does mean there will likely be:

• more investigations;

• more referrals to DOJ;

• more reviews of old immigration records;

• more scrutiny of fraud allegations;

• more interagency cooperation.

The June 2026 DOJ announcement follows several earlier denaturalization initiatives involving allegations of immigration fraud, criminal concealment, human rights violations, terrorism-related activity, and false identities.

The practical result is that applicants should assume historical immigration records are more accessible and more searchable than ever before.

Trend #2: Technology Is Changing Immigration Enforcement

A naturalization application filed twenty years ago might have been reviewed largely through paper files.

Today, immigration agencies increasingly operate in a digital environment.

Government investigators can compare:

• visa applications;

• adjustment filings;

• asylum applications;

• travel records;

• criminal databases;

• public records;

• social media activity;

• employment information.

As discussed in HLG’s articles addressing digital footprints and immigration adjudications, technology is transforming the way immigration agencies evaluate credibility and consistency.

The central issue remains the same:

Does the information submitted today match the information submitted years ago?

But the ability to answer that question has changed dramatically.

Trend #3: Artificial Intelligence Will Increase Detection, But Also Increase Errors

Many immigration lawyers expect AI-assisted review systems to become increasingly common.

Potential uses include:

• identifying inconsistent addresses;

• comparing travel histories;

• flagging conflicting statements;

• detecting identity discrepancies;

• highlighting potential fraud indicators.

This creates opportunities and risks.

The opportunity is greater efficiency.

The risk is that automated systems may misunderstand context, miss explanations, or incorrectly flag legitimate cases.

Immigration lawyers are likely to spend increasing amounts of time correcting false assumptions generated by automated review systems.

For that reason, documentation, consistency, and careful preparation will become even more important.

Trend #4: Federal Courts Will Continue to Act as a Check on Government Power

The government’s ability to investigate citizenship grants may be expanding.

But so are the legal protections available to citizens.

Federal courts have historically viewed citizenship as one of the most valuable rights recognized under American law.

Supreme Court decisions such as Schneiderman v. United States, Afroyim v. Rusk, and Maslenjak v. United States demonstrate a consistent theme:

Citizenship should not be taken away lightly.

Courts generally require strong evidence before citizenship can be revoked.

This is unlikely to change.

Regardless of political administration, federal judges will continue to play a central role in determining the limits of denaturalization authority.

Trend #5: Fraud Cases Will Remain the Government’s Strongest Cases

Despite political rhetoric from both sides, most successful denaturalization cases are likely to continue involving allegations such as:

• identity fraud;

• marriage fraud;

• asylum fraud;

• human rights violations;

• concealed criminal histories;

• false statements;

• fraudulent immigration documents.

These are the cases that tend to present the strongest factual and legal foundations.

By contrast, attempts to expand denaturalization beyond traditional fraud-based theories may face significantly greater judicial scrutiny.

What Immigration Lawyers Are Seeing in 2026

Across the country, immigration lawyers are reporting several common themes.

First, naturalization interviews appear increasingly detailed.

Second, officers are paying greater attention to prior filings.

Third, inconsistencies that once may have been overlooked are receiving closer review.

Fourth, applicants with criminal history, voter registration issues, tax concerns, or prior immigration violations are encountering more questions than in previous years.

At the same time, most routine naturalization applications continue to be approved.

This distinction is important.

The immigration system is experiencing heightened scrutiny.

It is not experiencing mass denaturalization.

Will Congress Change the Law?

Congress could theoretically modify aspects of denaturalization law.

However, major legislative changes appear unlikely in the near term.

Citizenship revocation remains politically sensitive.

Any proposal to significantly expand denaturalization authority would likely face substantial legal and political opposition.

As a result, the most significant developments are likely to come from:

• DOJ enforcement priorities;

• USCIS policy changes;

• federal court decisions;

• technological developments.

Should Naturalized Citizens Be Concerned About the Future?

For most naturalized citizens, the answer remains no.

Individuals who:

• immigrated lawfully;

• disclosed required information;

• complied with immigration laws;

• answered questions honestly;

• obtained citizenship legitimately;

remain at extremely low risk.

The vast majority of naturalized Americans fall into this category.

The recent DOJ initiatives are directed primarily at cases involving allegations of fraud, concealment, and unlawful procurement of citizenship.

That distinction should not be overlooked.

Should Green Card Holders Still Pursue Citizenship?

Absolutely.

In fact, the current environment may strengthen the argument for naturalization.

Citizenship continues to provide protections unavailable to lawful permanent residents.

These include:

• protection from most removal grounds;

• voting rights;

• broader travel protections;

• eligibility for additional federal benefits;

• the ability to petition for family members more effectively;

• greater security during periods of immigration policy change.

The lesson of recent denaturalization cases is not:

“Avoid citizenship.”

The lesson is:

“Prepare carefully and obtain citizenship the right way.”

Richard Herman’s Perspective

For more than three decades, one lesson has remained remarkably consistent.

Immigration problems rarely arise because a person made a mistake.

They usually arise because the mistake was never addressed.

The strongest naturalization applicants are not necessarily those with perfect histories.

They are the applicants who:

• understand their history;

• disclose issues honestly;

• gather documentation;

• seek legal guidance when needed;

• prepare thoroughly before filing.

That approach remains the best protection against both naturalization problems today and denaturalization concerns tomorrow.

The Bottom Line

The future of denaturalization is likely to involve:

• more investigations;

• more sophisticated technology;

• more historical file reviews;

• more fraud detection efforts;

• continued judicial oversight.

At the same time, citizenship remains one of the most protected legal statuses in the American legal system.

Federal courts continue to impose substantial limits on the government’s ability to revoke citizenship.

For most naturalized Americans, that should provide reassurance.

For future citizens, it should provide motivation to ensure that every immigration filing is accurate, complete, and truthful.

The best defense against denaturalization has not changed:

• Obtain immigration benefits honestly.

• Maintain accurate records.

• Disclose issues when required.

• And prepare carefully before filing for citizenship.

Frequently Asked Questions About Denaturalization, Citizenship Revocation, Good Moral Character, and Naturalization in 2026

This section answers the questions immigration lawyers, naturalized citizens, green card holders, employers, families, and future citizens are asking most often following the Department of Justice’s recent denaturalization initiatives.

---

Can a Naturalized U.S. Citizen Lose Citizenship?

Yes.

A naturalized citizen may lose citizenship through a legal process called denaturalization if the government proves that citizenship was illegally procured or obtained through concealment of material facts or willful misrepresentation.

Denaturalization generally requires court proceedings and significant evidence.

The Department of Justice’s June 2026 announcement involving 17 denaturalization lawsuits reflects the government’s renewed focus on these cases, particularly where fraud or concealment is alleged.

Read the DOJ announcement: Justice Department Moves to Strip U.S. Citizenship from 17 Naturalized Sex Offenders, Fraudsters, and Drug Traffickers.

---

Can Someone Born a U.S. Citizen Be Denaturalized?

No.

Denaturalization applies only to individuals who became U.S. citizens through naturalization.

People who acquired citizenship by birth generally cannot be denaturalized.

---

Can a Naturalized Citizen Be Deported?

Not unless citizenship is first revoked.

Generally, the sequence is:

1. Denaturalization lawsuit;

2. Citizenship revoked;

3. Immigration status re-evaluated;

4. Possible removal proceedings.

Citizenship must usually be stripped before deportation becomes possible.

---

Does Committing a Crime After Naturalization Automatically Cause Loss of Citizenship?

No.

This is one of the most common misconceptions.

A criminal conviction occurring after naturalization does not automatically result in denaturalization.

Instead, the government usually must prove that:

• citizenship was unlawfully obtained;

• material information was concealed;

• fraud occurred during the immigration process;

• the applicant was ineligible when citizenship was granted.

---

What Is the Most Common Basis for Denaturalization?

Historically, the most common allegations involve:

• immigration fraud;

• concealment of criminal history;

• identity fraud;

• marriage fraud;

• asylum fraud;

• false statements made during immigration proceedings.

The central question is often:

Would USCIS have granted citizenship if it had known the truth?

---

What Is Illegal Procurement of Citizenship?

Illegal procurement means the applicant was never legally eligible for citizenship.

Examples may include:

• failure to meet residence requirements;

• lack of lawful permanent residence;

• inability to establish Good Moral Character;

• statutory ineligibility.

---

What Is a Material Misrepresentation?

A material misrepresentation is a false statement or omission that could influence the government’s decision.

The Supreme Court addressed this issue in Maslenjak v. United States, holding that not every false statement justifies denaturalization.

Generally, the government must show that the alleged misrepresentation mattered.

---

What Is Good Moral Character?

Good Moral Character (GMC) is a legal requirement for naturalization.

USCIS evaluates factors such as:

• honesty;

• criminal history;

• tax compliance;

• family obligations;

• compliance with court orders;

• overall conduct.

Learn more in HLG’s guide to Good Moral Character and Naturalization and the USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 12, Part F.

---

Can USCIS Look Beyond the Five-Year Good Moral Character Period?

Yes.

Although the statutory period is often five years (or three years for some spouses of U.S. citizens), USCIS may consider earlier conduct when evaluating character, credibility, and eligibility.

Many applicants mistakenly believe older issues automatically disappear.

They often do not.

---

Can Tax Problems Affect Citizenship?

Yes.

USCIS may review:

• tax filing compliance;

• unpaid tax obligations;

• payment plans;

• financial representations.

Failure to file taxes or unresolved tax issues may create Good Moral Character concerns.

---

Can Child Support Problems Affect Naturalization?

Potentially.

USCIS may consider whether an applicant has complied with legal obligations involving:

• child support;

• court orders;

• family responsibilities.

Failure to satisfy these obligations may affect Good Moral Character determinations.

---

Can a Dismissed Criminal Case Affect Naturalization?

Potentially.

Even when charges are dismissed, USCIS may review:

• arrest records;

• police reports;

• underlying conduct;

• admissions made by the applicant.

Dismissal does not necessarily mean USCIS ignores the event.

---

Can Expunged Records Affect Citizenship?

Yes.

Immigration law frequently treats expunged records differently than criminal law.

Applicants should obtain records and review them before filing Form N-400.

---

What If I Forgot to Mention an Arrest Years Ago?

The answer depends on the facts.

Factors may include:

• whether the omission was intentional;

• whether the arrest was material;

• whether USCIS was otherwise aware of it;

• whether the omission affected eligibility.

Anyone concerned about prior omissions should consult counsel before filing a new immigration application.

---

Can Marriage Fraud Lead to Denaturalization?

Yes.

If the government proves that a green card was obtained through a fraudulent marriage, citizenship granted later may be vulnerable.

This remains one of the most common allegations in immigration fraud investigations.

For related information, review HLG’s guide to Marriage Green Cards.

---

Can Asylum Fraud Lead to Denaturalization?

Yes.

If asylum served as the foundation for permanent residence and eventual citizenship, fraud allegations affecting the asylum case may affect every benefit that followed.

---

Can False Claims to U.S. Citizenship Cause Problems?

Absolutely.

False claims to U.S. citizenship remain among the most serious immigration violations.

Examples may include:

• claiming citizenship on employment forms;

• claiming citizenship to obtain benefits;

• claiming citizenship to vote.

These cases often require careful legal analysis.

---

Can Voting Affect Citizenship?

Potentially.

Issues involving:

• voter registration;

• unlawful voting;

• false claims to citizenship;

may affect naturalization eligibility and, in some circumstances, create future complications.

Applicants should review voter registration records before filing Form N-400.

---

Can USCIS Use Social Media Against Me?

USCIS and other government agencies may review publicly available information.

Social media content may be compared against:

• immigration filings;

• employment claims;

• residence history;

• family relationships;

• travel history.

Consistency remains important.

For more discussion, see HLG’s articles regarding digital footprints and immigration screening.

---

Can USCIS Reopen Old Cases After Citizenship Is Granted?

In some circumstances, yes.

That possibility is one reason recent DOJ denaturalization initiatives have attracted so much attention.

However, reopening a case and successfully revoking citizenship are very different things.

The government still faces significant legal burdens.

---

Is There a Time Limit on Denaturalization?

In many situations, no.

Denaturalization actions may be brought many years after citizenship was granted.

This is why accuracy during the original immigration process remains so important.

---

How Common Is Denaturalization?

Denaturalization remains relatively rare compared with the millions of naturalization applications approved over the years.

The overwhelming majority of naturalized citizens will never face denaturalization proceedings.

---

Should Naturalized Citizens Be Worried About the DOJ’s New Initiative?

For most people, no.

Individuals who:

• immigrated lawfully;

• disclosed required information;

• complied with immigration laws;

• answered USCIS questions honestly;

typically face very little realistic risk.

The DOJ’s recent initiatives primarily target cases involving allegations of fraud, concealment, or unlawful procurement.

---

Should Green Card Holders Still Apply for Citizenship?

Absolutely.

Citizenship remains one of the most valuable protections available under U.S. immigration law.

Benefits include:

• voting rights;

• protection from most removal grounds;

• broader travel protections;

• ability to sponsor family members;

• eligibility for certain federal opportunities.

The lesson from recent denaturalization cases is not to avoid citizenship.

The lesson is to prepare carefully before applying.

Applicants should review HLG’s resources on U.S. Citizenship and Naturalization, Good Moral Character, Citizenship Interview Preparation, and Removal Defense.

What Is the Most Important Takeaway from the DOJ’s 2026 Denaturalization Initiative?

The most important lesson is simple:

Citizenship obtained honestly remains extraordinarily secure.

The government’s renewed focus on denaturalization is primarily directed toward cases involving alleged fraud, concealment, false identities, serious criminal conduct, and unlawful procurement of immigration benefits.

For future citizens, the best protection is preparation.

Review your immigration history.

Disclose issues honestly.

Address concerns before filing Form N-400.

And seek experienced legal guidance when necessary.

Need Help Protecting Your Path to U.S. Citizenship?

Whether you are:

• preparing to file Form N-400;

• concerned about Good Moral Character issues;

• worried about prior immigration filings;

• facing criminal history concerns;

• dealing with voter registration problems;

• responding to USCIS questions;

• confronting allegations of fraud or misrepresentation;

the immigration attorneys at Herman Legal Group can help you evaluate risks, identify solutions, and build the strongest possible citizenship case.

For more than 30 years, Richard Herman and the Herman Legal Group team have helped immigrants, families, professionals, students, business owners, and lawful permanent residents navigate the naturalization process and protect their future in the United States.

Learn more about HLG’s citizenship services at U.S. Citizenship and Naturalization or schedule a consultation to discuss your specific circumstances. Call 18008084013 or schedule your consultation online.

Resource Center: Denaturalization, Citizenship Revocation, Naturalization, Good Moral Character, and Citizenship Security

One of the goals of this guide is to create a comprehensive resource that helps immigrants, naturalized citizens, lawful permanent residents, employers, journalists, students, academics, and policymakers understand both the law and the practical realities surrounding denaturalization.

The following resources provide authoritative information regarding citizenship, denaturalization, good moral character, immigration fraud, and naturalization eligibility.

---

Official Government Resources

Department of Justice

DOJ’s June 2026 Denaturalization Announcement:

Justice Department Moves to Strip U.S. Citizenship from 17 Naturalized Sex Offenders, Fraudsters, and Drug Traffickers

Earlier DOJ Denaturalization Initiative:

Justice Department Moves to Denaturalize Individuals Accused of Concealing Terrorist Support, War Crimes, Sexual Abuse, and Espionage

Department of Justice:

U.S. Department of Justice

---

USCIS Citizenship and Naturalization Resources

USCIS Policy Manual:

USCIS Policy Manual Volume 12 – Citizenship and Naturalization

Good Moral Character Guidance:

USCIS Policy Manual Volume 12, Part F – Good Moral Character

Naturalization Eligibility:

Naturalization Eligibility Requirements

Form N-400:

Application for Naturalization (Form N-400)

Naturalization Test Resources:

Prepare for the Naturalization Test

Freedom of Information Act Requests:

USCIS FOIA Requests

---

Landmark Court Decisions

Maslenjak v. United States (2017)

Perhaps the most important modern denaturalization decision.

The Supreme Court held that not every false statement justifies denaturalization. The government generally must show that the alleged misrepresentation was material to citizenship eligibility.

Maslenjak v. United States

---

Schneiderman v. United States (1943)

One of the foundational Supreme Court decisions emphasizing the importance of citizenship and the heavy burden required before citizenship can be revoked.

Schneiderman v. United States

---

Afroyim v. Rusk (1967)

A landmark citizenship case recognizing constitutional protections against involuntary loss of citizenship.

Afroyim v. Rusk

---

Major Media Coverage

CBS News:

Trump Administration Expands Denaturalization Efforts Against Naturalized Citizens

TIME:

What Trump’s New Denaturalization Push Could Mean for Naturalized Americans

Additional national reporting often appears in:

• The New York Times

• Washington Post

• NPR

• Reuters

• Associated Press

Because denaturalization remains an evolving issue, readers should monitor continuing coverage and litigation developments.

Herman Legal Group Resources

These articles and practice resources are particularly relevant in light of the DOJ’s recent denaturalization initiatives and USCIS’s increased focus on holistic Good Moral Character review. (Herman Legal Group LLC)

---

Citizenship and Naturalization

Citizenship and Naturalization Lawyer

Comprehensive overview of naturalization eligibility, N-400 filing requirements, continuous residence, physical presence, English and civics testing, Good Moral Character, citizenship interviews, appeals, and citizenship-related legal representation. (Herman Legal Group LLC)

---

U.S. Citizenship Requirements and Eligibility

U.S. Citizenship Requirements & Eligibility

Detailed discussion of:

• eligibility requirements;

• continuous residence;

• physical presence;

• Good Moral Character;

• English language requirements;

• civics testing;

• military-related citizenship provisions;

• special naturalization categories. (Herman Legal Group LLC)

---

New Good Moral Character Requirements Under USCIS Policy

New Good Moral Character Requirements for U.S. Citizenship: Proving You Are an “Average Citizen” Under the New USCIS Policy and the Affirmative Case for Naturalization

One of the most important HLG articles for understanding the post-2025 naturalization landscape.

Topics include:

• USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0188;

• holistic review;

• totality of the circumstances analysis;

• affirmative evidence of character;

• community involvement;

• civic responsibility;

• positive contributions;

• documentation strategies for naturalization applicants. (Herman Legal Group LLC)

Family and Community Ties as Evidence of Good Moral Character

Documenting Good Moral Character, Family and Social Ties

Explains how:

• community involvement;

• family relationships;

• social ties;

• reputation;

• civic engagement

can help establish Good Moral Character in immigration proceedings. (Herman Legal Group LLC)

---

Citizenship with DUI or Criminal History

Citizenship Eligibility with DUI: A Comprehensive Naturalization Guide

Discusses:

• DUI-related concerns;

• crimes involving moral turpitude;

• Good Moral Character analysis;

• rehabilitation evidence;

• naturalization risks;

• USCIS discretionary review. (Herman Legal Group LLC)

---

Complex Naturalization Cases Involving Criminal History

Finding the Best Attorney for Naturalization Cases with Criminal History Complications

Addresses:

• older convictions;

• arrests;

• criminal record analysis;

• N-400 strategy;

• Good Moral Character concerns;

• removal risks associated with citizenship filings. (Herman Legal Group LLC)

---

Citizenship Representation and Interview Preparation

Citizenship Lawyer: Complete Guide to Hiring the Right Immigration Attorney for Naturalization

Discusses:

• citizenship denials;

• Good Moral Character challenges;

• naturalization interviews;

• appeals;

• removal concerns triggered by N-400 filings;

• strategic preparation for difficult citizenship cases. (Herman Legal Group LLC)

---

Because many denaturalization cases begin with allegations involving the original immigration benefit, the following HLG resources may also be relevant.

