In late November 2025, Donald J. Trump stated that the U.S. would “permanently pause migration from all Third World Countries,” a policy reported by Reuters and TIME Magazine.
No Executive Order has been published yet in the Federal Register and USCIS has not issued operational guidance.
However, data shows that family-based immigration would be the single most affected category if a “pause” is implemented.
Over 8.2 million family-based green card cases are pending worldwide (USCIS + NVC inventory)
Roughly 65% of all green cards issued per year are family-based according to DHS data
During COVID (2020), family visa issuance dropped by over 75% after Presidential Proclamation 10014
Most likely impacts:
I-130 petitions continue to be approved by USCIS
Consular visa issuance could freeze for selected countries
Visa Bulletin movement may stop, especially for high-volume “Third World” origin countries
Adjustment of Status inside the U.S. becomes strategically critical
“Third World Country” is not a legal classification in U.S. immigration law — DHS, DOS, and USCIS do not use the term
Pending I-130 petitions:
5.2+ million pending with USCIS (form inventory)
2.9+ million pending at the National Visa Center or consulates
(Sources: USCIS Form Inventory Reports and NVC monthly backlog data)
Family green cards by category:
Immediate Relatives (IR): ~480,000 per year
Family Preference (F1/F2/F3/F4): ~226,000 per year (statutory cap)
(Data via DHS Yearbook of Immigration Statistics)
Top countries with pending family consular cases:
Mexico
Philippines
India
Dominican Republic
Vietnam
Haiti
Pakistan
Bangladesh
(Source: Visa Statistics by Country)
I-130 approval DOES NOT guarantee a green card — DOS controls final visa issuance
Court precedent: Supreme Court upheld 212(f) authority in Trump v. Hawaii (2018)
Multiple outlets confirm the wording:
Trump said the U.S. would “permanently pause migration from all Third World Countries”
→ Reported by Reuters
The phrase followed a fatal incident near the White House involving an Afghan national
→ Covered by AP News
Analysts note the likely legal basis is INA 212(f), previously used to block immigrant issuance
→ See Executive Order 13780 analysis
There is no official list of countries yet — DOS has not issued guidance on its Visa Office notices page.
Based on real DOS/NVC consular data, below are the highest-risk populations because they rely heavily on family-based consular visas from countries most often categorized as “Third World” in political speech:
Largest NVC queue in the world
Longest Visa Bulletin delays in F1/F2B/F3/F4 categories
Extreme backlogs — commonly 10–23 years wait in some categories
Mixed employment + family
F4 sibling queues are extremely long
Heavy reliance on consular processing
NVC backlog frequently among top 10 world-wide
Visa posts historically vulnerable to closures, emergencies
Possible priority in national security-driven pause policies
Countries often included in geopolitical “risk list” discussions
All data sourced from:
DHS Immigration Statistics
Visa Statistics by Country
From USCIS Form Inventory and NVC backlog reports:
Immediate Relatives: ~3,400,000
F1: ~550,000
F2A: ~780,000
F2B: ~1,100,000
F3: ~950,000
F4: ~1,300,000
Total: ~8,200,000+ family petitions worldwide
A “permanent pause” could leave millions of valid approvals with no visa issuance mechanism.
Accepting and adjudicating I-130 petitions (USCIS I-130 page)
Processing Adjustment of Status (I-485 page)
Issuing immigrant visas abroad (Visa services guidance)
Scheduling visa interviews at consulates
Moving cases forward at NVC
Visa Bulletin freeze — monthly categories on Visa Bulletin
221(g) administrative processing holds — see DOS processing rules
Marriage certificate
Joint financial records
Photos
Sworn third-party affidavits
(USCIS relationship evidence rules)
Consular shutdowns can happen overnight.
“Here is the reality: Approved I-130 petitions won’t matter if visas stop being issued. That’s how 212(f) works. If you are abroad — or planning consular processing — you must prepare for long delays or indefinite suspension. Adjustment of Status inside the United States remains the strategic priority at this moment.”
Yes, a sitting U.S. President does have broad statutory authority to suspend immigration from specific countries, categories of immigrants, or “classes of aliens,” under INA § 212(f) — but no, a president does not have unlimited power to permanently eliminate statutory family-based immigration categories created by Congress.
The actual legal question is not “can he do it?” — he can — but rather “how far can he go, and for how long, before courts intervene?”
The most important law here is:
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 212(f)
This section allows the President to suspend the entry of any class of aliens when he finds their entry would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”
This lets a President stop visas from being issued
It does not let a President abolish the visa categories themselves
Those categories — including family-based immigration — are created by Congress, not the Executive Branch.
In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court decided:
The Court upheld a 212(f) proclamation that restricted visas for foreigners from several Muslim-majority countries.
The Court ruled that 212(f) power is extremely broad
The President can suspend entry for entire categories of immigrants
Courts generally won’t review the President’s motive if there is a “facially legitimate and bona fide reason”
This is the single most relevant precedent for Trump’s proposed “permanent pause.”