Marriage-Based Immigration

Marriage Green Card Guide

Important because marriage fraud remains one of the most common allegations in denaturalization litigation.

---

Adjustment of Status

Adjustment of Status Guide

Provides background regarding the green card process that often forms the foundation for later citizenship eligibility.

Recommended Reading Order

For maximum educational value, readers should review the HLG materials in this order:

1. Citizenship and Naturalization Lawyer

2. U.S. Citizenship Requirements & Eligibility

3. New Good Moral Character Requirements for U.S. Citizenship

4. Documenting Good Moral Character, Family and Social Ties

5. Citizenship Eligibility with DUI

6. Naturalization Cases with Criminal History Complications

7. Citizenship Lawyer Guide

Together, these resources create a strong internal content cluster around naturalization, Good Moral Character, citizenship eligibility, criminal history, citizenship preparation, and denaturalization risk. (Herman Legal Group LLC)

 

Which Immigration Law Firms Are Recommended for Green Card Applications in My Area

Introduction

Recommended immigration law firms for green card applications in your area are firms with deep immigration law experience, strong client reviews, multilingual support, clear fees, and a proven record handling family-based, employment-based, and humanitarian green card cases. If you are in Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, or elsewhere in Ohio, firms commonly worth evaluating include Herman Legal Group, Brown Immigration Law, Sarmiento Immigration Law Firm, Latif Law, Porter Law Office LLC, Tanya M. Linetsky & Associates LLC, and the Law Office of Varun Luthra.

This guide explains how to identify a reputable immigration law firm, what criteria matter most, and what to expect from top-rated immigration attorneys during the green card application process. It is written for individuals, spouses, parents, adult children, employers, skilled workers, crime victims, and families who want professional legal representation rather than self-filing through a complex immigration system.

The right immigration lawyer can help prevent costly delays, Requests for Evidence, denials, and legal status problems by preparing the correct forms, organizing evidence, and guiding you through USCIS requirements. A strong immigration attorney can also identify immigration issues early, including prior overstays, a criminal record, inadmissibility concerns, removal proceedings, or visa bulletin delays.

By the end, you will know how to:

• Evaluate an immigration law office based on experience, credentials, reviews, and green card specialization.
• Match your immigration case to the right type of law firm.
• Ask focused questions during an immigration consultation.
• Recognize red flags such as notario fraud, unrealistic guarantees, and unclear fees.
• Choose an experienced immigration attorney who can guide you through the whole process.

Understanding What Makes an Immigration Law Firm Recommended for Green Card Applications

A recommended immigration law firm is not simply the firm with the largest advertisement or the most general legal services. In the green card context, “recommended” means the firm has a proven track record, positive client testimonials, active bar association standing, and a focused immigration law practice.

Green card cases are governed by us immigration law and federal law, and they often involve multiple agencies, including United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the Department of Labor, the National Visa Center, and U.S. consulates abroad. The immigration process may include an immigrant petition, adjustment of status, consular processing, a family based visa, labor certification, an immigrant visa interview, or a waiver request.

General practice lawyers may be helpful for some legal matters, but they are often not ideal for complex immigration matters. Immigration policies, USCIS procedures, visa bulletin movement, public charge rules, and evidentiary expectations change frequently. An experienced immigration lawyer who handles green card cases every day is more likely to understand how USCIS officers review evidence, how local USCIS offices operate, and how to protect a client’s immigration status during the entire process.

Experience and Specialization

A strong green card law firm should usually have at least 10 to 15 years of focused immigration law experience, or a legal team with comparable combined experience. The most reliable firms do not merely “also handle immigration”; they represent clients in immigration cases as a central part of their practice.

High case volume matters because green card applications are document-heavy and category-specific. A firm that regularly handles family based immigration, employment-based permanent residency, investor visas, u visa adjustments, or humanitarian immigration services will usually recognize problems earlier than a general practitioner.

Specialization is especially important because every green card category has different rules. A marriage-based case for immediate relatives of a United States citizen is different from an EB-2 case for skilled workers, an EB-3 labor certification case, a VAWA case, or an adjustment of status after asylum. The best immigration lawyer for one applicant may not be the right immigration lawyer for another applicant.VAWA petitions ensure confidentiality for abuse survivors. U visa holders can apply for a green card after three years.

Success Rates and Client Outcomes

A reputable immigration attorney should be able to discuss general success rate information, common case outcomes, and the types of green card matters the firm handles most often. No ethical attorney can guarantee approval, but an experienced immigration attorney can explain how similar cases have been resolved and what risks may affect your case.

Client testimonials and case studies are useful because they show how the firm communicates, organizes evidence, and responds when complications arise. Look for reviews that mention responsiveness, clear explanations, strong preparation, language access, and successful handling of Requests for Evidence.

Local experience can also matter. A firm familiar with Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, or other Ohio USCIS offices may understand common interview patterns, local scheduling realities, and documentation issues that arise for families in the region. For example, Ohio applicants often compare firms such as Herman Legal Group, Brown Immigration Law, Sarmiento Immigration Law Firm, Latif Law, Porter Law Office LLC, Tanya M. Linetsky & Associates LLC, and the Law Office of Varun Luthra based on case type, communication style, and language capabilities.

Professional Credentials and Standing

Before hiring any immigration lawyer, confirm that the attorney is licensed to practice law and is in good standing with the relevant state bar. Active bar membership matters because only licensed attorneys can provide legal advice, represent clients before immigration agencies, and take responsibility for legal strategy.

Membership in the American Immigration Lawyers Association, commonly known as AILA, is another useful signal. AILA membership does not guarantee quality, but it often shows that an immigration attorney is engaged with continuing education, policy updates, and professional immigration law standards.

Recommended firms also invest in ongoing training. Green card law changes through agency policy updates, court decisions, USCIS form revisions, and shifting immigration policies. A reliable immigration law firm should stay current on public charge rules, visa bulletin retrogression, country-specific processing disruptions, and changes affecting family preference categories, work visas, investment visas, and humanitarian immigration options.

Types of Green Card Cases and Specialized Firms

Different immigration law firms excel in different types of green card cases. The right law office for a marriage-based green card may not be the right fit for a multinational employer, an EB-1 applicant, a person in removal proceedings, or a vulnerable applicant seeking protection after helping law enforcement.

Before choosing a firm, identify the legal basis for your green card. Are you applying through a family member, an employer, asylum, VAWA, a u visa, investment, or another immigration benefit? Your answer should guide the type of immigration services you seek.

Family-Based Green Card Specialists

Family-based green card specialists help United States citizens and lawful permanent residents, often called green card holders, sponsor eligible family relationships. These cases may involve spouses, parents, unmarried children, married children, siblings, immediate relatives, and family preference categories. Immediate relatives have no yearly visa caps for green cards. It takes an average of 1–3 years to obtain a green card.

Family-based cases can become more complex when a sponsor or applicant has prior violations, unlawful presence, or criminal issues that may affect legal immigration status.

Firms such as Herman Legal Group are often considered for family based immigration services because they handle family reunification, Form I-130 immigrant petition filings, adjustment of status, and consular processing. Other Ohio firms commonly evaluated for family green card matters include Brown Immigration Law, Latif Law, Porter Law Office LLC, and Sarmiento Immigration Law Firm.

Family cases require careful relationship documentation. A marriage case may need joint financial records, lease documents, photos, affidavits, and proof of shared life. A parent or child case may require birth certificates, translations, adoption records, or proof of legal custody. A good immigration lawyer can help you avoid weak evidence, inconsistent forms, and preventable delays in the green card process.

Employment-Based Immigration Firms

Employment-based immigration firms focus on green card paths connected to jobs, professional qualifications, labor market testing, or business needs. These cases may include H-1B to green card transitions, PERM labor certification, EB-1, EB-2, EB-3, national interest waivers, and corporate immigration planning.

Large national firms such as Fragomen, BAL, and Greenberg Traurig are often known for high-volume employment-based immigration matters, especially for employers with large workforces or global mobility needs. Regional and boutique firms may also be suitable when the applicant needs personalized attention, a smaller legal team, or help choosing the right visa and permanent residency strategy.

Employment-based cases can be technically demanding. The firm must understand job descriptions, prevailing wage rules, recruitment requirements, priority dates, the visa bulletin, and how a worker’s current immigration status affects the path to becoming a lawful permanent resident. For skilled workers, professionals, and employers, the right immigration attorney should be able to explain both the visa process and the green card application process.

Humanitarian and Special Cases

Some green card cases require specialized humanitarian knowledge. These may include VAWA self-petitions, asylum-based adjustment of status, u visa cases for crime victims, T visa matters, special immigrant juvenile cases, waivers, and cases involving deportation defense.

Pursuing green card status in immigration court is highly specialized. There are over 4 million cases pending at immigration court and Board of immigration appeals. For example, Las Vegas Immigration Court handles thousands of deportation cases yearly. Deportation defense may involve cancellation of removal or asylum or adjustment of status. Local court schedules can affect deportation proceedings in each state.

These applicants may need trauma-informed legal representation, confidentiality, safety planning, and careful communication. A firm handling vulnerable populations should understand how to protect sensitive facts while still preparing a complete immigration case. Understanding federal and state laws is crucial for deportation defense where issues of state and federal law intersect.

Special cases also often overlap with serious immigration issues. A person may have a criminal record, prior unlawful presence, removal proceedings, or fear of returning to another country. In these situations, an experienced immigration lawyer should evaluate eligibility, inadmissibility risks, waiver options, and whether pursuing a green card now could create unexpected harm.

How to Research and Evaluate Immigration Law Firms in Your Area

The best way to find a recommended immigration law firm is to use a structured research process rather than relying on one advertisement or one review. Start broad, narrow your list, then schedule consultations with two or three firms before deciding.

Your goal is to find a firm that understands your specific immigration needs, explains your immigration options clearly, and has experience with your type of green card case. A good fit should combine technical knowledge, responsive communication, transparent fees, and realistic guidance.

Once the green card is obtained, you can pursue naturalization. You must be a lawful permanent resident for five years (or three years if married to US citizen). Naturalization requires passing a citizenship test and interview. You must show knowledge of U.S. history and government. Applicants must demonstrate good moral character during the process. Naturalization ceremonies are conducted by USCIS offices.

Initial Research Methods

Start with the AILA lawyer referral directory to identify local immigration attorneys who focus on immigration law. Then check the state bar association website to confirm that each immigration attorney is licensed and has no serious disciplinary history.

Next, review Google Business profiles, legal directory listings, and client reviews. Look beyond star ratings. Strong reviews should mention specific strengths such as clear communication, organized filings, support for Spanish speaking clients, multilingual staff, careful document preparation, and practical help through the entire process.

You can also ask for referrals from community organizations, local immigrant support groups, religious institutions, employers, and previous clients. These sources may help you identify firms that are respected in your area but less visible in online advertising.

Consultation and Evaluation Process

Schedule consultations with two or three firms so you can compare strategy, fees, and communication style. Some firms offer a free case evaluation, while others charge for a detailed immigration consultation. Either approach can be appropriate if the firm is transparent about what the consultation includes.

Before the meeting, prepare a timeline of your immigration journey, including entries to the United States, prior visa status, work authorization, family relationships, arrests, immigration filings, and any previous denials. Bring notices, passports, I-94 records, marriage certificates, birth certificates, divorce records, and court records if relevant.

During the consultation, evaluate whether the attorney listens carefully and explains the whole process in plain language. The right immigration lawyer should identify potential challenges, discuss timelines, explain fees, and describe how the legal team will communicate with you after you hire the firm.

Key Questions to Ask During Consultations

Use the consultation to test the firm’s experience with your case type, not just its general reputation. The following questions can help you compare immigration services more objectively.

Consultation Topic	Questions to Ask	Why It Matters
Case experience	How many green card cases like mine have you handled in the last one to two years?	A family based immigration case, employment case, u visa case, or investor case may require different expertise.
Strategy	What immigration options do I have, and which path do you recommend?	A good immigration attorney should explain the right visa or green card route based on your facts.
Timeline	What timeline should I expect for the immigrant petition, adjustment of status, consular processing, or National Visa Center stage?	Timelines depend on USCIS processing, visa bulletin movement, and local USCIS offices.
Risks	What could cause a Request for Evidence, denial, delay, or removal proceedings risk?	Ethical attorneys explain weaknesses instead of promising guaranteed approval.
Fees	What is included in the attorney fee, and what costs are separate?	Filing fees, medical exams, translations, courier costs, and payment plans should be clear.
Communication	Will I communicate with the immigration attorney, paralegal, or both? How often will I receive updates?	Good communication helps applicants avoid missed deadlines and confusion.
Language access	Do you serve Spanish speaking clients or offer support in my preferred language?	Language access can improve accuracy, comfort, and document preparation.

After each consultation, compare the firm’s answers, not just the price. The lowest fee is not always the best value if the firm lacks specialization, responsiveness, or experience with your immigration issues.

Common Red Flags and How to Avoid Unreliable Firms

Choosing the wrong representative can damage your green card process. Poor advice may lead to missed deadlines, incorrect forms, weak evidence, unnecessary denials, or even loss of legal status.

Reliable immigration attorneys are clear about risk, honest about processing times, and careful with documentation. Unreliable providers often use pressure tactics, vague promises, or confusing fee arrangements.

Unrealistic Guarantees or Promises

Avoid any law firm, immigration consultants, or notarios that guarantee a green card, promise approval, or claim they can get unusually fast processing without a lawful basis. No attorney can control USCIS officers, consular officers, visa bulletin delays, or federal law.

An ethical immigration lawyer will explain what is strong about your case and what could go wrong. For example, the attorney may discuss missing documents, prior overstays, a criminal record, public charge concerns, relationship evidence, labor certification issues, or past immigration status violations.

Fast answers are not always good answers. A careful attorney may need to review records before confirming eligibility for adjustment of status, consular processing, a waiver, or another immigration benefit.

Poor Communication and Transparency

Poor communication is a major warning sign. Be cautious if a firm does not return calls, avoids written explanations, gives unclear fee estimates, or refuses to identify who will handle your immigration case.

A reputable immigration law firm should provide a written engagement agreement. The agreement should explain the scope of representation, attorney fees, government filing fees, translation costs, payment terms, and what happens if the case receives a Request for Evidence or denial.

Transparency also includes realistic updates. You should know when forms are filed, what receipts are received, what deadlines apply, and what documents are still needed. A firm that cannot explain its process before you hire it may not guide you well after you pay.

Unlicensed Practice and Notario Fraud

Only licensed attorneys and properly accredited representatives can provide legal advice on immigration matters. Immigration consultants, document preparers, and notarios may offer form help, but they cannot practice law unless they are legally authorized.

Notario fraud is especially dangerous because the term “notario” may imply legal authority in some countries, but in the United States it does not mean the person is an attorney. Warning signs include guaranteed results, cash-only payments, no written contract, refusal to provide copies, or advice to submit false information.

Before signing anything, confirm the person’s license, bar status, and authority to represent clients. If your case involves removal proceedings, inadmissibility, a criminal record, or complicated family history, you should speak with an experienced immigration attorney rather than an unlicensed provider.

Conclusion and Next Steps

For green card applications in your area, recommended firms are those with focused immigration law experience, strong client outcomes, transparent fees, and the ability to handle your specific case type. In Ohio, many applicants compare Herman Legal Group, Brown Immigration Law, Sarmiento Immigration Law Firm, Latif Law, Porter Law Office LLC, Tanya M. Linetsky & Associates LLC, and the Law Office of Varun Luthra, while employment-based applicants may also consider larger national firms for complex corporate, PERM, EB-1, EB-2, EB-3, or investor visas.

Your next steps should be practical:

1. Identify your green card category: family member, employment, humanitarian, investment, or another path.
2. Research local firms through AILA, state bar records, reviews, and community referrals.
3. Schedule consultations with two or three immigration attorneys.
4. Prepare your immigration history, civil documents, prior filings, and questions.
5. Compare experience, communication, fees, language support, and strategy before signing an agreement.

Related topics worth reviewing include green card timelines, preparing for USCIS interviews, maintaining immigration status while a case is pending, responding to Requests for Evidence, and deciding between adjustment of status and consular processing. The right legal team can help you move through the green card application process with fewer surprises and a clearer path toward becoming a permanent resident.

 

 

What Are Best Law Firms to Contact If I Need an Immigration Lawyer Near Me

Introduction

The best immigration law firms to contact are firms with extensive experience in your exact immigration matter, active American Immigration Lawyers Association membership, attorneys in good standing, transparent fees, strong client communication, and a proven record with cases like yours. For many people, that shortlist may include established immigration practices such as Herman Legal Group, large national firms for complex employment based immigration matters, and reputable local specialists who know nearby immigration courts, USCIS offices, and regional procedures.

This guide explains how to evaluate an immigration law firm, how to research immigration lawyers near you, what to ask during an initial consultation, and how to compare legal services before hiring an attorney. It does not provide legal advice about your specific case or guarantee any immigration outcome. It is designed for individuals, families, employers, immigrants facing removal proceedings, people with criminal record concerns, businesses hiring foreign talent, and anyone trying to protect or improve legal status in the United States.

Choosing the right law firm matters because immigration law can affect your family, work, citizenship, security, and future. A strong experienced immigration lawyer can help you understand immigration options, prepare evidence, avoid avoidable delays, respond to government concerns, and navigate the entire process with more confidence.

By the end, you will know how to:

• Identify the best immigration lawyer or firm for your type of immigration case.
• Compare immigration attorneys using experience, cost, location, and professionalism.
• Spot red flags such as unrealistic promises, unclear fees, or unlicensed immigration consultants.
• Prepare all the questions and documents needed for a useful consultation.
• Decide which law firm offers the right balance of legal representation, value, and service.

Understanding Quality Immigration Law Firms

A quality immigration law firm is not simply the office that appears first when you search “immigration lawyer near me.” The right firm combines immigration law specialization, reliable legal judgment, strong case management, clear communication, and ethical practice. Immigration and nationality law is federal, but it often intersects with local court procedures, criminal charges, family law records, employment rules, and consular processing abroad.

Specialization matters because immigration issues are rarely one-size-fits-all. A general practice attorney may be able to complete basic forms, but a dedicated immigration legal team is more likely to understand changing policies, visa strategy, humanitarian relief, green card applications, removal proceedings, waivers, family immigration, and employment categories such as national interest waivers. The best law firm for a marriage green card may not be the best firm for federal litigation, deportation defense, or corporate immigration compliance.

Large national firms such as Fragomen or Greenberg Traurig may be well suited for businesses, high-volume employment immigration, and complex multi-jurisdiction matters. Boutique and local immigration attorneys may be better for family based cases, asylum, court defense, crime victims seeking humanitarian relief, or clients who need close communication in both English and another language.

Essential Firm Characteristics

The American Immigration Lawyers Association is one of the most useful credibility markers when reviewing immigration lawyers. AILA was founded in 1946 and has more than 18,000 attorney members in the United States, plus thousands more internationally. Membership requires good standing with a state bar and gives immigration attorneys access to updates, policy analysis, case law, and professional networks.

Years of practice law in immigration also matter, but the type of experience matters more than the number alone. A firm with 20 years of family immigration experience may not be the right choice for national interest waivers, while a business immigration firm may not be ideal for someone facing removal proceedings in immigration courts. Ask how many immigration cases like yours the firm handled in the last year, what outcomes occurred, and whether the attorney-not only staff-will review strategy.

The strongest firms can explain their track record across a broad range of immigration matters, including family members seeking a green card, employers sponsoring workers, immigrants applying for citizenship, people with criminal record complications, and clients needing consular processing. A successful approval history is useful, but approval rates should be interpreted carefully because some firms accept only strong cases.

Service Quality Indicators

Good legal services depend on more than knowledge of law. Immigration clients often need multilingual support, cultural sensitivity, document organization, translation coordination, and regular updates. A firm that serves clients in Spanish, Arabic, Mandarin, Portuguese, or other languages may reduce misunderstandings during the immigration process.