Congress created:
Immediate relatives
Family preference categories
Annual numerical visa limits
Only Congress can repeal or amend those statutes.
USCIS adjudication is a domestic benefit governed by statute.
Even under Proclamation 10014 (2020):
USCIS still accepted and approved family petitions
DOS simply did not issue the visas abroad
Although courts avoided motive analysis in Trump v. Hawaii, constitutional limitations remain.
Note: “Third World Countries” is not a legal classification and is vulnerable to Equal Protection challenges.
Here is what Presidents have successfully done using 212(f):
E.g., Travel Ban 2017
See Executive Order 13780
E.g., Immigrant visas only, while allowing nonimmigrant visas
Refer to DOJ memos and DHS guidance 2017–2020
DOS controls allocation under the Visa Control Office
Authority stems from DOS Foreign Affairs Manual:
E.g., Syria, Iran, Yemen, Somalia, Chad, Libya
Conclusion:
A “pause” can be implemented through these tools without needing Congress.
Based on historical patterns and reporting by Reuters and Axios, expect:
Presidential Proclamation under INA 212(f)
DOS cables instructing consulates to suspend visa issuance
NVC freezes for case creation / interview scheduling
“Extreme vetting” screening list built by DHS
New admissibility bar under INA 212(a) national-security provision
This is where litigation is strongest.
Courts will ask:
How is the list defined?
What is the criteria?
Are decisions arbitrary?
Is there a geographic, economic, or racial classification?
Is this consistent with constitutional constraints?
“Third World Country” has no statutory meaning, so this would likely be challenged as arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
APA challenges succeeded in blocking portions of:
Public charge rule changes
Work authorization delays
Asylum transit bans
See APA overview.
USCIS (domestic)
→ Adjudicates petitions
DOS (foreign)
→ Issues visas
212(f) affects DOS, not USCIS.
This means:
You can have an approved I-130 petition, but no visa will be issued, and no interview will be scheduled.
This is exactly what happened under Presidential Proclamation 10014, posted on the DOS immigrant visa suspension page.
11 countries placed under travel ban regime
Refugee admissions dropped to record lows
Family-based immigrant visas dropped 30–75% monthly during COVID period
Consulates ceased scheduling thousands of pending interviews
See DHS yearly immigration statistics.
Suspend immigration
Block visas
Freeze consular processing
Stop the Visa Bulletin from moving
Require extreme vetting
Limit visa issuance by region or country
Repeal family immigration categories
Cancel existing pending I-130 petitions
Permanently abolish statutory immigration quotas
Create indefinite bans without legal justification
Discriminate based on race or religion
“Third World” is used without definition
Affected countries claim political or racial targeting
Pause is indefinite without periodic review
No national security justification is published
No. USCIS continues adjudicating petitions.
See USCIS I-130.
Not necessarily. Visa issuance is controlled by DOS.
See Immigrant visa process.
Yes. Same precedent as Proclamation 10014.
Track movement on Visa Bulletin.
YES — to lock in a priority date before any pause.
Families processing through consulates in:
Mexico, India, Philippines, Dominican Republic, Vietnam, Haiti, Nigeria, Pakistan, Bangladesh.
If your family is from Mexico, India, the Philippines, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, or Vietnam, or any other country, and you are worried a “pause” may affect your pending I-130 petition, NVC case, or consular interview, the time to take action is NOW.
You can speak with a lawyer who has handled 212(f) bans, consular freezes, NVC backlogs, and emergency family immigration cases.
👉 Book a confidential consultation with Herman Legal Group
We represent clients in all 50 states and worldwide.
ابتداءً من نوفمبر 2025، بدأت وكالة الهجرة والجمارك الأميركية ICE باعتقال متقدمي الإقامة الدائمة عن طريق الزواج داخل مكاتب USCIS — بعد انتهاء المقابلة مباشرة.
المعتقلون كانوا:
هذا يمثل انهياراً لمفهوم امتد لعقود: أن مقابلات الزواج كانت “منطقة آمنة” من الاعتقال.
ولكن وفق قانون الهجرة والجنسية §245(a)، لم يكن هناك قانون يمنع ICE — فقط “ممارسة” سابقة تغيّرت الآن.
لتحليل أعمق:
👉 دليل اعتقالات التخلف عن الإقامة في مقابلات الزواج (2026)
هذا ما قالته إحدى المواطنات الأميركيّات بعد أن دخل ضباط ICE غرفة المقابلة في مكتب USCIS بسان دييغو.
سيدة أخرى تم اعتقالها بينما كانت تحمل طفلها الرضيع.
أحد المحاربين القدامى صرّح:
“خدمتُ بلدي 20 عاماً… لم أتوقع أن يحدث هذا لأسرتي في مكتب حكومي.”
أما على Reddit ومجموعات واتساب للمهاجرين فقد انفجرت التعليقات:
على مدى عقود، كانت مقابلات الزواج لدى USCIS خطوة أخيرة عادية — تتحول فيها سنوات الانتظار إلى إقامة دائمة.
لكن في 2025–2026، تغيّر كل شيء.
HLG كانت أول من حذّر من هذا الاتجاه:
👉 الحرب الهادئة على بطاقات الزواج
🚨 مقابلة الإقامة القائمة على الزواج لم تعد آمنة.
ICE تعتقل المتقدمين داخل مباني USCIS، حتى لو كانت “المخالفة الوحيدة” هي تجاوز مدة الإقامة.
اقرأ التحليل الكامل:
👉 دليل اعتقالات مقابلة الزواج (2026)
| قبل 2025 | بعد نوفمبر 2025 |
|---|---|
| تجاوز الإقامة يغتفر تحت §245(a) | التجاوز = سبب للاعتقال |
| المقابلات مناطق آمنة | المقابلات مواقع إنفاذ |
| فصل بين USCIS و ICE | مشاركة بيانات لحظية |
| الاعتقالات شبه معدومة | حالات موثقة ومتكررة |
لا يوجد أي بند قانوني يمنع ICE من دخول مكتب USCIS.
الممارسة القديمة كانت “عرفاً” — وليس حماية قانونية.
حتى لو كان المتقدم:
فإن مجرد تجاوز الإقامة يكفي لاعتقاله.
هذا خلاف ما اعتادت عليه USCIS لعقود طويلة.
ما يحدث عند وصولك:
تمكّن ICE من اعتقال أي شخص قابل للترحيل بدون مذكرة قاضٍ.
توقيع إداري — وليس قضائي — لكنه كافٍ لدخول مكاتب USCIS.
يمكن لـ ICE اعتقالك ثم تحديد ما إذا كنت ستحصل على كفالة أو جلسة.
غالباً ما تحيل USCIS المتقدمين إلى ICE بعد المقابلة.
يمكن أن يصدر حتى بدون اعتقال فوري.
الخلاصة:
كل هذا قانوني — حتى لو كان غير مسبوق.
(النص الكامل جاهز لطباعته في PDF — تم تضمينه سابقاً.)
“لأول مرة منذ عقود، يجب على الأزواج التعامل مع مقابلة الزواج باعتبارها نقطة إنفاذ محتملة.”
“إعفاء تجاوز الإقامة لم يعد يعمل كما كان.”
“هذه الاعتقالات يمكن أن تنتشر إلى أي مكتب USCIS في البلاد.”
نعم، حدث ذلك بالفعل في مكتب USCIS في سان دييغو في نوفمبر 2025.
لا. الزواج لا يوفر أي حصانة من ICE.
نعم. تجاوز الإقامة يعتبر “قابلية للترحيل” ويمنح ICE صلاحية الاعتقال.
نعم — كلما طالت مدة التجاوز، ارتفع مستوى الخطر.
الخطر أقل، لكنه لا يزال موجوداً.
قد يزيد ذلك المخاطر، خاصة إذا رُبط بتجاوز الإقامة.
نعم — تجاوز ESTA بالذات من أكثر الحالات التي تؤدي لاعتقال فوري.
يجب أن يقوم محامٍ بإجراء FOIA و EOIR check لمعرفة ذلك.
نعم — ويمكن أن يحدث أثناء المقابلة.
نعم جداً — هذا يؤدي غالباً لاعتقال فوري.
ليس إذا تجاوزت الإقامة أو كان لديك أمر ترحيل سابق.
يعتمد على ما إذا رُفض طلب اللجوء أو أُغلق.
لا. الضباط غالباً لا يخبرون المتقدمين.
عادةً لا.
لا — يمنع التصوير والتسجيل داخل مباني USCIS.
الإجابة يجب أن تكون بحدود القانون وبوجود محامٍ.
كن صادقاً، لكن يجب أن تكون مُهيأً قانونياً قبل المقابلة.
نعم — ويُنصح بذلك في جميع الحالات عالية الخطر.
لا، لكنه يستطيع حماية حقوقك بعد الاعتقال.
نعم.
نعم.
نعم.
نعم — وهذا شائع.
نعم — يحدث كثيراً.
نعم — بمجرد فحص هويتك عند الوصول.
ليس بشكل تلقائي.
على الأغلب نعم.
يعتمد على نوع دخولك وتاريخك.
يعتمد على سجلك وخطرك القانوني.
قد تُؤخذ بعين الاعتبار — لكن ICE ما زالت تحتجز الكثير من المرضى.
قد يؤدي ذلك إلى رفض الطلب بسبب “التخلي عن المقابلة”. يجب استشارة محامٍ أولاً.
نعم — لكن يجب وجود مبرر قوي.
نعم — هذا مهم للغاية.