Responsiveness is another key sign. During the initial consultation, notice whether the law firm answers questions clearly, explains the process step by step, and identifies who will be your primary contact. You should know whether updates come from the attorney, paralegal, case manager, or office staff, and how quickly calls or emails are usually returned.

Fee transparency is essential. A trustworthy firm explains whether your case will be flat fee, hourly, hybrid, or milestone-based. The written agreement should describe what is included, what is excluded, how RFEs or appeals are billed, whether payment plans are available, and whether government fees, translations, medical exams, biometrics, travel, or expert evidence are separate.

Reputation and Credibility Markers

Client testimonials, case studies, and community reputation can help you understand how a firm treats clients, but reviews should not be the only factor. Look for patterns: clients mention communication, preparation, honesty, hard work, and successful approval in similar immigration matters. Be cautious if every review sounds generic or if the firm makes promises that no ethical lawyer can make.

Professional recognition can also support credibility. Rankings or mentions from Chambers, Best Lawyers, Super Lawyers, Martindale-Hubbell, speaking engagements, publications, and pro bono work can show serious involvement in immigration law. However, awards should support-not replace-your own evaluation of experience and service quality.

Once you understand these foundational qualities, you can compare firms more systematically. The best choice is rarely just the cheapest, largest, or closest office; it is the firm whose experience, process, pricing, and communication match your immigration status, risks, and goals.

Key Evaluation Criteria for Immigration Law Firms

After identifying what quality looks like, the next step is applying a practical evaluation framework. A strong immigration attorney should fit your specific case type, your location or jurisdiction, your budget, and your communication needs. This is especially important in a crowded immigration system where delays, policy changes, and court backlogs can affect timelines.

Representation can make a significant difference. EOIR data has shown that represented asylum applicants have much higher completed-case win or relief rates than unrepresented applicants. Research on federal appellate immigration matters also found that Big Law representation produced about a 40.7% success rate compared with about 14.5% for non-Big Law representation across 5,904 cases. These numbers do not mean large firms are always best, but they show why qualified legal representation matters.

3.1 Experience and Specialization Match for Immigration Lawyers

Start with your exact immigration issue. Are you applying for citizenship, filing a family based green card, responding to an RFE, preparing a waiver, dealing with criminal charges, pursuing humanitarian relief as one of many crime victims, seeking a work visa, or facing deportation? The best immigration lawyer for you should regularly handle that specific type of matter.

Ask about recent case outcomes, not only general success. For green card applications, ask whether the firm has handled similar family facts, prior overstays, or consular processing concerns. For employment based immigration matters, ask about EB-1, EB-2 NIW, PERM, H-1B, O-1, or other relevant visa experience. For removal proceedings, ask about immigration courts, bond hearings, asylum, cancellation of removal, appeals, and local judges.

Certain visas provide protection against deportation for victims of crime. Asylum seekers may avoid deportation if they prove credible fear.

Also ask how the firm tracks policy changes. Immigration law shifts through USCIS rules, Department of Justice procedures, filing fee changes, agency staffing cycles, court decisions, and consular practices. An experienced immigration lawyer should explain how current policy affects your process, timeline, evidence strategy, and risk.

Geographic and Jurisdictional Considerations

Immigration law is federal, so many immigration attorneys can assist clients remotely across state lines if licensed and ethically permitted. Virtual consultations, remote document gathering, secure portals, and video meetings are now common parts of immigration services. This can be especially helpful if you live in an area with few local immigration specialists.

Still, local knowledge can matter. If your case involves an immigration court, local USCIS field office, in-person interview, or state criminal record, a nearby attorney may better understand local scheduling patterns, court expectations, judges, and practical filing issues. This is particularly important for clients facing removal proceedings or dealing with criminal immigration consequences.

Multi-office firms can be useful when your case crosses jurisdictions. For example, one family member may live in one state, an employer may operate in another, and consular processing may occur abroad. Firms with multiple offices, national networks, or international capability may provide better coordination for complex immigration cases.

Cost Structure and Value Assessment

Cost should be evaluated in terms of total value, not only the attorney fee. In 2026, many family-based adjustment of status matters cost roughly $2,500 to $8,000 in attorney fees, excluding government filing fees. Employment-based matters such as EB-1 or EB-2 national interest waivers may range from about $6,000 to $15,000 or more in attorney fees, depending on complexity.

Removal defense is often more expensive because it can involve hearings, evidence development, expert reports, and appeals. Flat fees for deportation defense often range from $5,000 to $15,000 or more. Hourly rates in metropolitan or coastal cities commonly fall between $250 and $600 per hour, while senior partners and boutique specialists may charge $500 to $900 per hour for highly complex legal work.

Always separate attorney fees from government costs. USCIS filing fees, biometrics, medical exams, translations, foreign credential evaluations, travel, court appearances, and expert evidence may be separate. For example, the I-485 fee has been listed at $1,440 by paper and $1,375 online. A strong firm will explain the full cost scope before you sign an agreement.

Research and Contact Strategy

Once you know what to evaluate, use a structured search instead of calling the first result. Your goal is to build a shortlist of immigration attorneys who are qualified, responsive, affordable for your situation, and experienced in your specific immigration matters. Research should confirm credentials, reveal service patterns, and prepare you for a productive consultation.

A practical approach is to identify 5 to 8 possible firms, narrow them to 2 or 3 serious candidates, schedule consultations, and compare written proposals or engagement letters. This process helps you avoid both underqualified providers and firms that may be excellent but not the right fit for your case.

Research Methods and Resources

Start with reputable directories and official records. The American Immigration Lawyers Association offers a lawyer referral service that can help you find credentialed immigration lawyers. State bar association websites allow you to confirm whether an attorney is licensed, in good standing, and free of serious disciplinary issues.

Legal directories can add context. Chambers, Best Lawyers, Super Lawyers, Avvo, and Martindale-Hubbell may show peer recognition, client reviews, and professional focus areas. Google reviews, Yelp, immigration forums, and community recommendations can also help, but they should be weighed alongside credentials and direct consultation impressions.

When researching, verify these points:

1. Whether the law firm focuses substantially on immigration law.
2. Whether the attorney has experience with your exact case type.
3. Whether the firm offers legal help in your preferred language.
4. Whether pricing, consultation fees, and payment options are clear.
5. Whether reviews mention professionalism, communication, and realistic advice.
6. Whether the firm warns against guarantees rather than promising guaranteed success.

Be careful with immigration consultants, notarios, or document preparers who are not licensed attorneys. In many situations, they cannot provide legal advice, cannot represent you in court, and may create serious risks if your case involves inadmissibility, prior immigration violations, criminal concerns, or removal proceedings.

4.2 Initial Contact and Consultation Process for the Immigration Process

During the first call or consultation, the goal is not only to describe your problem. You are also evaluating how the firm thinks, communicates, and manages risk. Bring important notices, prior filings, passports, visa records, court documents, criminal records, family documents, employment letters, and any government correspondence.

Consultation type	What to expect	Best for	What to ask
Free initial consultation	Short screening call or meeting to identify basic immigration options	Straightforward questions, early firm comparison, deciding whether to hire	“Have you handled cases like mine, and what are the next steps?”
Paid strategy consultation	More detailed review of facts, risks, documents, and legal options	Complex cases, criminal record concerns, removal proceedings, denials, waivers	“What are my strongest and weakest facts?”
Virtual consultation	Phone or video meeting with remote document sharing	Clients outside the office area, busy families, employers, rural locations	“Can you handle the entire process remotely, and when is in-person attendance needed?”
Emergency consultation	Fast review before a deadline, interview, court date, or filing issue	Urgent deportation, RFE, NOID, visa expiration, or court concerns	“What must be done immediately, and what can wait?”

Use the consultation to ask all the questions that affect your decision. Ask who will handle your case, how often you will receive updates, what evidence is needed, how long the process may take, what fees are included, what happens if there is an RFE or denial, and whether the firm has handled similar cases recently.

Firm Comparison Framework

After consultations, compare firms side by side. Do not rely only on personality or price. The best legal representation usually comes from a combination of relevant experience, careful process, honest risk assessment, and dependable communication.

Criterion	Strong sign	Warning sign
Specialization	Immigration law is a major or exclusive practice area	Immigration is only one small part of a broad general practice
Relevant experience	The attorney regularly handles your exact immigration matter	The firm speaks generally but gives few specifics
Credentials	AILA membership, state bar good standing, professional recognition	Unclear licensing, disciplinary history, or reliance on nonlawyer advice
Communication	Clear answers, realistic timelines, named point of contact	Vague replies, pressure tactics, or no process explanation
Cost transparency	Written agreement, itemized scope, clear extra costs	No written fee agreement or unclear billing terms
Language and culture	Multilingual staff and culturally aware intake	You struggle to communicate key facts accurately
Location and access	Local court knowledge or strong virtual systems	No plan for court, USCIS interview, or jurisdictional needs
Ethics and honesty	Explains risks and alternatives	Guarantees approval or claims special government influence

If you are comparing named firms, match the firm to the job. Herman Legal Group, founded in 1995, may be worth considering for clients who want a multilingual immigration practice with virtual reach and multiple offices across the U.S. and Canada. Large firms such as Fragomen may be better suited to corporate immigration and global mobility. Boutique firms may offer closer personal service for family immigration, waivers, asylum, or court defense.

Common Challenges and Solutions

People searching for “immigration lawyer near me” often face the same practical obstacles: too few local options, confusing fee structures, language barriers, urgent deadlines, or uncertainty about who can be trusted. These challenges are manageable if you use a structured process and avoid rushing into representation without basic vetting.

Limited Local Immigration Specialists

If you live in a rural area or a region with fewer immigrants, you may not find many specialized immigration attorneys nearby. In that situation, expand your search to reputable virtual firms, multi-office practices, and attorneys in nearby larger cities who handle immigration services remotely.

For court-based matters, ask specifically whether the attorney can appear in your immigration court or will associate with local counsel if needed. For USCIS filings, consular processing, family based petitions, or many employment matters, a strong remote law firm may be able to manage most of the process through secure uploads, video calls, and electronic communication.

Cost Concerns and Budget Constraints

Immigration legal fees can be stressful, especially when government fees, medical exams, translations, and travel are added. The solution is to ask for the full cost picture before hiring. Request a written estimate that separates attorney fees from filing fees and other expenses.

If budget is limited, ask about payment plans, sliding scale options, limited-scope legal help, nonprofit immigration legal services, or pro bono organizations. Do not choose the cheapest provider automatically. Very low fees may indicate limited experience, hidden costs, or rushed document preparation. At the same time, high fees should be tied to real value, such as strong attorney involvement, careful evidence review, complex strategy, or proven experience.

Language and Cultural Barriers

Immigration cases often require detailed personal history, family facts, trauma history, criminal concerns, employment evidence, or sensitive documents. If you cannot communicate comfortably, important facts may be missed. Look for firms with multilingual staff, interpreters, and experience serving clients from your background.

A culturally competent law firm should be able to explain legal status, forms, evidence, deadlines, and risks in a way you understand. If the office makes you feel rushed, confused, or dismissed during the consultation, that may be a sign to keep looking. Good immigration lawyers know that trust and clarity are part of effective representation.

Urgency vs. Quality Decision-Making

Urgent deadlines create pressure. A visa may be expiring, a court date may be approaching, a family member may be detained, or a government notice may require a quick response. Even then, avoid signing with the first firm that answers the phone unless you have enough information to trust the decision.

Move quickly but systematically. Prepare documents, contact 2 to 3 firms at the same time, use the same checklist for each consultation, and ask for written terms before paying. If the case is an emergency, ask what immediate action is needed now and what broader strategy can be developed after the deadline is protected.

Conclusion and Next Steps

The best law firms to contact when you need an immigration lawyer near you are the firms that match your specific immigration process, not simply the biggest or closest names. Look for immigration attorneys with relevant case experience, AILA involvement, good standing with the state bar, transparent pricing, strong communication, multilingual support when needed, and a realistic plan for your immigration options.

A practical next step is to build a shortlist and compare firms before hiring. Use this sequence:

1. Identify your case type: family immigration, green card, citizenship, employment visa, humanitarian relief, removal proceedings, or another immigration matter.
2. Search AILA, state bar records, legal directories, and local reviews for qualified immigration lawyers.
3. Schedule 2 to 3 consultations with firms that appear to match your needs.
4. Prepare documents, timelines, notices, criminal records if relevant, and all the questions you want answered.
5. Compare experience, fee structure, communication, location, and proposed strategy before signing an agreement.

If your case affects your own family, legal status, work, safety, or future in the United States, careful selection is worth the effort. The right attorney cannot guarantee success, but the right legal representation can help you navigate the immigration system with better preparation, fewer avoidable mistakes, and a clearer path toward the American dream.

Has Immigration Pendulum Started to Swing Back?

What 130 Years of American History Tell Us About Court Victories, Public Opinion Shifts, Mass Enforcement, and the Future of U.S. Immigration Policy

Quick Answer

Maybe.

After more than a year of increasingly aggressive immigration enforcement, federal courts, public opinion surveys, business leaders, universities, faith organizations, and immigrant communities are beginning to push back against some of the Administration’s most ambitious immigration initiatives.

Within just a few days in June 2026:

• A federal judge struck down the Administration’s $100,000 H-1B visa filing fee, concluding that the government lacked authority to impose what amounted to an unauthorized tax without congressional approval. See Reuters coverage of the ruling.
• A federal judge in Rhode Island invalidated USCIS policies that had frozen or delayed immigration benefits for nationals of dozens of designated countries, affecting green cards, work permits, asylum applications, and naturalization cases. See Reuters coverage of the Rhode Island decision.
• Federal courts across the country continued to scrutinize detention practices, bond hearing procedures, and executive immigration authority through an expanding wave of habeas corpus litigation.
• New polling suggested growing public discomfort with the scale and methods of immigration enforcement. According to a May 2026 survey, a majority of Americans now believe the Administration is doing “too much” regarding deportations. See Pew Research Center’s findings.

The immigration pendulum refers to the historical tendency of immigration policy to swing between openness and restrictionism.

The question facing immigrants, employers, policymakers, and immigration lawyers is no longer simply whether immigration policy has become more restrictive.

The more important question may be:

Has the immigration pendulum started to swing back?

History suggests that possibility deserves serious consideration.

Why This Article Matters

Immigration debates often focus on the latest executive order, court decision, enforcement action, or political controversy.

But immigration history is much bigger than any single administration.

Over the past 130 years, American immigration policy has repeatedly moved through cycles:

• restriction followed by expansion,
• exclusion followed by inclusion,
• fear followed by acceptance,
• enforcement followed by reform.

The details change.

The pattern remains remarkably consistent.

The Chinese Exclusion era eventually gave way to repeal.

The National Origins Quota System of 1924 ultimately yielded to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

California’s Proposition 187 helped trigger one of the most significant political realignments in modern American history.

Post-9/11 security measures eventually generated renewed debates about civil liberties, due process, and immigration reform.

Again and again, the immigration pendulum has swung.

The question confronting the United States today is whether another swing has already begun.

The Central Question of 2026: Did the Administration Overplay Its Hand?

Immigration was arguably the Administration’s strongest political issue entering 2025.

Many Americans were concerned about border security.

Many favored stronger enforcement.

Many supported removing violent criminals, gang members, traffickers, and recent unlawful entrants.

The Administration responded with one of the most aggressive immigration enforcement agendas in modern American history.

Among other initiatives, the government:

• expanded detention operations,
• increased interior enforcement,
• broadened travel restrictions,
• implemented nationality-based immigration policies,
• heightened scrutiny of legal immigration benefits,
• attempted to impose a $100,000 H-1B filing fee,
• adopted new restrictions affecting adjustment of status,
• expanded vetting and discretionary review.

Initially, many of these efforts enjoyed significant public support.

But immigration politics has always been more complicated than campaign slogans.

Americans often support immigration enforcement in principle.

Yet public opinion frequently becomes more nuanced when enforcement appears to affect:

• long-term residents,
• students,
• healthcare workers,
• mixed-status families,
• asylum seekers,
• lawful visa holders,
• children,
• individuals without significant criminal histories.

That distinction has repeatedly shaped immigration policy throughout American history.

It may be shaping 2026 as well.

Recent polling suggests Americans continue supporting border security while simultaneously expressing increasing concern about the scope and implementation of immigration enforcement.

That shift matters.

Because immigration policy rarely changes when only activists object.

Immigration policy changes when courts, businesses, universities, faith organizations, local communities, and ordinary voters begin asking the same question:

Has enforcement gone too far?

Why 2026 Feels Different

Every administration faces immigration litigation.

Every administration faces political opposition.

What makes 2026 different is the breadth of the reaction.

Pushback is emerging simultaneously from multiple institutions.

That is historically significant.

Federal Courts Are Becoming Increasingly Active

The judiciary has become one of the most important battlegrounds in immigration policy.

Recent federal court decisions have challenged:

• detention practices,
• nationality-based restrictions,
• visa policies,
• asylum limitations,
• USCIS adjudication freezes,
• agency authority under the Administrative Procedure Act,
• due process protections.

The Rhode Island decision invalidating USCIS benefit freezes is particularly significant because it rejected efforts to suspend adjudications affecting nationals of designated countries. See Reuters coverage of the decision.

Likewise, the federal court ruling striking down the $100,000 H-1B filing fee signals growing judicial scrutiny of executive efforts to reshape immigration policy through administrative action rather than legislation. See Reuters coverage of the H-1B ruling.

The significance of these decisions extends beyond their immediate impact.

Historically, courts often serve as the first institutional check when executive authority expands rapidly.

Businesses Are Pushing Back

Many of America’s most important economic sectors depend heavily upon immigrant labor and talent.

This includes:

• hospitals,
• universities,
• technology companies,
• research institutions,
• engineering firms,
• manufacturers,
• agricultural employers.

When immigration restrictions begin affecting economic competitiveness, business opposition often follows.

The litigation challenging the $100,000 H-1B filing fee demonstrated the extent to which employers, educational institutions, and state governments viewed the policy as economically harmful.

Historically, business opposition has often played a major role in immigration policy reversals.

Universities and Healthcare Systems Are Increasingly Concerned

American universities remain among the world’s most important destinations for international students, physicians, engineers, scientists, and researchers.

Likewise, healthcare systems throughout the United States depend heavily upon immigrant physicians, nurses, researchers, and healthcare professionals.

Restrictions affecting recruitment, mobility, visa processing, and permanent residence pathways inevitably generate resistance from institutions that depend upon global talent.

That pattern is becoming increasingly visible.

Faith Communities and Humanitarian Organizations Are Mobilizing

Throughout American history, religious organizations have often played a significant role in immigration debates.

Churches.

Synagogues.

Mosques.

Refugee organizations.

Humanitarian nonprofits.

Legal service providers.

Many of these organizations have become increasingly vocal regarding detention practices, family separation concerns, refugee restrictions, and humanitarian protections.

Historically, when faith communities become deeply engaged in immigration issues, broader public conversations often follow.

Local Communities Are Experiencing the Impact Directly

Immigration enforcement is no longer an abstract policy debate.

Communities throughout the country increasingly experience immigration enforcement firsthand.

Families.

Employers.

Schools.

Hospitals.

Neighborhoods.

Local governments.

The result is a much more visible and personal immigration debate than existed during earlier enforcement eras.

And that visibility may be the most important difference between 2026 and previous immigration crackdowns.

The Visibility Problem: Immigration Enforcement in the Smartphone Era

One of the most important differences between today’s immigration debate and earlier periods of restriction is technology.

Historically, immigration enforcement largely occurred out of public view.

Most Americans rarely witnessed:

• immigration arrests,
• detention facilities,
• removal proceedings,
• asylum hearings,
• workplace operations,
• family separations.