نعم — إذا كان لديك أي علم خطر (Flag).
تجاوز الإقامة الطويل، الدخول غير القانوني، أوامر الترحيل، السجل الجنائي.
الزواج الحقيقي لا يمنع الاعتقال.
لا.
ما زال الاعتقال ممكناً.
لا، إذا تجاوزت الإقامة فأنت معرض للاعتقال.
نعم — من أعلى مستويات الخطر.
قد يساعد، لكنه لا يمنع الاعتقال.
ليس عند لحظة الاعتقال.
يعتمد على المركز.
قد يستمر، لكن الأمر يصبح معقداً.
يمكنه البدء فوراً إذا كان مستعداً مسبقاً.
حسب نوع الاعتقال والمركز.
يعتمد على مشكلتك القانونية.
حتى الآن — لكنها قد تنتشر.
نعم على الأغلب.
مرجح.
نعم — نظام تبادل البيانات يسمح بذلك.
ليس إلزامياً، لكنه ينصح به كثيراً.
نعم — بشدة.
لا — لكنه يحميك قانونياً بعده.
نعم — للتأكد من عدم وجود تناقضات.
نعم — هناك مؤشرات قوية.
نعم — المحاكم تعتبر الاعتقال الإداري قانونياً.
ليس بعد — لكن لا توجد حماية تمنعهم.
نعم — وربما بشكل أكبر.
ليس بالضرورة — لكن يجب التخطيط القانوني السليم.
Read at: NBC San Diego – Families Detail ICE Arrests at Green Card Interviews
Read at: NBC San Diego – ICE Arrests Military Spouses at Interviews
Read at: NBC San Diego – Members of Congress Question Arrests
Read at: NBC San Diego – ICE Making Arrests at Interviews
Read at: ABC 10 News – Norwegian Diabetic Woman Detained at USCIS Interview
Read at: Daylight San Diego – ICE Arrests at Green Card Appointments
Read at: India Today – ICE Detaining Foreigners at Interviews
Read at: NDTV – Green Card Hope to Handcuffed Reality
Read at: Business Standard – Interview Can End in Arrest
Read at: People Magazine – UK Woman Freed After Arrest at Interview
Read at: New York Post – UK Woman Arrested After Interview
Read at: Visa Lawyer Blog – ICE Detentions During Interviews
Read at: Mebane Enterprise – Mother Detained at Interview
Read at: ACLU Rhode Island – ICE May Arrest Immigrants at Interviews
ما حدث في سان دييغو يمكن أن يحدث في أي مدينة.
وما كان آمناً لسنوات… لم يعد كذلك اليوم.
في 2025–2026، مجرد تجاوز الإقامة أو وجود خطأ صغير في سجلك قد يؤدي إلى اعتقالك داخل مبنى USCIS.
ولهذا السبب يحتاج كل زوجان — مهما كان زواجهما حقيقياً — إلى مراجعة قانونية شاملة قبل المقابلة.
مع أكثر من 30 عاماً من الخبرة، ومكاتب فعّالة في أوهايو وجميع أنحاء الولايات المتحدة، وفريق يتحدث عدة لغات، نحن نمثّل المتزوجين الأميركيين والأجانب في:
كل شخص تم اعتقاله في سان دييغو اعتقد أن كل شيء “على ما يرام”.
ولا أحد يجب أن يمرّ بما مرّوا به.
نراجع ملفك بالتفصيل، نكشف المخاطر المخفية، ونعدّ خطة حماية قانونية قبل مقابلة USCIS.
⬇️ اضغط للحجز الآن ⬇️
احجز استشارة مع Herman Legal Group
لا تنتظر يوم المقابلة لتكتشف وجود مشكلة.
التحضير القانوني اليوم أفضل من الندم غداً.
K-1 visa red flags in 2026 have intensified significantly, with USCIS implementing AI-powered fraud detection systems that automatically flag applications showing specific warning patterns. Understanding these critical red flags is essential for U.S. citizens petitioning for their foreign fiancé, as denial rates have increased by 15% since 2024 due to enhanced scrutiny measures. Updated red flags include inconsistencies in documentation and interviews, significant age or cultural differences, poor relationship evidence, a lack of recent communication or visits, and failure to meet financial requirements.
Current USCIS data reveals that approximately 30% of K-1 visa applications now receive Requests for Evidence (RFEs) due to red flag triggers, compared to 18% in 2023. Receipt of an RFE is a common sign that USCIS found gaps or inconsistencies in the initial K-1 visa submission.
What This Guide Covers
This comprehensive analysis examines 2026-specific red flags that trigger immediate USCIS attention, enhanced documentation requirements, and evidence standards that prevent denials. We focus on actionable prevention strategies rather than theoretical concepts, providing specific examples of supporting evidence that satisfy current USCIS expectations. USCIS requires couples to have met in person at least once within the two years before filing the petition unless a waiver is requested and granted.
Who This Is For
This guide is designed for U.S. citizens preparing I-129F petitions for their foreign fiancé, couples facing RFEs or previous denials, and immigration attorneys representing clients in 2026 fiancé visa cases. Whether you’re filing your first petition or addressing complications from prior applications, you’ll find specific guidance for navigating current USCIS scrutiny patterns. Couples must marry within 90 days of the foreign fiancé(e)’s entry into the U.S. on a K-1 visa. The U.S. citizen sponsor must prove income at or above 100% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines for K-1 visa applications.
Why This Matters
2026 brings significant policy changes including mandatory use of the 01/17/25 Form I-129F, enhanced cross-reference databases for relationship verification, and AI-powered application review systems. These changes directly impact application success rates, with even minor documentation gaps now triggering costly delays of 60-120 days through the RFE process. Completing the Form I-129F accurately is essential to avoid delays or denials in the K-1 visa process.
What You’ll Learn:
K-1 visa red flags are specific warning indicators in fiancé visa applications that trigger enhanced USCIS scrutiny, often resulting in RFEs, significant delays, or outright denials. These red flags represent patterns that immigration services have identified as potentially indicating marriage fraud or sham relationships designed solely for immigration purposes.
The 2026 landscape differs dramatically from previous years due to technological advances in application review. USCIS now employs AI-powered systems that automatically cross-reference petition information against multiple databases, identifying inconsistencies that previously required manual review by immigration officers.
Statistical analysis of 2024-2025 denial data reveals that insufficient evidence of bona fide relationships accounts for 10% of denials, while incomplete documentation and form errors contribute to an additional 10% of rejections. These percentages have remained consistent, but the speed of detection has increased significantly.
AI-powered application review systems implemented in 2026 automatically flag applications containing specific risk indicators, including timeline inconsistencies, insufficient communication evidence, and missing translation certifications. These systems cross-reference Social Security numbers, passport information, and travel records against previous immigration petitions and criminal databases.
Cross-reference databases now include social media analysis capabilities, allowing consular officers to identify discrepancies between stated relationship timelines and digital evidence. This technological enhancement connects directly to increased fraud detection capabilities, as officers can now verify relationship authenticity through multiple data sources simultaneously.
High-scrutiny countries for 2026 include nations with historically elevated rates of marriage fraud, requiring additional evidence of genuine relationships and more comprehensive documentation of in-person meetings. Building on enhanced measures, country-specific red flags include patterns such as large age differences combined with significant cultural or socioeconomic disparities, which require extensive contextual evidence.
Regional patterns show that petitions from certain countries face 25-30% higher RFE rates, necessitating proactive documentation strategies that address cultural differences and provide family confirmation of relationship authenticity.
Transition: Understanding these foundational concepts prepares couples to recognize and address specific warning signs that trigger immediate USCIS attention.
Opening analysis of USCIS processing patterns reveals that certain red flags result in automatic assignment to fraud detection units, bypassing standard adjudication procedures and requiring extensive additional evidence to overcome initial suspicion.
2026 requirements for physical presence proof have expanded beyond simple travel documentation to include comprehensive evidence of shared experiences during visits. Acceptable evidence includes hotel receipts with both names, restaurant bills, boarding passes, travel itineraries, family gathering photos with timestamps, and third-party confirmation of visits. Documentation for a K-1 visa also includes photos, chat records, travel receipts, and affidavits to demonstrate the relationship.
Waiver criteria for the in-person meeting requirement remain extremely limited, applying only to cases involving extreme hardship or cultural practices that absolutely prohibit unmarried couples from meeting. These waivers require extensive documentation including medical records, country condition reports, and sworn statements from cultural or religious authorities. Travel itineraries, hotel bookings, and photos from visits can serve as proof of a bona fide relationship and in-person meetings.
The quality standards for meeting evidence now require authenticated documentation with clear links between travel records and relationship development, making casual or poorly documented visits insufficient for petition approval.
Form I-129F discrepancies that trigger automatic review include conflicting dates between the petition narrative and supporting evidence, inconsistent addresses or employment information, and timeline gaps that cannot be explained through relationship development patterns.
Timeline inconsistencies between petition statements and communication logs represent the most common trigger for RFE issuance, affecting approximately 15% of applications in 2025. Unlike meeting documentation requirements, information consistency demands perfect alignment across all petition components. A consular officer expressing skepticism during the interview is a clear warning sign that they question the authenticity of the K-1 visa relationship.
Cross-verification systems now automatically flag applications where stated relationship milestones conflict with travel records, social media presence, or previous immigration filings, requiring comprehensive explanations and additional supporting evidence.
Short courtship periods raising authenticity questions typically involve engagements occurring within 6 months of first contact, particularly when combined with minimal in-person interaction or limited communication history. USCIS algorithms specifically identify these patterns as high-risk indicators.