Today, that has changed dramatically.

• Every arrest can become a video.
• Every detention incident can become a social media story.
• Every enforcement controversy can become national news.
• Every government mistake can spread across the country within hours.

Whether one supports or opposes current immigration policies, immigration enforcement is now more visible than at any previous point in American history.

That visibility affects public opinion.

Americans may support enforcement in the abstract.

They often react differently when confronted with individual stories involving:

• children,
• students,
• military families,
• healthcare workers,
• longtime residents,
• asylum seekers,
• lawful permanent residents.

Political scientists have observed this pattern repeatedly throughout American history.

The more personal immigration stories become, the more complicated immigration politics tends to become.

The Question That May Define the Next Decade

No one knows whether 2026 will ultimately represent a turning point.

No one knows whether recent court victories will survive appeal.

No one knows whether current polling trends will continue.

But history teaches an important lesson.

Periods of aggressive immigration restriction frequently generate counterreactions.

• Sometimes those counterreactions are political.
• Sometimes they are legal.
• Sometimes they are economic.
• Sometimes they are cultural.

Often they are all four.

The question facing America today is not whether immigration enforcement will continue.

It almost certainly will.

The question is whether the country is beginning to move from an era dominated by enforcement toward an era increasingly focused on limits, accountability, due process, and balance.

The answer may shape American immigration policy for years to come.

130 Years of Immigration Pendulum Swings

Why Today’s Immigration Battles Are Part of a Much Larger American Story

If immigration policy appears unusually contentious in 2026, it is worth remembering that the United States has experienced similar moments before.

In fact, the history of American immigration is not a straight line.

It is a political pendulum.

For more than 130 years, immigration policy has repeatedly swung between two competing impulses:

• Restriction and openness.
• Fear and opportunity.
• Exclusion and inclusion.

Economic anxiety, national security concerns, demographic change, cultural tensions, labor demands, and political movements have repeatedly pushed the country in one direction before economic realities, constitutional principles, and changing public attitudes eventually pulled it back; this idea helps explain recurring shifts in both policy and public opinion.

Understanding these historical cycles provides important context for today’s debates over detention, deportation, travel bans, visa restrictions, asylum policy, adjustment of status, and executive authority.

The question is not whether America has experienced immigration backlashes before.

It has.

The question is whether 2026 represents the beginning of another historical correction.

First Swing: Chinese Exclusion and America’s First National Immigration Backlash

The first major modern immigration backlash emerged during the late nineteenth century.

Chinese immigrants had played a critical role in building railroads, mining operations, agriculture, and infrastructure throughout the American West.

Yet as economic conditions deteriorated during the 1870s and 1880s, political leaders increasingly blamed immigrants for labor competition and declining wages.

The result was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the first major federal law restricting immigration based primarily on nationality and ethnicity.

The law prohibited most Chinese labor immigration and established a framework that would influence American immigration policy for decades.

Supporters argued that exclusion was necessary to protect American workers.

Critics argued that it institutionalized racial discrimination.

At the time, exclusion enjoyed broad political support. High tariffs and immigration restrictions became common after 1828.

Few imagined it would eventually be viewed as one of the most notorious immigration laws in American history.

Yet over time public attitudes changed.

The law was eventually repealed in 1943 during World War II.

What had once been considered necessary became viewed as inconsistent with American values.

See the National Archives’ historical overview of the Chinese Exclusion Act: Chinese Exclusion Act Records.

The first lesson of immigration history is simple:

Policies that seem politically untouchable today may appear very differently decades later.

Second Swing: The Immigration Act of 1924 and the National Origins Quota System

The next major restrictionist wave arrived after World War I.

Economic instability.

Political unrest.

Fear of communism.

Concerns regarding cultural change.

These forces combined to produce one of the most restrictive immigration systems in American history.

Congress enacted the Immigration Act of 1924, also known as the Johnson-Reed Act.

The law established the National Origins Quota System.

Immigration from Northern and Western Europe was favored.

Immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe was sharply restricted.

Asian immigration remained largely prohibited.

Supporters argued that the legislation protected American identity and social cohesion.

Opponents argued that it codified ethnic, religious, and racial discrimination.

At the time, the law reflected mainstream political opinion.

Yet by the 1950s and 1960s, many Americans viewed the quota system very differently.

Civil rights movements, changing demographics, and Cold War concerns increasingly undermined support for immigration policies based on national origin.

The very system that had dominated American immigration policy for forty years ultimately became politically unsustainable.

Historical materials regarding the 1924 law are available through the Office of the Historian: Immigration Act of 1924.

Once again, the pendulum moved.

Third Swing: The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965

If 1924 represented the high-water mark of immigration restriction, 1965 represented one of the most significant expansions in modern immigration history.

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 abolished the National Origins Quota System and fundamentally transformed the American immigration system.

• Family reunification became a central principle.
• Employment-based immigration expanded.
• Nationality-based discrimination was substantially reduced.
• The legislation helped create the modern immigration system that exists today.

See the Office of the Historian’s discussion of the law: Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

The consequences were profound.

Over the following decades, immigration from Asia, Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East increased dramatically.

American cities changed.

Universities expanded.

Industries gained access to global talent.

Entrepreneurship flourished.

Yet success produced new political tensions.

As immigration increased, concerns regarding border security, labor markets, assimilation, and government services became increasingly prominent.

The seeds of the next backlash had already been planted.

The U.S. economy was most open after World War II until about 2010.

Fourth Swing: IRCA and the Search for Compromise

By the 1980s, unauthorized immigration had become a major political issue.

Congress responded with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA).

IRCA represented an attempt to balance competing priorities.

The law legalized millions of undocumented immigrants already living in the United States.

At the same time, it imposed sanctions on employers who knowingly hired unauthorized workers.

Congress hoped legalization and enforcement would work together.

For a brief period, many believed the immigration debate had been resolved.

It had not.

Unauthorized migration continued.

Enforcement expanded.

Political disagreements intensified.

The lesson was important.

Immigration policy rarely produces permanent victories.

The competing interests underlying immigration debates inevitably reemerge.

Fifth Swing: California’s Proposition 187 and an Unexpected Political Realignment

Perhaps the most important historical comparison to today’s politics is California’s Proposition 187.

In the early 1990s, immigration became one of California’s most divisive political issues.

Governor Pete Wilson embraced aggressive immigration enforcement as a central political strategy, reflecting how some elected officials use immigration crackdowns during periods of backlash.

Proposition 187 sought to deny many public services and benefits to undocumented immigrants.

Initially, the measure appeared politically successful.

Voters approved it.

Supporters celebrated it.

Opponents challenged it.

Much of the initiative was later blocked in federal court.

See the Ninth Circuit’s discussion of the litigation: League of United Latin American Citizens v. Wilson.

But the most important consequence may have been political rather than legal.

1. Many scholars believe Proposition 187 accelerated long-term political changes throughout California.
2. Large immigrant communities became more politically engaged.
3. Naturalization rates increased.
4. Voter participation expanded.
5. Political coalitions shifted.

What appeared to be a short-term political victory ultimately produced long-term consequences that many supporters never anticipated.

That historical lesson remains highly relevant today.

Sixth Swing: September 11 and the Security Era

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 transformed immigration policy.

National security became the dominant immigration concern.

• Congress created the Department of Homeland Security.
• Screening procedures expanded.
• Visa processing became more intensive.
• Background investigations increased.
• Enforcement authority grew dramatically.
• Many Americans supported these changes.

The attacks had fundamentally altered the political environment.

Yet even during this period, concerns gradually emerged regarding:

• due process,
• civil liberties,
• indefinite detention,
• surveillance,
• executive authority,
• profiling.

The post-9/11 era demonstrates another recurring feature of immigration history.

Periods of heightened security concerns often produce expanded government authority.

Over time, courts, advocacy groups, and public opinion frequently begin examining the limits of that authority.

Seventh Swing: Arizona SB 1070 and the Supreme Court

In 2010, Arizona enacted SB 1070, one of the most controversial immigration laws in modern American history.

Supporters argued that federal authorities had failed to secure the border.

Opponents argued that the law encouraged racial profiling and undermined federal authority.

The litigation eventually reached the Supreme Court.

In Arizona v. United States, the Court invalidated several major provisions while preserving others.

See the Supreme Court opinion:Arizona v. United States.

The case reinforced a recurring principle of immigration law:

While states may play important roles, immigration remains primarily a federal responsibility.

More importantly, SB 1070 demonstrated how aggressive enforcement measures often generate significant legal and political resistance.

Eighth Swing: Family Separation and the Limits of Public Support

The family separation controversy of 2018 may offer one of the clearest examples of how immigration politics can change rapidly.

Many Americans supported stronger border enforcement.

Many supported greater deterrence.

Yet public reaction shifted dramatically when images emerged showing children separated from parents.

Litigation accelerated.

Media attention intensified.

Political pressure mounted.

Eventually, policy changes followed.

The lesson was not that Americans opposed immigration enforcement.

The lesson was that many Americans viewed certain enforcement methods as unacceptable.

That distinction remains important today.

Ninth Swing: The Great Enforcement Expansion of 2025-2026

The current period may eventually become known as one of the most consequential immigration enforcement eras in modern American history.

Recent years have seen:

• expanded detention,
• increased interior enforcement,
• travel restrictions,
• nationality-based immigration policies,
• heightened scrutiny of immigration benefits,
• expanded vetting,
• restrictions affecting adjustment of status,
• attempts to increase barriers to legal immigration.

For example, USCIS recently adopted PM-602-0199, which significantly altered the agency’s approach to adjustment-of-status adjudications.

Readers may review the memorandum here: USCIS PM-602-0199.

Supporters argue these policies restore integrity to the immigration system.

Critics argue they exceed statutory authority, create unnecessary hardship, and undermine longstanding immigration principles. The U.S. economy was most open after World War II until about 2010.

Negative net migration was recorded in the U.S. in 2025, influenced by restrictive immigration policies.

The legal battles are only beginning.

Why History Matters in 2026

The purpose of studying these earlier periods is not to suggest that history repeats itself perfectly.

It does not.

Every era is different.

Every immigration debate is unique.

Yet certain patterns emerge repeatedly.

Periods of restriction often generate:

• litigation,
• political mobilization,
• business opposition,
• academic criticism,
• humanitarian advocacy,
• judicial scrutiny.

Over time, those forces sometimes produce significant policy corrections.

The question facing the country today is whether those forces are beginning to converge once again.

The answer may determine the future of American immigration law.

Is the Pendulum Already Moving?

The Evidence That 2026 May Be a Turning Point in American Immigration Policy

History alone cannot tell us whether the immigration pendulum is swinging back.

History provides context.

What matters now is the evidence.

Are the same warning signs that preceded previous immigration policy reversals beginning to appear again?

No single court decision can answer that question.

No single poll can answer it.

No single protest, lawsuit, election, or executive order can answer it.

But when multiple indicators begin moving in the same direction at the same time, it is worth paying attention.

And that is precisely what appears to be happening in 2026.

Signal #1: Federal Courts Are Becoming Increasingly Skeptical of Executive Immigration Authority

Historically, one of the earliest signs of an immigration pendulum shift is judicial intervention.

During periods of rapid immigration expansion, courts often defer to executive agencies.

During periods of aggressive restriction, courts frequently begin examining whether those agencies have exceeded their legal authority.

That process appears to be accelerating.

The question is no longer whether courts will review these policies.

The question is whether courts will continue invalidating them.

Recent decisions suggest that possibility is real.

The Rhode Island Decision: A Major Judicial Warning Shot

On June 5, 2026, Chief Judge John McConnell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island issued one of the most significant immigration rulings of the year.

The court invalidated USCIS policies that had effectively frozen or delayed immigration benefits for nationals of dozens of designated countries.

The affected benefits reportedly included:

• adjustment of status,
• employment authorization,
• asylum-related benefits,
• naturalization,
• refugee processing,
• other immigration benefits.

See Reuters coverage of the Rhode Island ruling.

The importance of the decision extends far beyond the plaintiffs.

The court’s ruling reinforces a fundamental principle of administrative law:

Federal agencies cannot simply stop adjudicating applications because they disagree with the applicants’ nationality.

USCIS may deny applications.

USCIS may investigate applications.

USCIS may issue Requests for Evidence.

USCIS may conduct security reviews.

But courts have repeatedly emphasized that agencies must operate within the limits established by Congress and the Administrative Procedure Act.

That principle could have implications far beyond the specific policies challenged in Rhode Island.

For a detailed analysis of the ruling, see HLG’s article: Rhode Island Court Strikes Down USCIS Benefits Freeze: What It Means for Your Green Card, Work Permit, Citizenship and Asylum Case.

The $100,000 H-1B Filing Fee Case

Just days later, another federal court delivered a second major setback to the Administration.

On June 8, 2026, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin invalidated the Administration’s controversial $100,000 H-1B filing fee.

See Reuters coverage of the H-1B ruling.

The Administration argued that the fee would protect American workers and discourage outsourcing.

Opponents argued that the fee effectively functioned as an unauthorized tax imposed without congressional authorization.

The court agreed.

The significance of the decision goes beyond H-1B visas.

The ruling reflects a broader judicial concern:

Can the executive branch fundamentally reshape immigration policy without Congress?

That question lies at the heart of many of the most important immigration lawsuits currently pending nationwide.

For employers, universities, hospitals, and foreign professionals, the decision represented a major victory.

For courts, it represented another indication that judges are increasingly willing to scrutinize aggressive immigration initiatives.

For a detailed analysis of the ruling, see HLG’s article: Federal Judge Strikes Down Trump’s 100000 H 1B Fee: Is the H-1B Crackdown Over?

Signal #2: Habeas Corpus Litigation Is Exploding Nationwide

Perhaps the most underreported immigration story of 2026 is the dramatic growth of immigration habeas corpus litigation.

For decades, many immigration detention cases remained largely hidden from public attention.

Today, that is changing.

Across the country, federal courts are increasingly hearing challenges involving:

• prolonged detention,
• bond hearing rights,
• due process violations,
• unlawful custody,
• delays in removal,
• detention conditions,
• statutory interpretation.

While individual outcomes vary, the volume of litigation itself is significant.

Historically, surging habeas litigation often reflects growing concern regarding executive detention authority.

Federal judges are being asked to answer increasingly fundamental questions:

• How long can someone be detained?
• When is a bond hearing required?
• What due process protections apply?
• What burden of proof must the government satisfy?
• When does detention become constitutionally problematic?

These questions increasingly place courts at the center of immigration policy.

And history suggests that when federal courts become deeply involved in detention issues, broader legal changes often follow.

Signal #3: Public Opinion May Be Beginning to Shift

Perhaps the most politically significant development involves public opinion.

For much of 2024 and early 2025, immigration was one of the Administration’s strongest political issues.

Many Americans wanted stronger border security.

Many supported tougher enforcement.

Many favored removing violent criminals and gang members.

But public opinion is rarely static.

Recent polling suggests Americans may be drawing distinctions between:

• border security and mass enforcement,
• criminal removals and community-wide operations,
• public safety and broad detention policies,
• illegal immigration and legal immigration.

ICE killing American protestors in Minneapolis has accelerated American’s disapproval of Trump’s aggressive immigration enforecement.

Those distinctions matter.

A May 2026 Pew Research Center survey found that 52% of Americans believed the Administration was doing too much regarding deportations.

Only 31% believed the government was doing the right amount.

See Pew Research’s deportation survey.

A Harvard-Harris survey similarly found growing concern regarding immigration enforcement practices.

See Harvard-Harris Poll.

Meanwhile, Gallup reported record-high percentages of Americans viewing immigration as beneficial to the country.

See Gallup’s immigration findings.

Record Gallup polling shows 79% of U.S. adults believe immigration is beneficial. The majority of Americans favor pathways to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

Importantly, these surveys do not suggest Americans oppose immigration enforcement.

Most do not.

What they suggest is something more nuanced:

Americans increasingly appear to support enforcement directed at genuine public safety threats while expressing greater skepticism toward broad enforcement actions affecting families, students, workers, and longtime residents.

That distinction may prove enormously important politically.

Signal #4: Businesses Are Starting to Push Back

Historically, major immigration policy shifts rarely occur without business involvement.

Employers care about labor supply.

Universities care about students and researchers.

Hospitals care about physicians and nurses.

Technology companies care about engineers and scientists.

When immigration policies begin affecting economic competitiveness, political dynamics often change.

The challenge to the $100,000 H-1B fee demonstrated the breadth of institutional opposition.

States argued that the policy harmed:

• public universities,
• hospitals,
• schools,
• research institutions,
• government employers.

This mirrors previous periods in American history when business interests became major participants in immigration debates.

Labor shortages have been reported in sectors reliant on immigrant labor due to stricter regulations. High tariffs and immigration restrictions have increased U.S. economic closure. Bipartisan pressure is leading policymakers to explore targeted enforcement exemptions for essential workers.

Economic pressure often becomes one of the most powerful forces driving policy change.

Signal #5: PM-602-0199 May Trigger the Next Litigation Wave

The next major immigration battle may already be underway.

On May 21, 2026, USCIS issued Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199.

See PM-602-0199.

The memorandum fundamentally reorients adjustment-of-status adjudications by emphasizing that adjustment is an “extraordinary” discretionary benefit rather than a routine pathway to permanent residence.

The policy has generated intense debate.

Supporters argue the memorandum restores congressional intent and strengthens discretionary review.

Critics argue the policy exceeds statutory authority and effectively rewrites longstanding adjustment-of-status principles.

For an in-depth discussion, see HLG’s analysis: USCIS PM-602-0199: What the New Adjustment of Status Memo Means for Green Card Applicants.

Whether PM-602-0199 ultimately survives judicial review remains uncertain.

But one thing appears increasingly likely:

The memorandum will generate substantial litigation.

And that litigation may become one of the defining immigration battles of the next several years.

What Courts May Be Signaling

Taken individually, each of these developments could be dismissed as isolated events.

A court ruling.

A lawsuit.

A poll.

A policy dispute.

Viewed together, however, they suggest something larger.

Courts appear increasingly willing to scrutinize executive immigration authority.

Businesses appear increasingly willing to challenge immigration restrictions.

Public opinion appears increasingly nuanced.

Litigation is expanding.

Institutional resistance is growing.

Historically, these are precisely the kinds of indicators that often emerge before significant policy corrections occur.

That does not mean every Administration policy will be struck down.

It does not mean enforcement will end.

It does not mean immigration reform is imminent.

But it may mean the legal and political environment is beginning to change.

And history suggests that once those changes begin, they can accelerate surprisingly quickly.

The Bigger Question

The most important question facing immigration lawyers, policymakers, employers, and immigrant families is no longer whether immigration enforcement will continue.

It will.

The more important question is whether Americans are beginning to distinguish between enforcement that promotes public safety and enforcement that appears excessive, indiscriminate, or inconsistent with traditional American values.

That distinction has shaped every major immigration cycle over the past 130 years.

It may shape the next one as well.

What Happens Next?

What History Predicts About the Future of Immigration Policy

If history is any guide, the most important immigration stories of 2026 have not happened yet.

The Rhode Island decision.

The H-1B fee ruling.

The growing wave of habeas corpus litigation.

The debate over PM-602-0199.

The shifting public opinion data.

These developments may prove significant.

But historically, they are not the end of the story.

They are often the beginning.

When immigration pendulums begin moving, the movement tends to unfold over years rather than months, and history suggests the pendulum will swing back even if that outcome is never guaranteed.

The legal battles expand.

Political coalitions shift.

Public opinion evolves.

Courts become increasingly involved.

Economic realities begin exerting pressure.

Eventually, policymakers are forced to respond.

The question is not whether immigration policy will continue changing.

The question is how.

Prediction #1: The Courts Will Become the Primary Immigration Battleground

For much of the twentieth century, Congress was the primary arena for immigration reform.