Quick engagement patterns identified by USCIS systems include proposals during first meetings, marriages planned within 90 days of initial contact, or relationships lacking traditional development phases such as family introductions or cultural exchange.
Minimum relationship development expectations for 2026 require demonstrable progression through relationship stages, with clear evidence of deepening emotional connection, future planning discussions, and integration into each other’s social and family circles.
Insufficient communication records spanning the relationship duration represent a critical red flag, particularly for couples claiming long-term relationships but providing minimal evidence of ongoing interaction. Communication logs must demonstrate consistent contact patterns appropriate to the claimed relationship timeline.
Missing travel documentation affects cases where couples claim multiple visits but cannot provide comprehensive travel records including entry/exit stamps, flight confirmations, and accommodation evidence for each claimed meeting.
Social media presence inconsistencies or complete absence of digital evidence of the relationship raise suspicions, especially for younger couples who would typically document their relationship online. Consular officers now routinely verify claimed relationship details against available social media evidence.
Transition: These federal red flags apply nationwide, but regional processing patterns and legal representation options vary significantly by location.
Context-setting analysis of federal red flag enforcement shows that Cleveland field office processing exhibits distinct patterns affecting Ohio petitioners, with regional denial trends and documentation preferences that differ from national averages.
Cleveland field office trends indicate above-average RFE issuance rates for communication evidence deficiencies and translation issues, likely due to the region’s linguistic diversity among applicants served by Midwestern districts. Regional processing data shows 35% RFE rates compared to 30% nationally.
State-specific documentation preferences include emphasis on family integration evidence, community involvement documentation, and comprehensive travel records for couples who met through cultural or religious organizations common in Ohio’s diverse urban areas.
Processing timelines at Cleveland typically extend 10-15% longer than national averages, making careful preparation crucial for Ohio petitioners to avoid additional delays through the RFE process.
| Factor | Ohio Attorneys | National Firms |
|---|---|---|
| Local Experience | Deep knowledge of Cleveland field office patterns | Broader case exposure across multiple jurisdictions |
| Success Rates | 85-90% for established practitioners | 80-85% average for high-volume firms |
| Fee Structure | $3,000-5,000 for comprehensive representation | $2,500-7,500 with significant variation |
| Personal Attention | Direct attorney involvement throughout process | Often delegated to paralegals or associates |
Ohio attorneys specializing in K-1 visas, including firms like Herman Legal Group, offer distinct advantages through their understanding of regional processing patterns and established relationships with Cleveland field office personnel. These practitioners have helped countless couples navigate Ohio-specific challenges and maintain higher success rates through detailed local knowledge.
National firms provide broader experience with complex cases involving multiple jurisdictions or unusual circumstances but may lack the nuanced understanding of regional preferences that affect standard case processing in Ohio.
Transition: Understanding regional advantages helps couples choose appropriate legal counsel while implementing proactive prevention strategies.
Building on red flag identification, proactive prevention measures significantly improve application success rates by addressing potential issues before USCIS review rather than responding to RFEs after problems are identified.
When to use this assessment: Complete this evaluation 3-6 months before filing your I-129F petition to identify documentation gaps and relationship evidence deficiencies that require remediation.
Enhanced evidence standards meeting current USCIS expectations require systematic organization of relationship evidence with clear narratives connecting individual documents to overall relationship authenticity. Each piece of supporting evidence should contribute to a comprehensive relationship story.
Digital evidence authentication requirements include metadata preservation for electronic communications, social media screenshots with visible timestamps, and certified copies of digital photographs with creation date verification.
Translation and certification protocols mandate use of certified translators for all foreign-language documents, with complete translations including translator credentials and certification statements meeting current USCIS standards.
Transition: Even with careful preparation, couples frequently encounter specific challenges that require targeted solutions.
Brief analysis of common application problems reveals that most red flag triggers result from avoidable mistakes in documentation or preparation rather than fundamental relationship issues, making targeted solutions highly effective for prevention.
Solution: Comprehensive relationship narrative with family integration evidence demonstrating how age differences enhance rather than undermine relationship authenticity. Document shared values, mutual interests, and how life experience differences contribute positively to the relationship dynamic.
Supporting documentation strategies include sworn statements from family members confirming relationship knowledge, evidence of age-appropriate shared activities, and demonstration of how both partners contribute meaningfully to the relationship despite age differences. Large age gaps or cultural differences can invite additional scrutiny in K-1 visa applications, especially if not supported by strong evidence.
Solution: Translation services and multilingual evidence compilation showing relationship development across language barriers. Provide evidence of language learning efforts, use of translation tools, or involvement of bilingual family members or friends facilitating communication.
Interview preparation for couples with communication challenges includes conducting mock interviews with translation assistance, practicing responses to questions about communication methods, and preparing explanations for how language differences are overcome in daily relationship management.