That is increasingly no longer true.

Congress remains deeply divided.

Comprehensive immigration reform appears unlikely in the near future.

As a result, presidents increasingly rely upon executive authority.

Federal agencies increasingly rely upon administrative guidance.

And federal courts increasingly become the institutions deciding where executive authority ends.

That pattern is already visible.

The most consequential immigration developments of 2026 have emerged not from Congress but from litigation.

The Rhode Island decision.

The H-1B fee ruling.

The expanding detention cases.

The growing Administrative Procedure Act challenges.

The constitutional claims.

The statutory interpretation disputes.

Immigration lawyers should expect significantly more litigation over:

• detention,
• bond hearings,
• travel restrictions,
• visa processing,
• nationality-based policies,
• adjustment of status,
• agency discretion,
• due process.

The judiciary is likely to remain the central battlefield for immigration policy throughout the remainder of the decade.

Prediction #2: PM-602-0199 May Become the Most Important Immigration Lawsuit of the Decade

Few policies have generated as much concern among immigration lawyers as USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199.

See USCIS PM-602-0199.

The memorandum fundamentally alters how USCIS approaches adjustment of status.

Historically, adjustment of status has served as one of the most important pathways to permanent residence.

Family members.

Spouses.

Parents.

Employment-based applicants.

Diversity visa winners.

Many have relied upon adjustment of status to obtain lawful permanent residence without leaving the United States.

PM-602-0199 reemphasizes that adjustment is discretionary and describes it as an extraordinary form of relief.

Supporters view the memorandum as a restoration of congressional intent.

Critics argue that the policy improperly elevates discretion above statutory eligibility.

Those competing interpretations are almost certain to generate litigation.

Several questions are likely to emerge:

• Can USCIS effectively create a presumption against adjustment?
• Can USCIS prioritize consular processing over adjustment?
• How much discretion is too much discretion?
• Does the memorandum conflict with existing statutes or regulations?
• Are there Administrative Procedure Act vulnerabilities?

The answers may ultimately come from federal courts.

And those answers could affect hundreds of thousands of future green card applicants.

For ongoing coverage, see HLG’s adjustment-of-status resources:

• Adjustment of Status Guide
• Marriage Green Card Process
• I-485 Application Resources

Prediction #3: Detention Litigation Will Continue Expanding

One of the most overlooked developments in immigration law is the increasing importance of detention litigation.

Historically, detention cases often remained hidden from public view.

Today, federal courts are confronting increasingly difficult questions involving:

• prolonged detention,
• constitutional protections,
• bond hearing standards,
• mandatory detention statutes,
• procedural fairness,
• removal delays.

These cases are shaping the future of immigration law in ways that many outside the legal profession do not fully appreciate.

History suggests that when detention litigation reaches critical mass, broader legal reforms often follow.

The outcome of these cases may influence:

• detention practices,
• bond procedures,
• ICE policies,
• due process protections,
• federal court review.

For immigration practitioners, detention and habeas corpus litigation may become one of the most important practice areas of the next decade.

Prediction #4: Labor Markets Will Push Back Against Restriction

One of the strongest forces in immigration history is economics.

Political movements come and go.

Court decisions rise and fall.

Economic realities remain.

The United States continues to face long-term demographic challenges:

• declining birth rates,
• aging populations,
• labor shortages,
• healthcare workforce shortages,
• STEM workforce demands.

Many sectors of the economy depend heavily upon immigrant workers.

Healthcare.

Technology.

Agriculture.

Construction.

Hospitality.

Research.

Education.

The conflict between immigration restriction and labor market demand is likely to intensify.

The H-1B litigation may represent an early example of this tension.

See Reuters coverage of the H-1B ruling.

Historically, economic pressures have often moderated restrictive immigration policies.

There is little reason to believe that dynamic has disappeared.

Prediction #5: Universities Will Become Increasingly Influential

American universities have historically played an important role in immigration debates.

They attract:

• international students,
• physicians,
• researchers,
• engineers,
• entrepreneurs,
• future faculty members.

Restrictions affecting international mobility create direct consequences for higher education.

Universities are likely to become increasingly active participants in immigration litigation, policy debates, and legislative advocacy.

This trend is already emerging.

And it is likely to grow.

Prediction #6: Public Opinion Will Continue Becoming More Nuanced

One of the most interesting developments in recent polling is not that Americans support immigration.

Nor is it that Americans support enforcement.

Both can be true simultaneously.

The more important finding is that voters increasingly appear to distinguish between categories of immigrants.

For example:

Many voters support removing violent criminals.

Many voters support border security.

At the same time, many voters express discomfort regarding enforcement actions involving:

• longtime residents,
• spouses of U.S. citizens,
• children,
• students,
• healthcare workers,
• military families.

That distinction matters.

Historically, major immigration shifts often occur when voters begin differentiating between categories rather than viewing immigration as a single issue.

The data increasingly suggest that process may already be underway.

See:

• Pew Research Center
• Gallup Immigration Survey

Could 2026 Become Another Proposition 187 Moment?

One of the most intriguing historical comparisons involves California’s Proposition 187.

At the time, many supporters viewed Proposition 187 as a decisive political victory.

Yet the long-term consequences proved far more complicated.

Large immigrant communities became politically engaged.

Naturalization increased.

Voter participation expanded.

Political coalitions changed.

California’s political landscape shifted for generations.

The episode is often cited in debates over how aggressive immigration politics reshaped electoral coalitions in states that later became reliably Democratic, including many blue states.

History never repeats itself perfectly.

But it often rhymes.

The question is whether today’s enforcement era may eventually generate similar long-term consequences.

If it does, historians may look back on 2025 and 2026 as a turning point rather than a destination.

Richard Herman’s Predictions

After more than three decades practicing immigration law, several trends appear increasingly likely.

1. More Litigation

Federal courts will remain central players in immigration policy.

The volume of immigration litigation will continue increasing.

2. More Challenges to Agency Authority

Administrative Procedure Act litigation will expand.

Courts will increasingly scrutinize whether agencies have exceeded their statutory authority.

3. More Detention Cases

Detention-related litigation will become one of the fastest-growing areas of immigration law.

4. Greater Scrutiny of PM-602-0199

The adjustment-of-status memorandum is unlikely to avoid judicial review.

Federal courts will eventually confront its legality and scope.

5. Continued Public Debate

Immigration will remain one of the defining political issues of the decade.

But the debate will become more nuanced.

The central question will increasingly shift from:

“Should immigration laws be enforced?”

to:

“How should immigration laws be enforced, and where should the limits be?”

That distinction may ultimately define the next chapter of American immigration history.

The Most Important Lesson From History

Every generation believes its immigration battles are unique.

In some ways they are.

Yet history reveals a remarkably consistent pattern.

Periods of restriction often generate counterreactions.

Periods of expansion often generate backlash.

No immigration status quo lasts permanently because the pendulum keeps moving.

The pendulum keeps moving.

The evidence emerging in 2026 does not prove that another major shift has begun.

But it strongly suggests that the forces capable of producing such a shift are increasingly visible.

Courts.

Businesses.

Universities.

Faith communities.

Local governments.

Public opinion.

Demographic realities.

Economic pressures.

All are beginning to influence the conversation.

Whether those forces ultimately reshape immigration policy remains uncertain.

What is certain is that immigration law is entering a period of extraordinary legal, political, and historical significance.

And the next chapter is still being written.

What Immigrants, Employers, Families, Students, and Green Card Applicants Should Do Right Now

Practical Strategies for Navigating an Immigration System in Transition

If sections above focused on history, politics, litigation, and public opinion, this final section focuses on something far more important:

What should you do now?

Whether the immigration pendulum is swinging or not, one reality remains unchanged:

People still need green cards.

Families still need reunification.

Employers still need workers.

Students still need visas.

Detained immigrants still need legal representation.

Businesses still need compliance strategies.

And immigration cases still move forward every day.

The biggest mistake applicants can make during periods of uncertainty is assuming that policy changes, court rulings, or political headlines eliminate the need for planning.

They do not.

In fact, periods of legal uncertainty often make strategic planning even more important.

If You Have a Pending Adjustment of Status Case

Adjustment of status applicants face one of the most uncertain environments in years.

USCIS’s new memorandum, PM-602-0199, places increased emphasis on discretion and describes adjustment as an extraordinary benefit.

See USCIS PM-602-0199.

While litigation may eventually challenge aspects of the policy, applicants should assume the memorandum will influence adjudications for the foreseeable future.

That means applicants should focus on presenting the strongest possible discretionary case.

In addition to establishing statutory eligibility, applicants should consider documenting:

• family ties,
• community involvement,
• educational achievements,
• employment history,
• volunteer work,
• business ownership,
• property ownership,
• tax compliance,
• hardship factors,
• humanitarian considerations,
• military service by family members,
• long-term residence,
• contributions to local communities.

Many applicants have historically assumed that eligibility alone was enough.

The new environment suggests that discretionary evidence may become increasingly important.

Related HLG resources:

• Adjustment of Status Guide
• I-485 Application Guide
• Marriage Green Card Process

If You Are Married to a U.S. Citizen

Spouses of U.S. citizens remain among the strongest categories under immigration law.

However, increased scrutiny means applicants should prepare for more detailed review.

That includes:

• documenting the bona fide nature of the marriage,
• maintaining joint financial records,
• preserving evidence of cohabitation,
• retaining travel records,
• keeping photographs and family documentation,
• maintaining tax records and insurance records.

Applicants should not assume that straightforward cases will remain straightforward.

Even strong cases may face Requests for Evidence or additional scrutiny.

The best strategy is preparation.

If You Are an Employer Sponsoring Foreign Workers

The H-1B fee ruling was an important victory.

See Reuters coverage of the H-1B ruling.

But employers should not assume the legal battles are over.

The Administration may appeal.

New regulations may emerge.

Additional restrictions may be proposed.

Employers should:

• audit immigration compliance programs,
• review public access files,
• verify I-9 compliance,
• prepare for potential FDNS visits,
• evaluate workforce immigration risks,
• identify key employees requiring sponsorship,
• explore alternative visa categories where appropriate.

Businesses that plan ahead are generally better positioned to adapt to changing immigration policies.

Related resources:

• H-1B Visa Guide
• Employment-Based Immigration

If You Are an International Student

International students face a particularly challenging environment.

Students should pay close attention to:

• maintaining status,
• full-time enrollment requirements,
• employment authorization rules,
• travel considerations,
• OPT compliance,
• STEM OPT compliance,
• future sponsorship opportunities.

Students should also keep detailed records.

In periods of increased scrutiny, documentation often becomes critical.

This includes:

• transcripts,
• I-20s,
• employment records,
• tax records,
• academic achievements,
• internship documentation.

The strongest future immigration cases are often built on records created years earlier.

If You Are Facing Removal Proceedings

Perhaps no group is more directly affected by changing immigration policies than individuals in removal proceedings.

For these individuals, legal developments matter immediately.

Recent litigation involving detention, bond hearings, habeas corpus, and executive authority demonstrates that immigration law continues evolving rapidly.

Individuals facing removal should:

• preserve all immigration records,
• maintain copies of prior applications,
• obtain complete FOIA files where appropriate,
• document equities and hardship factors,
• identify potential forms of relief,
• seek qualified legal representation early.

Waiting is rarely a successful strategy.

Preparation almost always is.

Related resources:

• Removal Defense
• Immigration Detention
• Immigration Bond Hearings

If You Are Detained by ICE

One of the most important lessons from recent habeas corpus litigation is that detention cases are highly fact-specific.

Many detainees mistakenly assume that detention automatically means removal.

That is not true.

Depending upon the circumstances, detainees may have:

• bond hearing rights,
• habeas corpus remedies,
• procedural defenses,
• relief from removal,
• constitutional claims,
• statutory arguments.

The legal landscape continues to evolve.

Individuals detained by ICE should seek legal counsel as quickly as possible and ensure family members maintain copies of all relevant records.

If You Are Waiting Abroad for a Visa

Consular processing applicants face unique challenges.

Administrative processing.

Security reviews.

Interview delays.

Travel restrictions.

Policy changes.

All can affect visa issuance.

Applicants should:

• maintain valid contact information,
• monitor case status regularly,
• preserve supporting documentation,
• respond promptly to government requests,
• remain informed regarding policy developments.

Patience remains important.

So does preparation.

What Not to Do

Periods of uncertainty often produce panic.

Panic leads to mistakes.

Among the most common mistakes:

Do Not Ignore Government Notices

Requests for Evidence.

Notices of Intent to Deny.

Interview notices.

Biometrics appointments.

Missing deadlines can have severe consequences.

Do Not Assume Social Media Advice Is Correct

Immigration law is highly fact-specific.

What worked for one person may not apply to another.

Always verify information through reliable sources.

Useful resources include:

• USCIS
• Department of State
• Executive Office for Immigration Review

Do Not Delay Seeking Legal Advice

The earlier legal issues are identified, the more options typically exist.

Many immigration problems become significantly harder to fix after deadlines pass or adverse decisions are issued.

Why Preparation Matters More Than Prediction

One of the central themes of this article is uncertainty.

No one knows whether the immigration pendulum is swinging.

No one knows how courts will ultimately rule.

No one knows what policies future administrations will adopt.

No one knows whether Congress will act.

But uncertainty does not eliminate opportunity.

The immigrants who are most successful during periods of change are often those who prepare before changes occur.

They maintain records.

They preserve evidence.

They comply with requirements.

They understand their options.

They seek advice when needed.

And they position themselves to adapt as circumstances evolve.

That approach remains just as important today as it was during every previous immigration cycle discussed in this article.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Has the immigration pendulum really started to swing back?

No one can answer that with certainty.

What we can say is that several indicators that historically preceded immigration policy shifts are now visible:

• significant federal court rulings,
• growing litigation,
• increased judicial scrutiny of executive authority,
• changing public opinion,
• business opposition,
• university opposition,
• growing public debate regarding immigration enforcement.

Whether these developments become a lasting trend remains to be seen. But they are significant enough that immigration lawyers, policymakers, employers, and immigrant families should pay close attention. See Pew Research’s immigration polling. (Pew Research Center)

---

What happened in the Rhode Island immigration case?

On June 5, 2026, Chief Judge John McConnell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island invalidated USCIS policies that had delayed or blocked immigration benefit adjudications for nationals of 39 designated countries.

The court found that the policies unlawfully prevented immigrants from receiving decisions on applications involving asylum, employment authorization, adjustment of status, and naturalization. See Reuters coverage and Rhode Island Current’s coverage with link to the 135-page opinion. (Reuters)

---

What happened to the $100,000 H-1B filing fee?

On June 8, 2026, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin ruled that the Administration’s $100,000 H-1B filing fee was unlawful because it constituted an unauthorized tax that Congress had never approved.

The court concluded that the executive branch lacked authority to impose such a fee unilaterally. See Reuters coverage of the ruling. (Reuters)

---

Is the H-1B issue over?

No.

The government is expected to appeal.

Additional litigation is likely.

Future administrations may attempt different approaches.

Employers and foreign professionals should continue monitoring developments closely. (Reuters)

---

What is PM-602-0199?

PM-602-0199 is USCIS’s May 21, 2026 memorandum concerning adjustment of status adjudications.

The memorandum emphasizes that adjustment of status is a discretionary benefit and describes adjustment as an extraordinary form of relief rather than a routine pathway to permanent residence.

Read the memorandum here:

USCIS PM-602-0199

---

Will PM-602-0199 be challenged in court?

Many immigration lawyers believe litigation is likely.

Potential challenges could involve:

• Administrative Procedure Act claims,
• statutory interpretation issues,
• arbitrary-and-capricious review,
• due process arguments,
• conflicts with prior USCIS practice.

As of publication, significant litigation appears increasingly likely.

---

Can USCIS still deny adjustment of status even if I qualify?

Yes.

Adjustment of status has always been discretionary.

The practical question is how USCIS exercises that discretion.

Applicants should assume that positive equities are becoming increasingly important.

---

What are positive equities?

Examples include:

• long-term residence,
• family ties,
• military service,
• community involvement,
• volunteer work,
• educational achievement,
• business ownership,
• tax compliance,
• humanitarian concerns,
• hardship to U.S. citizens.

---

Are immigration courts becoming more important?

Yes.

Many of the most important immigration issues are increasingly being litigated in:

• immigration courts,
• federal district courts,
• federal courts of appeals,
• the Supreme Court.

Litigation is likely to remain one of the primary drivers of immigration law for years to come.

---

What is habeas corpus in immigration law?

A habeas corpus petition asks a federal court to review whether immigration detention is lawful.

Recent years have seen substantial growth in detention-related habeas litigation involving:

• prolonged detention,
• bond hearings,
• constitutional due process,
• removal delays,
• ICE detention practices.

---

Are Americans becoming more supportive of immigration?

The answer is nuanced.

Recent polling suggests Americans continue supporting border security and removal of violent criminals.

At the same time, many Americans appear increasingly skeptical of broad deportation programs and certain enforcement practices. See Pew Research, Harvard-Harris, and Gallup immigration research. (Pew Research Center)

---

Why do immigration pendulum swings happen?

Historically, immigration policy is influenced by:

• economic conditions,
• labor shortages,
• demographic trends,
• wars,
• national security concerns,
• public opinion,
• judicial decisions,
• political coalitions.

When these forces change, immigration policy often changes as well.

---

Could Congress pass major immigration reform?

Anything is possible, but comprehensive immigration reform appears unlikely in the near term given current political divisions.

Most major developments are likely to come from:

• litigation,
• executive action,
• administrative policy,
• court decisions.

---

What should immigrants do right now?

The safest strategy is preparation:

• maintain lawful status when possible,
• preserve documentation,
• respond promptly to government notices,
• document positive equities,
• consult qualified immigration counsel,
• stay informed about legal developments.

Periods of uncertainty reward preparation.

Immigration Pendulum Resource Center

Current Litigation and Policy Developments

Rhode Island USCIS Benefits Freeze Case

• Reuters:
  US Judge Invalidates Policies Targeting Immigrants from 39 Countries (Reuters)
• Rhode Island Current (includes opinion):
  RI Federal Judge Strikes Down Block on Immigration Benefits (Rhode Island Current)

H-1B $100,000 Filing Fee Litigation

• Reuters:
  Trump’s $100,000 H-1B Fee Is Unlawful (Reuters)
• Reuters background coverage:
  Judge Questions Scope of Executive Authority (Reuters)

USCIS Policy Memorandum

• USCIS:
  PM-602-0199 Adjustment of Status and Discretion

---

Public Opinion Research

Pew Research Center

• About Half of Americans Say Administration Is Doing Too Much on Deportations (Pew Research Center)
• Americans’ Views of Deportations (Pew Research Center)

Harvard-Harris Poll

• January 2026 Immigration Findings (Harvard Harris Poll)

Gallup

• National Immigration Attitudes Survey

---

Historical Sources

Chinese Exclusion Act

• National Archives: Chinese Exclusion Act Records

Immigration Act of 1924

• Office of the Historian: Immigration Act of 1924

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965

Arizona v. United States

Final Thoughts: The Pendulum Never Stops Moving

For more than 130 years, American immigration policy has moved through cycles.

Restriction.

Expansion.

Backlash.

Reform.

Enforcement.

Accommodation.

The details change with broader shifts in U.S. foreign policy and economic openness.

The pattern remains remarkably familiar.

Whether 2026 ultimately becomes remembered as a turning point remains uncertain.

But the forces that have driven previous immigration shifts are increasingly visible:

• judicial intervention,
• economic pressure,
• demographic realities,
• public opinion,
• institutional resistance,
• constitutional concerns.

Recent immigration debates also reflect larger arguments about democracy, presidential power, and how far a president can reshape policy without Congress. Both Democrats and Republicans have helped drive these swings, and a second term often intensifies an existing enforcement approach rather than fully resetting it.

History suggests those forces should not be ignored.

For immigrants, employers, families, students, and communities, the lesson is not to panic.

The lesson is to prepare.

Because while no one knows exactly where the immigration pendulum is heading next, one thing is certain:

It has never remained still for long.

 

 

 

 

Federal Judge Strikes Down Trump’s 100000 H 1B Fee: Is the H-1B Crackdown Over?

What Employers, H-1B Workers, F-1 Students, Universities, Hospitals, and High-Skilled Immigrants Need to Know After the Massachusetts Federal Court Order

On June 8, 2026, a federal judge in Massachusetts delivered a major victory for employers, universities, hospitals, startups, high-skilled immigrants, and H-1B workers.

In State of California v. Mullin, U.S. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin ruled that the Trump Administration’s $100,000 H-1B payment requirement is unlawful. The court vacated the federal policy materials that implemented the fee, meaning the agencies cannot continue enforcing the policy as it was issued.

The case was brought by California, Massachusetts, and eighteen other states. In their complaint, the states argued that the Trump Administration attempted to impose a massive new H-1B financial barrier without congressional authorization, without proper notice-and-comment rulemaking, and without adequately considering the impact on public schools, universities, hospitals, research institutions, and state employers.

The court agreed with the states on several critical points.

Judge Sorokin held that the $100,000 H-1B payment was not a normal filing fee. It was not tied to adjudication costs. It was not enacted by Congress. It was not adopted through ordinary rulemaking. Instead, the court treated the payment as an unauthorized tax imposed through executive action.

That distinction matters enormously.

The ruling does not merely affect one filing fee. It challenges a broader legal theory behind the Trump Administration’s effort to reshape employment-based immigration through executive power.

For H-1B employers and workers, the immediate question is practical:

Is the $100,000 H-1B fee gone?

For now, the answer is yes: the Massachusetts federal court has vacated the agency policy implementing the fee. But the litigation is almost certainly not over. The government may appeal to the First Circuit, seek a stay, and ultimately ask the Supreme Court to intervene.

For high-skilled immigrants, the deeper question is even more important:

Does this mean the H-1B crackdown is over?

No.

The $100,000 fee was one of the most dramatic pieces of the Trump Administration’s skilled-immigration agenda, but it was never the only threat. Other H-1B restrictions, including wage-weighted lottery rules, intensified site visits, stricter employer compliance reviews, increased Requests for Evidence, consular scrutiny, social media vetting, and potential attacks on H-4 EAD and OPT/STEM OPT remain major concerns.

Herman Legal Group has been closely tracking these developments, including the original H-1B $100,000 filing fee, the lawsuit challenging the $100,000 H-1B fee, the broader Trump 2026 H-1B crackdown, and the new H-1B lottery rule for 2026–2027.

This article explains what the Massachusetts court decided, what happens next, and what employers and high-skilled immigrants should do now.

Key Takeaways

• Federal judge strikes down Trump’s $100000 H-1B Fee, classifying it as unlawful
• Court treated the fee as an unauthorized tax
• Fee currently cannot be enforced
• Appeal is expected
• Refund litigation may follow
• Other H-1B restrictions remain in place

   

Quick Answer: What Did the Massachusetts Court Decide About the $100,000 H-1B Fee?

The Massachusetts federal court ruled that the Trump Administration’s $100,000 H-1B payment requirement is unlawful because the Executive Branch lacked authority to impose it.

The court found that the agencies’ implementation of the payment requirement violated the Administrative Procedure Act and exceeded statutory authority. The court also concluded that the payment functioned as a tax, not a normal filing fee.

Judge Sorokin wrote that the “substance and application” of the $100,000 payment showed that it was a tax.

That is the heart of the ruling.

A normal immigration filing fee is supposed to help cover the cost of processing an application or petition. The court explained that Congress has authorized immigration adjudication fees under specific statutory limits. But the $100,000 H-1B payment was different. It was not designed to recover the cost of adjudicating an H-1B petition. It was a massive supplemental payment imposed on employers as a condition of access to the H-1B system.

The court therefore vacated the federal policy materials implementing the $100,000 payment requirement.

That matters because vacatur under the Administrative Procedure Act generally means the unlawful agency action is set aside. The court declined to issue a separate permanent injunction because it found that vacatur provided complete relief.

For employers, this means the policy materials requiring the $100,000 payment have been set aside.

For H-1B workers, this means the ruling attacks the fee requirement, not the validity of the H-1B category itself.

For F-1 students hoping to move from OPT or STEM OPT to H-1B, this decision may restore confidence among employers that were reluctant to sponsor workers under a six-figure payment regime.

For universities, hospitals, research centers, and public employers, the decision may preserve access to high-skilled workers in teaching, healthcare, science, engineering, and research roles.

Is the $100,000 H-1B Fee Gone Immediately?

For now, the court has vacated the agency policy implementing the $100,000 H-1B payment requirement.

That means USCIS, the State Department, DHS, and related agencies cannot continue enforcing the vacated policy unless a higher court stays or reverses the Massachusetts decision.

But employers should not assume the legal fight is finished.

The government is likely to consider several next steps:

1. Filing a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
2. Seeking a stay from Judge Sorokin.
3. Seeking an emergency stay from the First Circuit.
4. Asking the Supreme Court for emergency relief if the First Circuit denies a stay.
5. Continuing to defend the legality of the fee in related litigation.

Because another federal court previously reached a different conclusion in litigation involving the $100,000 H-1B fee, the issue may become a serious appellate conflict. That increases the chance of further review.

Employers should proceed carefully. The ruling is a major victory, but legal instability remains.

Does This Decision Apply Nationwide?

The court vacated the policy materials implementing the Proclamation’s $100,000 payment requirement. That is different from an injunction limited only to the plaintiff states.

In practical terms, vacatur under the APA generally sets aside the unlawful agency action itself. That makes the ruling potentially national in effect, because the policy materials are no longer valid agency action.

This is especially important for employers outside Massachusetts and outside the plaintiff states.

If the ruling remains in place, employers nationwide should not be required to comply with the vacated $100,000 payment policy.

However, two cautions are important.

First, the federal government may seek a stay. If a stay is granted, the government could potentially continue enforcing the fee during appeal.

Second, because litigation over nationwide vacatur is itself a developing area of law, employers should watch closely for USCIS guidance, State Department guidance, and appellate orders.

The bottom line: the decision is broad and powerful, but employers should not treat the issue as permanently resolved until the appeals process becomes clearer.

Timeline: The Rise and Fall of the $100,000 H-1B Fee

Understanding how the $100,000 H-1B fee emerged—and how it was struck down—helps explain why the Massachusetts decision may become one of the most important immigration cases of 2026.

The timeline also illustrates a broader story: the ongoing struggle between the Executive Branch, Congress, employers, states, universities, and the federal courts over the future of legal immigration.

September 2025: Trump Announces the $100,000 H-1B Fee

In September 2025, President Trump announced a sweeping new policy imposing a $100,000 payment requirement on certain H-1B petitions involving certain foreign nationals who did not already possess H-1B status or a valid H-1B visa. The policy was aimed at new entrants rather than all foreign nationals equally.

The Administration argued that the measure would:

• protect American workers;
• discourage excessive reliance on foreign labor;
• incentivize domestic hiring;
• reduce perceived abuse of the H-1B program.

The announcement immediately generated concern among:

• technology companies;
• hospitals;
• universities;
• research institutions;
• multinational corporations;
• immigration lawyers;
• international business groups.

Many observers viewed the fee as one of the most aggressive restrictions ever imposed on legal employment-based immigration.

For background, see Herman Legal Group’s analysis:

H1B $100,000 Filing Fee: What Every Employer Must Know

October–November 2025: Employers Begin Reassessing International Recruitment

As implementation guidance emerged, employers began evaluating the practical impact of the fee.

Many organizations concluded that a mandatory six-figure payment would fundamentally alter the economics for companies seeking to recruit or hire foreign talent.

Concerns were particularly acute among:

• healthcare systems recruiting physicians;
• universities recruiting researchers;
• engineering firms;
• AI and technology companies;
• startups;
• manufacturers with specialized workforce needs.

The issue quickly expanded beyond immigration law and became a workforce planning issue.

For many employers, the question was no longer:

“Can we hire international talent?”

Instead, the question became:

“Can we afford to?”

Late 2025: Lawsuits Are Filed Challenging the Fee

A coalition of states led by California filed suit challenging the legality of the $100,000 payment requirement, in a case that paralleled broader business opposition seen in a separate chamber lawsuit over executive immigration restrictions.

The states argued that:

• Congress never authorized the fee;
• the fee functioned as a tax;
• the Administration exceeded its statutory authority;
• the policy violated the Administrative Procedure Act;
• public institutions would suffer significant harm.

The complaint emphasized the impact on:

• public universities;
• healthcare systems;
• state agencies;
• educational institutions;
• research organizations.

The full complaint can be viewed here:

State of California v. Mullin – Complaint

HLG’s earlier coverage of the litigation can be found here:

Lawsuit Against Trump’s $100,000 H-1B Fee

Winter 2025–2026: National Debate Intensifies

As litigation proceeded, the fee became one of the most controversial aspects of the Administration’s broader employment-based immigration agenda.

Supporters argued:

• employers had become too dependent on foreign labor;
• the fee would encourage investment in U.S. workers;
• H-1B hiring should become more selective.

Critics argued:

• the fee operated as a de facto barrier to legal immigration;
• public institutions would struggle to recruit talent;
• healthcare and research sectors would be harmed;
• the Administration lacked legal authority to impose the payment.

The broader backlash also drew opposition from the Chamber of Commerce, which warned about the policy’s impact on employers and competitiveness.

Separate business groups, including the US Chamber, framed the measure as an unlawful burden on lawful hiring.

The debate increasingly focused on a fundamental question:

Could the President impose a six-figure payment requirement without Congress?

Early 2026: Briefing Focuses on Executive Authority

As the litigation developed, the dispute evolved into something larger than an H-1B case.

The central issue became:

What are the limits of presidential power in immigration law?

The states argued that:

• immigration authority is broad but not unlimited;
• Congress controls taxation;
• Congress controls immigration fee structures;
• the Executive Branch cannot create a new tax through proclamation.

The government argued that:

• INA §212(f) grants broad authority to restrict entry under a presidential proclamation;
• the fee was part of a lawful immigration restriction;
• courts should defer to presidential judgment in immigration matters.

The case increasingly became a test of competing visions of executive power, and it also tested the outer limits of the president’s authority to attach new burdens to entry restrictions.

June 8, 2026: Judge Sorokin Strikes Down the Fee

On June 8, 2026, Judge Leo T. Sorokin issued a major decision in favor of the states.

The court concluded that the Administration exceeded its authority.

Among the most important findings:

• the payment functioned as a tax;
• Congress had not authorized the tax;
• the policy violated the Administrative Procedure Act;
• the implementing agency actions should be vacated.

The court vacated the federal policy implementing the fee.

The opinion can be read here:

State of California v. Mullin – Memorandum and Order

The decision immediately became one of the most significant immigration rulings of 2026.

Summer 2026: Expected Appeal to the First Circuit

The next major milestone is likely to be an appeal.

Most observers expect the government to:

• file a notice of appeal;
• seek a stay;
• defend the fee before the First Circuit.

Several questions remain unresolved:

• Can the government continue enforcing the fee during appeal?
• Will the First Circuit affirm the ruling?
• Will the court narrow the ruling?
• Will the litigation reach the Supreme Court?

These questions may shape employer decisions for the remainder of 2026.

Late 2026–2027: Potential Supreme Court Review

If appellate courts disagree—or if the case is viewed as sufficiently important—the Supreme Court may ultimately intervene.

Issues likely to attract Supreme Court attention include:

• presidential authority;
• immigration power;
• taxing authority;
• administrative law;
• separation of powers.

If that occurs, the ultimate significance of the case may extend far beyond H-1B visas.

The Court may be asked to answer a question that will influence immigration policy for years to come:

Can a President fundamentally reshape legal immigration through executive action when Congress has not clearly authorized the change?

Why This Timeline Matters

The story of the $100,000 H-1B fee is not simply the story of a fee.

It is the story of an ongoing struggle over:

• legal immigration;
• workforce policy;
• executive authority;
• congressional power;
• the future of the American economy.

The Massachusetts decision is an important chapter.

But it is unlikely to be the final chapter.

The next chapter will likely be written in the First Circuit—and perhaps ultimately in the United States Supreme Court.

Key Players in the Lawsuit

Understanding who brought this case—and who stood to win or lose—helps explain why the litigation attracted national attention.

Although the dispute centered on the $100,000 H-1B payment requirement, the case was really about much larger issues involving executive power, congressional authority, legal immigration, workforce development, higher education, healthcare staffing, and the future of the U.S. economy.

The Plaintiffs: Twenty States Challenging the Fee

The lawsuit was led by California and Massachusetts, joined by a coalition of eighteen other states.

The states argued that the $100,000 H-1B payment requirement would cause direct harm to their economies, public institutions, and residents.

According to the complaint, state governments rely heavily on highly skilled workers in critical sectors such as:

• healthcare;
• higher education;
• scientific research;
• engineering;
• information technology;
• public administration.

The states also argued that public universities, teaching hospitals, research institutions, and state agencies would face significant recruiting difficulties if employers were required to pay an additional $100,000 to sponsor certain foreign professionals.

The states maintained that Congress never authorized the fee and that the Executive Branch exceeded its legal authority by imposing it.

Read the complaint here:

State of California v. Mullin – Complaint

The Defendants: The Trump Administration and Federal Immigration Agencies

The defendants included federal officials responsible for implementing and enforcing the policy.

Although media coverage often refers to the case as a challenge to the Trump Administration, the lawsuit specifically targeted the agencies and officials responsible for administering the H-1B program.

The challenged policy involved actions by:

• the Department of Homeland Security (DHS);
• U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS);
• other federal officials charged with implementing immigration policy.

The government argued that the President possessed broad authority under federal immigration law to impose the payment requirement as part of a lawful restriction on entry.

The Administration maintained that the fee was designed to protect American workers and discourage excessive reliance on foreign labor.

The Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts

The case was heard in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Federal district courts are trial-level courts that hear constitutional challenges, administrative law disputes, and lawsuits involving federal agencies.

Although district court decisions do not automatically bind courts nationwide as precedent, they can have nationwide practical effects—especially when agency actions are vacated under the Administrative Procedure Act.

That is one reason why this decision immediately attracted national attention.

The Judge: U.S. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin

Judge Leo T. Sorokin authored the June 8, 2026 opinion striking down the $100,000 H-1B payment requirement.

Judge Sorokin’s analysis focused heavily on questions of statutory authority and constitutional structure.

Rather than asking whether the fee was good policy, the court focused on whether Congress had authorized the Executive Branch to impose it.

That distinction became central to the decision.

The court ultimately concluded that the payment functioned as a tax and that Congress had not delegated authority to the Executive Branch to impose such a tax through presidential action.

Read the court’s opinion here:

State of California v. Mullin – Memorandum and Order

The Employers: The Real Parties in Interest

Although employers were not the named plaintiffs, they were among the groups most directly affected by the policy.

The fee created significant concerns for:

• technology companies;
• engineering firms;
• hospitals;
• universities;
• research institutions;
• healthcare systems;
• manufacturers;
• multinational corporations;
• startups.

Many employers argued that a mandatory $100,000 payment would fundamentally alter the economics of recruiting specialized talent from abroad.

For some organizations, the issue was not merely immigration policy—it was workforce planning.

The Foreign Professionals

The litigation also carried enormous consequences for highly skilled foreign professionals seeking employment opportunities in the United States.

Particularly affected were:

• physicians;
• engineers;
• scientists;
• researchers;
• software developers;
• artificial intelligence specialists;
• university faculty;
• healthcare professionals;
• multinational employees recruited from abroad.

Although many existing H-1B workers already in the United States were outside the primary scope of the fee, the policy threatened to affect future recruitment of foreign talent entering the United States through the H-1B system.

For many professionals abroad, the outcome of the litigation could determine whether prospective employers remained willing to sponsor them.

The Institutions with the Most at Stake

One of the most important—and often overlooked—aspects of the lawsuit was the role of public institutions.

The states repeatedly emphasized the impact on:

• public universities;
• teaching hospitals;
• medical schools;
• research centers;
• public school systems;
• state agencies.

These institutions often compete globally for talent and operate under budget constraints that make six-figure sponsorship costs difficult or impossible to absorb.

As a result, the litigation was not merely about business immigration.

It was also about healthcare access, scientific research, higher education, and economic competitiveness.

The Real Legal Question

At first glance, the case appeared to be about an H-1B fee.

In reality, the litigation centered on a much bigger question:

Can the Executive Branch impose a six-figure financial condition on participation in the H-1B program when Congress never expressly authorized it?

Judge Sorokin answered that question “no.”

The government’s appeal will likely ask higher courts to answer the same question differently.

The resolution of that dispute may ultimately shape not only the future of the H-1B program, but also the future limits of presidential power in immigration law.

 

 

Why Did the Court Say the $100,000 H-1B Payment Was a Tax?

The court’s tax analysis is one of the most important parts of the decision.

The Administration argued that the $100,000 requirement was a lawful immigration measure tied to the President’s authority to restrict entry of certain noncitizens under INA § 212(f) and INA § 215(a), justified in part by national security concerns. The government framed the payment as part of a restriction on entry designed to protect U.S. workers and prevent abuse of the H-1B program.

The court saw the issue differently.

Judge Sorokin emphasized that the payment did not make hiring H-1B workers illegal. Instead, it allowed employers to obtain access to the H-1B process if they paid $100,000. That made the payment resemble a tax rather than a penalty.

The court also rejected the government’s argument that the payment was not a tax because it was collected by DHS rather than the IRS. The court explained that the collecting agency does not determine whether a payment is a tax.

This point is especially important because the court relied on the Supreme Court’s recent tariff decision, Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, where the Court treated tariffs assessed by DHS as taxes for constitutional purposes.

That connection may become central on appeal.

Judge Sorokin’s reasoning suggests that the government cannot avoid the Constitution’s taxing limits simply by routing money through DHS or tying the payment to immigration enforcement.

For employers and high-skilled immigrants, the takeaway is clear:

The court did not merely say the fee was too high.

The court said the wrong branch of government imposed it.

Congress can tax. Congress can create immigration fees. Congress can redesign the H-1B program. But the President cannot simply create a six-figure payment obligation without statutory authorization.

That is why this case is bigger than H-1B.

Why Is This Ruling Bigger Than the H-1B Program?

Most news coverage will describe this as a ruling about the $100,000 H-1B fee.

That is accurate, but incomplete.

The larger issue is whether a president may use immigration authority to create massive economic barriers that Congress never enacted.

The Trump Administration relied heavily on INA § 212(f), a statute that allows the President to suspend or restrict entry of certain noncitizens when their entry would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. That statute was central to the Supreme Court’s travel-ban decision in Trump v. Hawaii.

But Judge Sorokin’s ruling draws a sharp line.

The President may have broad authority to restrict entry. But that does not automatically include authority to impose a new tax.

That distinction may become one of the most important immigration-law questions of 2026.

If the government can use § 212(f) to impose a $100,000 payment requirement on H-1B employers, what else could it impose?

• Could a future administration impose a $50,000 payment on F-1 students?
• Could it impose a $75,000 payment on employment-based immigrant visa applicants?
• Could it impose a massive supplemental charge on family-based visa cases?
• Could it impose special financial barriers on nationals of particular countries?

Judge Sorokin’s answer appears to be no, at least where the payment functions as a tax and Congress has not clearly authorized it.

That is why this ruling may become a template for future challenges to aggressive executive actions in legal immigration.

Does This Mean the Trump H-1B Crackdown Is Over?

No.

This is the most important practical point for H-1B workers and employers.