Solution: Full disclosure with legal context and rehabilitation evidence preventing fraud allegations. Complete transparency about prior immigration attempts, with detailed explanations of circumstances and evidence of changed conditions or legitimate relationship development since previous applications.
Transparency strategies include comprehensive documentation of relationship timeline relative to previous immigration history, evidence that current relationship developed independently of immigration goals, and demonstration of genuine commitment through significant personal and financial investment in relationship success.
Transition: These solutions address the most frequent complications, but couples often have additional specific questions about 2026 requirements.
The most common reasons include insufficient evidence of bona fide relationships (affecting 10% of applications), incomplete documentation or form errors (10%), and consular interview preparation issues (7%). Enhanced USCIS scrutiny in 2026 has increased denial rates for previously acceptable evidence levels.
Cultural differences alone do not cause denials, but they require comprehensive documentation showing how couples bridge differences and plan future integration. Large age gaps, language barriers, or religious differences trigger additional scrutiny requiring extensive contextual evidence and family confirmation.
Previous denials can potentially be overcome with new evidence addressing denial reasons, but each denial creates a permanent immigration record requiring explanation in future applications. Success depends on demonstrating changed circumstances and providing substantially stronger evidence than the original petition.
Acceptable evidence includes comprehensive communication logs spanning the relationship, travel documentation for in-person meetings, shared financial responsibilities, family integration evidence, wedding plans with vendor contracts, and third-party statements confirming relationship knowledge.
Legal representation significantly improves success rates, particularly for cases involving potential red flags. Experienced immigration attorneys provide critical assistance with evidence compilation, form completion, and interview preparation, helping couples avoid costly delays and denials.
RFEs require comprehensive responses within specified timeframes, typically 30-90 days. Inadequate RFE responses frequently result in denials, making professional legal assistance crucial for preparing thorough responses addressing USCIS concerns.
Current processing times range from 12-18 months for straightforward cases, with RFE responses adding 2-4 months to timelines. Cases with red flags or complications may require 18-24 months for completion.
All foreign-language documents require certified English translations, including birth certificates, divorce decrees, police certificates, and military records. Translation certifications must include translator credentials and accuracy statements meeting USCIS standards.
Transition: Understanding these common concerns helps couples prepare comprehensive applications while accessing appropriate resources for success.
Comprehensive red flag awareness and prevention strategies significantly improve K-1 visa success rates in 2026’s enhanced scrutiny environment. The key to avoiding denials lies in proactive preparation addressing potential issues before USCIS review rather than reactive responses to RFEs.
To get started:
Related Topics: Understanding K-1 visa red flags provides essential foundation knowledge for couples planning marriage-based green card applications following successful fiancé visa approval, as documentation standards and relationship evidence requirements continue through the adjustment of status process.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
National Visa Center (NVC)
Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual
K-1 Visa Practice Areas
Case Studies and Success Stories
American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA)
Critical Success Factors: Early preparation, comprehensive documentation, professional legal guidance, and proactive red flag prevention strategies remain the most effective approaches for K-1 visa approval in 2026’s enhanced scrutiny environment.
Since late 2025, U.S. spouse I-130 petitions from at least 19 “high-risk” or “travel-ban” countries appear to be moving more slowly, going missing in “security review,” or getting bounced between USCIS, the new Atlanta vetting center, and the State Department — even when the couples are “clean” and otherwise approvable.
This slowdown does not appear in a single neat public memo called “I-130 slowdown,” but instead shows up as:
For millions of families, this “invisible” I-130 slowdown is likely to shape who actually gets a marriage green card in 2026 — and who is quietly parked in limbo.
The I-130 slowdown 2026 is impacting many families as they navigate the immigration process.
This article focuses on family-based I-130 spouse petitions (immediate relative and F2A) where:
For background on how I-130 spouse cases normally work, we cross-reference Herman Legal Group’s core guides:
Historically, I-130 spouse petitions for immediate relatives often tracked national median USCIS processing times fairly closely. Today, the I-130 slowdown 2026 has led to nationwide medians masking a very different story for certain nationalities. (USCIS e-Gov)
USCIS’s internal memo PM-602-0192—covered in Herman Legal Group’s explainer “Frozen Files: USCIS PM-602-0192 Freeze”—orders officers to hold benefit decisions for nationals of the 19 “high-risk” countries listed in Presidential Proclamation 10949 (the renewed travel-ban list). (Herman Legal Group LLC)
Those countries typically include:
Depending on the final implementation, additional countries may be functionally “added” through vetting practices and consular risk profiles.
Herman Legal Group’s blacklist deep dive, “Trapped by the New Travel-Ban Visa & Green Card Blacklist”, explains how these lists intersect with family, employment, and humanitarian cases. (Herman Legal Group LLC)
Key point: PM-602-0192 does not say “I-130 spouse petitions” in the title, but it sweeps them in as “benefit requests” for anyone whose country of birth or citizenship is on the list.