The court struck down the $100,000 fee policy. It did not invalidate every part of the Trump Administration’s skilled-immigration agenda.

Many other restrictions may remain alive, including:

• wage-weighted H-1B lottery selection;
• stricter review of specialty occupation eligibility;
• increased scrutiny of Level I wage positions;
• tougher employer-employee relationship analysis;
• more FDNS site visits;
• more Labor Condition Application audits;
• remote-work compliance investigations;
• increased consular review;
• social media screening;
• potential H-4 EAD restrictions;
• OPT and STEM OPT scrutiny;
• higher denial risk for staffing and third-party placement cases.

HLG has discussed these risks in detail in its coverage of the Trump 2026 H-1B crackdown and the broader war on H-1B in 2026.

The fee was dramatic because it was simple to understand. A $100,000 number gets attention.

But for many employers, the bigger long-term risk is not one fee. It is the slow conversion of the H-1B system into a more hostile adjudication environment.

Employers may still face more RFEs, more NOIDs, more site visits, more denials, more compliance exposure, and more uncertainty.

High-skilled immigrants should not interpret this ruling as a return to the pre-2025 H-1B system.

The better interpretation is this:

The courts may block some of the most aggressive executive actions, but the broader enforcement environment remains dangerous.

What Should Employers Do Right Now?

Employers should not panic. But they should also not become complacent.

The immediate employer strategy should be:

1. Review Any H-1B Cases Affected by the $100,000 Fee

Employers should identify whether they had any H-1B petitions delayed, abandoned, denied, or financially affected because of the payment requirement.

This includes:

• new consular H-1B petitions;
• petitions for workers outside the United States;
• cases involving beneficiaries without valid H-1B visas;
• filings where USCIS guidance created uncertainty;
• cases where business units stopped sponsorship because of cost.

2. Preserve Records for Possible Refund or Litigation Claims

If an employer paid the $100,000 fee, it should preserve:

• proof of payment;
• USCIS receipts;
• payment portal confirmations;
• internal emails discussing the fee;
• outside counsel communications;
• budget approvals;
• case strategy notes;
• any correspondence with USCIS, the State Department, or CBP.

Refund procedures are not yet clear. Employers that paid may need to pursue administrative refund requests or litigation depending on how the government responds.

3. Restart Sponsorship Planning Carefully

Some employers paused H-1B sponsorship because of the fee. Those employers should reassess.

The ruling may make H-1B sponsorship economically realistic again, especially for:

• startups;
• hospitals;
• universities;
• research institutions;
• public schools;
• small and mid-sized employers;
• nonprofit organizations;
• employers hiring recent graduates.

But sponsorship should restart with careful compliance planning.

4. Audit H-1B Compliance Now

The fee may be gone for now, but enforcement risk remains.

Employers should review:

• LCAs;
• wage levels;
• worksite locations;
• remote-work arrangements;
• public access files;
• job descriptions;
• degree requirements;
• third-party placement documents;
• supervision structures;
• amended petition triggers.

Employers should treat this ruling as an opportunity to rebuild stronger H-1B compliance systems, not as permission to relax.

5. Watch for Appeals and Agency Guidance

Employers should monitor:

• First Circuit filings;
• any motion for stay;
• USCIS policy alerts;
• State Department guidance;
• CBP guidance;
• DOL enforcement updates.

The most dangerous period in immigration law is often the period immediately after a major court order, when agencies are adjusting guidance and employers are trying to interpret incomplete information.

What Should H-1B Workers Do Right Now?

H-1B workers should understand what this ruling does and does not do.

The ruling does not cancel H-1B status.

It does not invalidate approved H-1B petitions.

It does not mean every employer will suddenly sponsor again.

It does not eliminate other risks in the H-1B system.

But it may remove a major financial obstacle that discouraged employers from filing new H-1B petitions.

H-1B workers should:

• confirm whether their employer paused or changed plans because of the fee;
• ask whether sponsorship strategy is being revisited;
• maintain lawful status;
• avoid international travel without understanding current visa and entry risks;
• preserve immigration records;
• consult immigration counsel before changing employers;
• evaluate backup options if their employer remains reluctant to sponsor.

Workers affected by layoffs should also review options such as H-1B transfer, change of status, B-1/B-2 bridge strategy, F-1 study, O-1, E-2, L-1, or permanent residence planning. HLG has addressed related strategy questions in its H-1B and employment immigration resources, including guidance on H-1B alternatives and the 2026 crackdown.

What Should F-1 Students and STEM OPT Workers Know?

For F-1 students, OPT workers, and STEM OPT workers, this ruling may be extremely important.

The $100,000 H-1B payment threatened to break the traditional pathway:

F-1 student → OPT → STEM OPT → H-1B → employment-based green card.

Many employers were unlikely to pay $100,000 to sponsor a recent graduate, even a highly talented one.

That risk was especially severe for:

• new graduates;
• entry-level software engineers;
• data analysts;
• AI researchers;
• engineers;
• financial analysts;
• healthcare professionals;
• university researchers;
• startup employees;
• workers at small and mid-sized companies.

With the fee vacated, some employers may become more willing to consider H-1B sponsorship again.

But F-1 students should not assume sponsorship is now easy.

The H-1B lottery remains competitive. Wage-weighted selection rules may still affect selection odds. USCIS may continue to scrutinize specialty occupation issues. Employers may remain cautious because of political and legal uncertainty.

Students should continue to protect every available option:

• maintain valid F-1 status;
• preserve OPT and STEM OPT compliance;
• track unemployment days;
• ensure accurate I-983 training plans;
• communicate carefully with DSOs;
• prepare early for H-1B registration;
• consider cap-exempt H-1B employers;
• explore O-1, EB-2 NIW, EB-1, J-1 waiver, L-1, or other options where appropriate.

HLG’s coverage of the new H-1B lottery rule for 2026–2027 remains important because the lottery system itself may still be changing even if the $100,000 fee has been struck down.

What Should Universities, Hospitals, and Research Institutions Know?

The Massachusetts case was not only about technology companies.

The states’ complaint emphasized the effect of the fee on public schools, universities, hospitals, medical facilities, and research institutions.

That point matters.

H-1B workers are not limited to Silicon Valley.

They include:

• physicians;
• medical residents;
• researchers;
• professors;
• postdoctoral fellows;
• teachers;
• engineers;
• data scientists;
• healthcare specialists;
• public-sector professionals.

The complaint argued that the $100,000 fee threatened access to education, healthcare, and research capacity, particularly in communities already facing staffing shortages.

For hospitals and healthcare systems, the ruling may preserve access to foreign-trained physicians, medical specialists, and researchers.

For universities, it may protect hiring of professors, postdocs, research staff, and other high-skilled employees.

For public schools, it may help preserve access to educators in hard-to-fill subject areas.

For rural communities, the decision may be especially important because employers in less wealthy regions often cannot absorb a $100,000 payment per worker.

These institutions should still prepare for continued scrutiny. Cap-exempt employers may have escaped some parts of the H-1B lottery problem, but they are not immune from USCIS adjudication trends, site visits, wage compliance obligations, or consular delays.

Richard Herman’s Analysis: The Court Rejected a Governing Theory, Not Just a Fee

The most important part of this decision is not the number $100,000.

The most important part is the court’s rejection of a governing theory.

The Trump Administration’s theory was essentially this:

Because the President has broad authority over the entry of noncitizens, the President can attach a massive payment requirement to entry through the H-1B system.

Judge Sorokin rejected that logic. The court declined to extend the same logic of entry restriction into tax-creating power.

The court’s reasoning suggests that immigration authority is not a blank check. Even where the President has broad authority over entry, that authority does not automatically include the power to tax, bypass notice-and-comment rulemaking, or override Congress’s detailed statutory framework.

That is a powerful limit.

For years, immigration lawyers have watched administrations of both parties use executive power to reshape immigration policy. Some executive actions expand access. Others restrict it. But the underlying question is increasingly the same:

Where did Congress authorize this?

That question may define immigration litigation in 2026.

The Supreme Court’s recent decisions limiting agency deference and scrutinizing executive economic authority make this question even more important. After Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, agencies can no longer rely on Chevron deference to defend aggressive statutory interpretations. After the tariff litigation referenced by Judge Sorokin, courts may be more skeptical of executive efforts to impose massive economic consequences without clear congressional authorization.

That is why this ruling could matter far beyond H-1B.

It may influence challenges to:

• new visa fees;
• immigration proclamations;
• travel restrictions;
• employment-based immigration limits;
• agency fee schedules;
• consular restrictions;
• nationality-based restrictions;
• future attempts to restrict legal immigration through executive action.

The legal question is no longer only whether the President has broad immigration authority.

The question is whether the particular action a proclamation imposes fits within authority Congress actually granted.

That is a much harder question for the government.

What Happens Next? Appeals, Refunds, Overseas Recruitment, and the Future of Skilled Immigration

The Massachusetts decision is a major setback for the Trump Administration’s effort to reshape the H-1B program.

But employers and foreign professionals should not assume the issue is resolved.

The litigation is entering a new phase, and some of the most important questions remain unanswered.

The immediate questions are:

• Will the government appeal?
• Can the Administration continue enforcing the fee during the appeal?
• Will employers receive refunds?
• Could Congress bring the fee back?
• Will the Administration pursue alternative restrictions?
• What does this mean for recruiting foreign talent?

These questions may ultimately prove more important than the district court’s ruling itself.

The First Battle: Will the Government Seek a Stay?

The most immediate issue is not the appeal.

It is whether the government can keep the fee alive while the appeal proceeds.

A stay would temporarily suspend the effect of Judge Sorokin’s ruling.

If a stay were granted:

• the government could potentially continue enforcing the fee;
• employers could again face uncertainty regarding overseas recruitment;
• the practical benefits of the decision could be delayed.

If a stay is denied:

• the fee remains unenforceable;
• employers may proceed without the six-figure payment requirement;
• the government must continue litigating from a weakened position.

For many employers, the stay litigation may be more important than the eventual appellate decision.

Will the Government Appeal?

Almost certainly.

The Administration devoted significant political and legal resources to the $100,000 H-1B payment requirement.

The fee was not merely a revenue-generating measure.

It was designed to change employer behavior.

The Administration’s stated objective was to reduce employer reliance on foreign labor and encourage investment in U.S. workers.

Because Judge Sorokin rejected the legal foundation of that approach, an appeal is highly likely.

The government will probably argue:

• INA §212(f) grants broad authority to restrict entry;
• the payment requirement was part of a lawful entry restriction;
• the district court improperly treated the payment as a tax;
• the states lacked standing;
• the court exceeded its authority by vacating the policy.

Those arguments will shape the next phase of the litigation.

Could the Supreme Court Ultimately Decide the Case?

Yes.

In fact, this case has several characteristics commonly associated with Supreme Court review.

It presents:

• a major separation-of-powers dispute;
• questions regarding presidential authority;
• issues involving federal taxation powers;
• nationwide economic consequences;
• significant immigration implications.

The Court may eventually need to answer a fundamental question:

Can a President use immigration authority to impose a six-figure financial condition that Congress never enacted?

That question reaches far beyond H-1B visas.

What Happens to Employers Who Already Paid?

One of the most immediate practical questions is whether employers will receive refunds.

At present, no refund process has been announced.

Several possibilities exist:

Voluntary Government Refunds

The government could refund the payments administratively.

Administrative Claims

Employers may need to submit refund requests.

Refund Litigation

Employers may be forced to pursue separate legal actions.

Congressional Action

Congress could establish a statutory refund process.

For now, employers should assume nothing.

Instead, they should preserve every relevant record.

What Documents Should Employers Preserve?

Any employer that paid the $100,000 fee should retain:

• payment confirmations;
• USCIS receipts;
• wire records;
• legal invoices;
• internal approvals;
• budget analyses;
• correspondence concerning the fee;
• recruiting records affected by the fee.

Those materials may become important if refund litigation develops.

The Employers Most Affected Were Often Recruiting From Abroad

One of the most misunderstood aspects of the $100,000 fee is who actually faced the greatest burden.

Many people assume the fee affected every H-1B filing.

That is inaccurate.

The fee generally targeted certain foreign nationals seeking initial H-1B entry who did not already possess H-1B status or a valid H-1B visa.

As a result, the employers most affected were often those seeking to recruit talent from outside the United States, including workers who were not US citizens and were applying from abroad.

The fee created obstacles for:

• international recruitment;
• overseas hiring;
• foreign professionals seeking initial H-1B entry;
• multinational companies transferring talent into U.S. operations through new H-1B sponsorship;
• universities recruiting researchers;
• hospitals recruiting physicians;
• engineering and technology firms seeking specialized expertise.

The fee therefore threatened the future pipeline of global talent entering the United States.

That may be where Judge Sorokin’s ruling has its greatest practical significance.

Why Universities and Hospitals Were So Concerned

The states’ complaint repeatedly emphasized the effect of the fee on public institutions.

Universities, research institutions, hospitals, and healthcare systems depend heavily on internationally recruited talent.

These institutions often hire:

• physicians;
• researchers;
• scientists;
• professors;
• postdoctoral fellows;
• engineers;
• educators.

Many public institutions simply could not absorb a six-figure payment for each newly recruited worker.

The fee therefore threatened not only immigration programs but also staffing, research, healthcare delivery, and educational services.

Judge Sorokin’s ruling may have its greatest long-term impact in these sectors.

Could the Administration Achieve the Same Goal Through Different Means?

Possibly.

This is one of the most important strategic questions moving forward.

The court struck down the fee.

The court did not prohibit the Administration from pursuing other policies designed to reduce H-1B usage.

Alternative approaches could include:

• increased site visits;
• stricter adjudications;
• additional Requests for Evidence;
• expanded compliance audits;
• higher prevailing wage requirements;
• revised eligibility standards;
• greater scrutiny of specialty occupation positions;
• enhanced consular review.

Employers should not assume that the broader policy objective has disappeared simply because one mechanism was invalidated.

Richard Herman’s Analysis: The Court Rejected a Theory of Presidential Power

The most important aspect of the Massachusetts decision is not the $100,000 number.

It is the court’s rejection of a broader theory of executive authority.

The Administration argued that its immigration powers included authority to impose a six-figure payment requirement on participation in the H-1B system.

Judge Sorokin disagreed.

The court’s reasoning suggests that even broad immigration authority has limits.

Congress may create taxes.

Congress may create fees.

Congress may redesign immigration programs.

But the Executive Branch cannot simply assume those powers without clear statutory authorization.

That principle could become increasingly important in future litigation involving immigration proclamations, visa restrictions, agency fee schedules, and other executive actions affecting legal immigration.

The broader significance of this case is therefore not about H-1B visas alone.

It is about who gets to make immigration policy in the United States—and how far presidential power extends when Congress has not clearly spoken.

The Fee May Be Dead. What Parts of the H-1B Crackdown Survive?

Why the Massachusetts Decision Is a Victory—But Not the End of the Story

Many employers and foreign professionals will read headlines about the Massachusetts ruling and conclude:

“The H-1B crackdown is over.”

That conclusion would be a mistake.

The $100,000 H-1B payment requirement was one of the most visible components of the Administration’s effort to reshape legal employment-based immigration.

But it was never the only component.

In many respects, it may not even have been the most significant one.

The fee generated headlines because it was dramatic.

The more consequential changes may be the ones that receive far less public attention:

• adjudication standards;
• compliance investigations;
• site visits;
• prevailing wage enforcement;
• consular scrutiny;
• social media vetting;
• data-driven fraud detection;
• restrictions on dependent work authorization;
• challenges to OPT and STEM OPT;
• narrowing interpretations of “specialty occupation.”

These measures can affect thousands more cases than a single fee provision.

As a result, employers and high-skilled immigrants should view the Massachusetts decision as an important victory—but not a return to the pre-2025 immigration landscape.

Understanding the Bigger Strategy

The $100,000 fee was never an isolated policy.

It was part of a broader philosophy.

The central premise was simple:

Rather than eliminating the H-1B program outright, make participation more difficult, more expensive, more uncertain, and more risky.

If employers face enough obstacles, many will simply stop sponsoring foreign workers.

That objective can be pursued in many different ways.

A fee is only one tool.

The Massachusetts ruling eliminated one tool.

Many others remain available.

Restriction #1: Increased H-1B Compliance Enforcement

Status: Very Much Alive

If there is one area where employers should expect continued pressure, it is compliance.

Federal agencies already possess extensive authority to investigate:

• wage compliance;
• Labor Condition Applications;
• worksite locations;
• remote work arrangements;
• public access files;
• specialty occupation requirements;
• employer-employee relationships.

Unlike the $100,000 fee, these enforcement activities rest on longstanding statutory authority.

That makes them far more difficult to challenge.

Employers should anticipate continued growth in:

• FDNS site visits;
• Department of Labor investigations;
• document requests;
• compliance audits;
• anti-fraud reviews.

In fact, one unintended consequence of the Massachusetts ruling may be increased reliance on these existing enforcement tools.

If one restriction disappears, agencies often shift resources elsewhere.

Restriction #2: More Requests for Evidence and Notices of Intent to Deny

Status: Alive and Difficult to Challenge

Many employers remember the first Trump Administration’s heavy reliance on RFEs and NOIDs.

The same pattern could continue.

Common areas of scrutiny include:

• specialty occupation eligibility;
• Level I wage positions;
• degree requirements;
• third-party placements;
• employer control;
• maintenance of status;
• availability of work.

Unlike the $100,000 fee, these issues arise through case adjudications rather than broad policy announcements.

That makes them harder to challenge in court.

For employers, the practical lesson is simple:

Documentation quality matters more than ever.

Restriction #3: Increased Scrutiny of Level I Wage Cases

Status: Likely to Continue

One recurring theme of recent H-1B policy initiatives has been skepticism toward lower-wage positions.

The Administration has repeatedly argued that employers should prioritize highly compensated workers.

Even without the $100,000 fee, employers should expect continued scrutiny of:

• entry-level positions;
• recent graduates;
• trainee roles;
• junior software engineers;
• analyst positions.

Employers relying heavily on Level I wages should prepare for heightened review.

Restriction #4: Consular Scrutiny

Status: Growing Importance

One of the most significant trends in immigration law is the increasing importance of consular processing.

More scrutiny now occurs outside the United States than inside it.

Consular officers possess substantial discretion and often review:

• employment history;
• educational background;
• social media activity;
• prior immigration filings;
• consistency of information across applications.

The Massachusetts decision does not affect consular authority.

As a result, employers recruiting talent from abroad should continue preparing for rigorous visa processing.

This is particularly important because the $100,000 fee itself primarily affected workers outside the United States.

Even though the fee may be gone, the broader scrutiny of overseas applicants remains.

Restriction #5: Social Media Vetting and Digital Screening

Status: Expanding

One of the most underreported developments in immigration enforcement is the growth of digital screening.

Government agencies increasingly examine:

• social media accounts;
• public online activity;
• professional profiles;
• digital footprints;
• prior statements;
• inconsistencies between online information and immigration filings.

This trend is unlikely to disappear regardless of the outcome of the H-1B fee litigation.

For high-skilled immigrants, maintaining consistency and credibility across all platforms is becoming increasingly important.

Restriction #6: H-4 EAD Vulnerability

Status: Potential Future Target

Although the Administration has not yet eliminated H-4 employment authorization, the issue remains politically contentious.

Families relying on H-4 EAD should understand:

• the Massachusetts decision does not affect H-4 EAD;
• future regulatory action remains possible;
• litigation could arise if restrictions are proposed.

For many H-1B families, dependent work authorization remains one of the most important unresolved issues.

Restriction #7: OPT and STEM OPT

Status: Significant Long-Term Risk

For employers, universities, and international students, OPT may be more important than H-1B.

OPT serves as the primary bridge between:

• U.S. education;
• U.S. employment;
• long-term immigration sponsorship.

Various policy organizations associated with immigration restriction have criticized OPT and STEM OPT for years.

Future efforts may focus on:

• reducing eligibility;
• shortening authorization periods;
• increasing employer obligations;
• narrowing STEM categories.

The Massachusetts ruling provides no protection against those efforts.

Students should therefore avoid assuming that today’s victory resolves tomorrow’s challenges.

Restriction #8: AI-Driven Fraud Detection and Case Analytics

Status: Likely Expansion Area

This may become one of the most important immigration developments of the next decade.

Federal agencies increasingly possess the ability to analyze:

• filing patterns;
• employer behavior;
• wage data;
• geographic trends;
• educational credentials;
• prior applications.

The future of immigration enforcement may involve less reliance on broad public restrictions and more reliance on targeted data analysis.

In other words:

The next major challenge may not be a public proclamation.

It may be an algorithm.

Employers should prepare accordingly.

What Restriction Is Most Vulnerable to Future Litigation?

The Massachusetts ruling provides a clue.

Judge Sorokin repeatedly focused on a central question:

Where did Congress authorize this?

That question is likely to shape future lawsuits.

Policies appear most vulnerable when they involve:

• major economic consequences;
• broad executive action;
• limited congressional authorization;
• significant departures from existing statutory frameworks.

Future litigation may focus on:

• executive proclamations;
• agency fee structures;
• broad regulatory restrictions;
• nationwide immigration policies.

The post-Loper Bright environment makes these challenges more attractive.

Courts are increasingly willing to independently interpret statutes rather than defer to agency interpretations.

Richard Herman’s Prediction #1: The Administration Will Shift From Fees to Scrutiny

The easiest prediction is that enforcement pressure will not disappear.

Instead, it may migrate.

Expect more focus on:

• adjudications;
• compliance;
• fraud detection;
• worksite investigations;
• consular processing.

The objective remains the same.

Only the mechanism changes.

Richard Herman’s Prediction #2: The Next Major Litigation Will Focus on Executive Authority

The Massachusetts case is part of a larger trend.

Increasingly, courts are asking:

How much immigration authority does the Executive Branch actually possess?

That question is likely to reappear in future disputes involving:

• visa restrictions;
• immigration proclamations;
• agency guidance;
• enforcement policies.

The answer will shape immigration law for years to come.

Richard Herman’s Prediction #3: Universities and Hospitals Will Become More Active Litigants

One overlooked aspect of the Massachusetts case is the role played by public institutions.

Universities, healthcare systems, and research institutions have become increasingly dependent on international talent.

As restrictions increase, these institutions are becoming more willing to challenge federal immigration policies in court.

That trend is likely to continue.

Future lawsuits may increasingly be driven not by technology companies, but by hospitals, medical schools, research centers, and state governments.

Richard Herman’s Prediction #4: The Supreme Court Will Continue Demanding Clear Congressional Authorization

This may be the most important prediction.

The Supreme Court’s recent jurisprudence reflects growing skepticism toward expansive executive and agency power.

The Court increasingly asks:

• What did Congress authorize?
• Where is the statutory language?
• Did the agency exceed its delegated authority?

The Massachusetts decision fits squarely within that broader judicial movement.

Employers and high-skilled immigrants should expect these questions to shape immigration litigation throughout 2026 and 2027.

Bottom Line: The Fee May Be Gone, But the Battle Over Skilled Immigration Is Just Beginning

The Massachusetts ruling is a major victory for employers, universities, hospitals, research institutions, and foreign professionals.

It removes one of the most aggressive barriers ever imposed on participation in the H-1B system.

But the larger debate continues.

The future of skilled immigration will likely be shaped not by a single fee, but by a series of battles involving:

• executive authority;
• agency power;
• compliance enforcement;
• technology-driven screening;
• employer obligations;
• congressional action.

For employers and high-skilled immigrants, the lesson is clear:

Celebrate the victory.

But do not mistake it for the final chapter.

The next chapter is already being written.

For Part 4, I would move into a powerful FAQ/AEO section with 30–40 real-world questions that employers, H-1B workers, recruiters, F-1 students, universities, hospitals, and foreign professionals are asking right now, optimized specifically for AI Overviews, ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Perplexity, and featured snippets.

Frequently Asked Questions About the Massachusetts H-1B Fee Decision

Answers for Employers, H-1B Workers, Universities, Hospitals, Recruiters, and Foreign Professionals

One reason this case is so important is that it affects multiple audiences simultaneously.

The Massachusetts decision impacts:

• employers recruiting talent from abroad;
• multinational corporations;
• universities;
• hospitals;
• physicians;
• researchers;
• H-1B workers;
• future H-1B applicants;
• foreign professionals considering U.S. employment.

Below are the questions we are already hearing from employers and immigrants following Judge Sorokin’s ruling.

Is the $100,000 H-1B Fee Still in Effect?

At the moment, no.

Judge Sorokin vacated the federal policy implementing the $100,000 H-1B payment requirement.

Unless a higher court issues a stay or reverses the decision, the fee currently cannot be enforced.

However, employers should continue monitoring developments because the government is expected to appeal.

---

Does This Decision Apply Nationwide?

Most likely, yes.

The court vacated the agency action rather than issuing relief limited solely to the plaintiff states.

That means the ruling is potentially nationwide in effect.

However, future appellate proceedings could alter the practical impact of the decision.

---

Can the Government Appeal?

Yes.

An appeal is highly likely.

The government may seek review before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and potentially the Supreme Court.

---

Can the Government Continue Collecting the Fee During the Appeal?

Possibly.

The answer depends on whether the government obtains a stay.

If no stay is granted, the fee remains unenforceable while the appeal proceeds.

If a stay is granted, enforcement could potentially resume during litigation.

---

Could the Supreme Court Reverse This Decision?

Yes.

No district court ruling is final until appellate review is complete.

The Supreme Court could:

• decline review;
• affirm the ruling;
• reverse the ruling;
• partially modify the ruling.

At this stage, the ultimate outcome remains uncertain.

---

Does This Decision Affect Existing H-1B Workers?

Generally, existing H-1B workers were not the primary targets of the $100,000 fee.

Most existing H-1B workers already in the United States remained outside the fee’s core scope.

The ruling primarily affects future recruitment and sponsorship decisions involving workers who would otherwise have been subject to the payment requirement.

---

Does This Decision Affect H-1B Extensions?

Not directly.

The litigation concerns the legality of the $100,000 payment requirement.

It does not change ordinary H-1B extension procedures.

Employers must still comply with all existing H-1B rules and requirements.

---

Does This Decision Affect H-1B Transfers?

Generally, no.

Most H-1B portability cases involving workers already in H-1B status were not the primary focus of the $100,000 payment requirement.

The ruling therefore has a greater impact on overseas recruitment than on ordinary H-1B transfers.

---

Does This Decision Affect Workers Abroad Seeking Initial H-1B Entry?

Yes.

These workers were among the individuals most directly affected by the fee.

The Massachusetts ruling may therefore have its greatest practical impact on future international recruitment.

---

Does This Help Employers Recruit Overseas Talent?

Potentially, yes.

A six-figure government payment dramatically altered the economics of international hiring.

Without the fee, employers may be more willing to recruit:

• engineers;
• physicians;
• researchers;
• scientists;
• AI specialists;
• technology professionals;
• educators.

The decision may therefore improve access to global talent.

---

What Does This Mean for Universities?

Universities were among the institutions most concerned about the fee.

Many universities rely on internationally recruited:

• professors;
• researchers;
• postdoctoral fellows;
• scientists;
• specialized educators.

The ruling may help preserve access to that talent pipeline.

---

What Does This Mean for Hospitals and Healthcare Systems?

Hospitals frequently recruit physicians, researchers, and medical specialists from abroad.

The fee threatened to increase the cost of recruitment significantly.

The Massachusetts ruling may therefore help hospitals address physician shortages and workforce needs more effectively.

---

What Does This Mean for Medical Residents and Physicians?

For internationally trained physicians, the decision removes one significant obstacle that could have affected future recruitment and sponsorship.

However, physician immigration remains subject to:

• visa requirements;
• licensing requirements;
• J-1 waiver issues;
• H-1B requirements;
• green card backlogs.

The ruling helps, but it does not eliminate those challenges.

---

Does This Affect F-1 Students?

Indirectly.

The fee generally targeted new overseas recruitment rather than ordinary change-of-status cases within the United States.

However, a six-figure payment requirement would likely have discouraged some employers from engaging in long-term sponsorship planning.

Removing that barrier may improve employer willingness to consider future sponsorship opportunities.

---

Does This Affect OPT or STEM OPT?

No.

The Massachusetts decision concerns the H-1B fee.

It does not change OPT or STEM OPT rules.

Students should continue complying with all OPT and STEM OPT requirements.

---

Does This Affect H-4 EAD?

No.

The ruling does not address H-4 employment authorization.

Any future changes involving H-4 EAD would require separate legal or regulatory action.

---

Could Congress Bring Back the Fee?

Potentially.

The court ruled that the Executive Branch lacked authority to impose the fee on its own.

The court did not hold that Congress lacks authority to enact such legislation.

Whether Congress would do so is a separate political question.

---

Could the Administration Try a Different Approach?

Yes.

Even if the fee ultimately remains invalidated, the Administration could pursue other policies affecting the H-1B program.

Examples might include:

• increased compliance enforcement;
• stricter adjudications;
• additional audits;
• revised eligibility standards;
• expanded investigations.

Employers should continue monitoring broader policy developments.

---

Does This Mean the H-1B Crackdown Is Over?

No.

This is one of the most important misconceptions surrounding the ruling.

The court invalidated a particular fee policy.

The court did not invalidate every aspect of the Administration’s skilled-immigration agenda.

Many other restrictions and enforcement initiatives remain active.

---

What Should Employers Do Right Now?

Employers should:

• monitor appeals;
• preserve documentation;
• review recruiting plans;
• evaluate workforce needs;
• strengthen compliance systems;
• consult experienced immigration counsel regarding pending cases.

The current environment remains highly dynamic.

---

What Should Foreign Professionals Do Right Now?

Foreign professionals should:

• stay informed about litigation developments;
• maintain valid immigration status;
• preserve immigration records;
• communicate with employers regarding sponsorship plans;
• obtain individualized legal advice before making significant immigration decisions.

---

What Should Universities and Hospitals Do Right Now?

Universities and healthcare institutions should:

• evaluate future recruitment needs;
• monitor appellate developments;
• preserve records related to affected hiring decisions;
• continue workforce planning;
• prepare for possible policy changes during the appeals process.

---

What Happens If the Government Loses the Appeal?

If the government ultimately loses:

• the fee remains invalidated;
• employers avoid the six-figure payment requirement;
• future administrations may face greater limits on similar executive actions;
• the decision could influence future immigration litigation involving executive authority.

---

What Happens If the Government Wins the Appeal?

If the government ultimately prevails:

• the fee could potentially return;
• employers may again face significant recruitment costs;
• future hiring decisions could be affected;
• additional litigation may still occur depending on the scope of the appellate ruling.

---

Why Is This Case Important Beyond H-1B Visas?

Because the case is ultimately about power.

Specifically:

Who has authority to reshape legal immigration?

Congress?

The President?

Federal agencies?

The Massachusetts decision suggests that even broad immigration authority has limits.

That principle could influence future disputes involving:

• visa restrictions;
• immigration fees;
• executive proclamations;
• agency regulations;
• employment-based immigration policies.

For that reason, this case may ultimately become one of the most important immigration decisions of 2026.

Final FAQ Takeaway

For now, employers, universities, hospitals, researchers, physicians, and foreign professionals can view the Massachusetts decision as an important victory.

But it is not the final word.

The appeals process is just beginning.

The broader debate over skilled immigration continues.

And the ultimate significance of the case may extend far beyond the $100,000 fee itself.

The case may help define the limits of executive power in immigration law for years to come.

What Comes Next? Richard Herman’s Predictions, Strategic Lessons, Resources, and Final Takeaways

The Massachusetts Decision Is a Major Victory—But It Is Not the End of the Story

The June 8, 2026 decision striking down the Trump Administration’s $100,000 H-1B payment requirement will likely be remembered as one of the most important employment-based immigration rulings of the year.

For employers, universities, hospitals, research institutions, and foreign professionals, the ruling removes what may have been the single most aggressive financial barrier ever imposed on participation in the H-1B program.

But the most important lesson from this case is not about a fee.

It is about power.

Specifically:

How much authority does a President possess to reshape legal immigration without Congress?

Judge Sorokin’s answer was clear:

The Executive Branch may possess broad immigration authority, but that authority is not unlimited.

That conclusion could have consequences far beyond the H-1B program.

The next several months will determine whether the decision remains an important district court ruling—or becomes a landmark appellate precedent.

Richard Herman’s Predictions for 2026 and 2027

Based on current litigation trends, recent Supreme Court decisions, and the Administration’s broader immigration agenda, several developments appear likely.

Prediction #1: The Government Will Appeal Quickly

The Administration invested significant political capital in the $100,000 H-1B payment requirement.

Because the fee was designed to influence employer behavior nationwide, the government is unlikely to abandon it without a fight.

Employers should expect:

• a notice of appeal;
• expedited briefing requests;
• motions seeking to preserve the fee;
• continued public defense of the policy.

The legal battle has probably entered a new phase rather than ended.

Prediction #2: Stay Litigation May Matter More Than the Appeal

Most employers focus on who eventually wins.

The more immediate question may be:

Can the government keep the fee alive during the appeal?

That issue could affect hiring decisions long before the First Circuit reaches a final decision.

For employers actively recruiting foreign talent, stay proceedings may prove more consequential than the ultimate merits ruling.

Prediction #3: Refund Litigation Is Coming

One of the next major questions will involve money already paid.

Even if the number of employers affected was relatively small, the sums involved are significant.

Questions likely to arise include:

• Must the government issue refunds?
• Will refunds be automatic?
• Will separate claims be required?
• Can employers recover interest?
• What happens if the government refuses?

Future litigation may focus less on the legality of the fee and more on recovery of funds already collected.

Prediction #4: Future Challenges Will Focus on Executive Authority

This may be the most important long-term development.

For years, immigration litigation often focused on policy.

Increasingly, litigation focuses on authority.

The question is no longer merely:

“Is this good policy?”

The question increasingly becomes:

“Did Congress authorize this?”

That shift is visible throughout modern administrative law.

The Massachusetts H-1B case fits squarely within that trend.

Future lawsuits involving:

• visa restrictions;
• immigration proclamations;
• agency guidance;
• fee structures;
• immigration regulations;

may increasingly turn on questions of statutory authority.

Prediction #5: The Supreme Court Will Continue Demanding Clear Congressional Authorization

Recent Supreme Court decisions reflect growing skepticism toward expansive executive and agency power.

Courts increasingly ask:

• What did Congress authorize?
• Where is the statutory language?
• Did the government exceed delegated authority?

Employers and foreign professionals should expect those questions to shape immigration litigation throughout 2026 and 2027.

Prediction #6: Compliance Enforcement Will Expand

The Massachusetts ruling eliminates one tool.

It does not eliminate the government’s broader policy objectives.

Historically, when one enforcement mechanism becomes unavailable, agencies often emphasize others.

Employers should anticipate continued focus on:

• FDNS site visits;
• Labor Condition Application compliance;
• worksite verification;
• wage compliance;
• Requests for Evidence;
• Notices of Intent to Deny;
• anti-fraud investigations.

The most successful employers will be those that treat compliance as a strategic investment rather than a regulatory obligation.

The Bigger Story Most Commentators Are Missing

Most reporting has focused on the number:

$100,000.

That is understandable.

It is dramatic.

It generates headlines.

But the deeper significance of the case lies elsewhere.

The Massachusetts decision may signal a growing judicial reluctance to permit major immigration policy changes through unilateral executive action.

For decades, presidents of both parties have relied heavily on executive authority to shape immigration policy.

Courts increasingly appear willing to ask:

Where are the limits?

That question could become one of the defining legal issues of modern immigration law.

What Employers Should Do During the Next 12 Months

Employers should not assume stability.

The H-1B landscape remains highly dynamic.

Practical recommendations include:

Monitor Appeals Closely

The First Circuit may significantly affect the future of the fee.

Preserve Records

Especially if the fee affected hiring decisions or payments.

Reevaluate International Recruitment

The economics of overseas recruitment may have changed significantly.

Strengthen Compliance Programs

Expect continued scrutiny regardless of the fee’s fate.

Review Workforce Planning

Particularly for positions requiring specialized skills that may be difficult to fill domestically.

Consult Immigration Counsel Early

Strategic planning is increasingly important in a rapidly changing environment.

What Foreign Professionals Should Do During the Next 12 Months

Foreign professionals should avoid overreacting to either headlines or litigation.

The decision is important.

But it does not eliminate uncertainty.

Recommended steps include:

Maintain Status Carefully

Compliance remains critical.

Preserve Immigration Records

Keep copies of approvals, filings, and supporting documentation.

Follow Litigation Developments

Appellate decisions may alter the legal landscape.

Continue Long-Term Planning

Green card strategies, career planning, and alternative visa options remain important.

Seek Individualized Advice

The impact of policy changes varies significantly based on individual circumstances.

What Universities and Hospitals Should Do

Universities and healthcare institutions should view the ruling as an opportunity to reassess workforce planning.

Many institutions delayed or reconsidered recruitment because of the fee.

Those institutions may now wish to revisit:

• physician recruitment;
• faculty hiring;
• postdoctoral hiring;
• research staffing;
• specialized healthcare positions.

At the same time, compliance and planning remain essential because other restrictions and enforcement initiatives continue.

Key Resources

Court Documents

Massachusetts Federal Court Order:

State of California v. Mullin – Memorandum and Order

Complaint:

State of California v. Mullin – Complaint

---

Herman Legal Group Resources

Background on the Fee:

H1B $100,000 Filing Fee: What Every Employer Must Know

The Lawsuit Challenging the Fee:

Lawsuit Against Trump’s $100,000 H-1B Fee

Broader H-1B Restrictions:

Navigating Trump’s 2026 H-1B Crackdown

The Future of the H-1B Program:

Trump’s War on H-1B in 2026

H-1B Lottery Changes:

Understanding the New H-1B Lottery Rule for 2026–2027

---

Government Resources

USCIS H-1B Information:

https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/h-1b-specialty-occupations

USCIS H-1B Cap Information:

https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/h-1b-specialty-occupations/h-1b-cap-season

Department of Labor Labor Condition Application Information:

https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/foreign-labor/programs/h-1b

Final Thoughts

The Massachusetts court’s decision striking down the $100,000 H-1B payment requirement represents an important victory for employers, universities, hospitals, researchers, physicians, and foreign professionals.

But the most important question raised by the case is not whether a particular fee survives.

It is whether the Executive Branch may fundamentally reshape legal immigration without clear congressional authorization.

That question is likely to remain at the center of immigration litigation for years to come.

The appeals process is only beginning.

The broader debate over the future of skilled immigration is far from settled.

And the ultimate impact of this case may extend well beyond the H-1B program itself.

Need Help Navigating the Rapidly Changing H-1B Landscape?

The H-1B program is undergoing some of the most significant legal and policy changes in decades.

Whether you are:

• an employer recruiting international talent;
• an H-1B professional;
• an international physician;
• a university researcher;
• a startup founder;
• an F-1 student planning for future sponsorship;

strategic planning has never been more important.

The immigration lawyers at Herman Legal Group closely monitor federal litigation, USCIS policy changes, Department of Labor enforcement trends, and developments affecting high-skilled immigration.

If you have questions about H-1B sponsorship, compliance, recruitment, work visas, or employment-based green cards, schedule a consultation with Richard Herman or an experienced Herman Legal Group attorney to discuss your options and develop a strategy tailored to your circumstances.

Contact Richard at 1-800-808-4013 or schedule your consultation online.