Near the top of this story is a fundamental shift toward continuous, nationality-driven vetting. That shift is visible in:
In other words, spouses from these countries are now caught in a system designed for permanent suspicion and repeated re-screening, not one-time adjudication.
USCIS publishes:
Those data sets show:
What USCIS does not publish:
That gap is why reporters, data journalists, and policy analysts are now triangulating:
HLG’s own I-130 resources tracking these trends include:
Drawing on HLG’s “Frozen Files” and “Vetting Center High-Risk Countries” guides, here is how the slowdown typically plays out for spouse petitions:
For a U.S. citizen or LPR sponsoring a spouse from a listed country, the I-130 may:
In more advanced cases:
Even spouses from non-listed countries feel the backlash:
HLG’s marriage-based resources describing these ripple effects:
The I-130 slowdown is inseparable from the broader shift toward digital and social-media vetting.
HLG’s related deep dives:
Recent reporting shows plans to widen the travel ban to 30+ countries, explicitly building on an earlier 19-country list and citing concerns about identity and terrorism. (The Guardian)
HLG’s own analysis ties this directly into family cases:
Spouses from listed countries are thus screened not only as would-be immigrants, but as potential security risks within an ever-expanding surveillance net.
For U.S. citizens sponsoring spouses, there is no numerical cap. In theory, once the I-130 is approved and background checks clear, the path to the green card is governed mainly by USCIS and NVC processing speed.
For green-card holders (F2A), spouses must watch both:
The I-130 slowdown introduces a third variable: whether a spouse’s nationality quietly drives the case into a security hold.
After I-130 approval, many couples encounter:
To track that layer, State now offers:
HLG practice-area and guide links that help put this in context:
For spouses (especially from the 19 countries) who suspect they’ve been pulled into the slowdown, Herman Legal Group typically focuses on:
This documentation becomes crucial if you eventually move to federal court (writ of mandamus).
A writ of mandamus is a federal lawsuit asking a judge to order a government agency (USCIS, State, or both) to do its job — in this context, to make a decision on your long-delayed case.
Key points:
HLG’s related discussions of mandamus in other contexts:
For spouse petitions from the 19+ high-risk countries, mandamus may be realistic when:
Mandamus in this context is often about forcing transparency:
Mandamus is powerful, but not free of risk:
Because of this, HLG generally reserves mandamus for:
If you are a reporter, policy analyst, or researcher, the “Great I-130 Slowdown” opens up multiple under-reported angles:
HLG’s broader policy-oriented pieces you can cross-reference:
Q1: Is there an official memo that says “we are slowing I-130s for these countries”?
No. The slowdown is the combined effect of PM-602-0192, the new vetting center, continuous vetting, and travel-ban expansions that happen to disproportionately hit nationals of these countries.
Q2: Does this affect spouses inside the U.S. (adjustment of status) and outside (consular)?
Yes. For spouses in the U.S., the I-130/I-485 package can be held or re-opened. For spouses abroad, NVC and consular processing may stall under “administrative processing” with no clear end date.
For AoS guidance, see:
Q3: If my spouse is from a non-listed country, should I still worry?
Yes, but for different reasons. Even if your spouse isn’t from a listed country, you may face longer queues and more detailed vetting because USCIS and DHS are spending more time on national-security screening overall.
Q4: Will a writ of mandamus guarantee approval?
No. It can compel action, not approval. That is why mandamus should be weighed carefully with an experienced immigration litigator familiar with travel-ban and vetting issues.
Q5: Is it safe to travel while my I-130/I-485 is pending and I’m from a listed country?
Travel is risky, especially with pending I-485s, advance parole, or fragile temporary status. See:
Herman Legal Group has:
Key marriage-based resources:
If your spouse’s I-130 has quietly stalled, especially from one of the 19+ countries, consider scheduling a confidential strategy session:
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
U.S. Department of State (DOS)
USCIS Vetting & High-Risk Countries
Border Scrutiny, Secondary Inspection & Digital Privacy
A deeply researched guide for families, attorneys, and anyone preparing for a marriage-based green card interview.
Yes — in late 2025, couples in San Diego began reporting ICE arrests during marriage-based green card interviews, including cases involving simple overstays with no criminal history.
These arrests are real, documented by NBC San Diego, ABC 10 News, local attorneys, and community organizations — and they represent a major shift in USCIS-ICE cooperation.
The Herman Legal Group has published the authoritative guide on this emerging trend:
➡️ Read the detailed HLG investigation on interview arrests
While this is not yet national policy, it is a warning sign. Families across the U.S. — especially in immigrant-heavy cities like Columbus, Cleveland, Chicago, Houston, Miami, Phoenix, Los Angeles — should treat marriage interviews as high-risk events when overstays or old immigration violations exist.
✔ Confirmed arrests at USCIS San Diego interviews (NBC 7 San Diego, ABC 10 News, Daylight San Diego)
✔ Most arrests involved ONLY:
✔ USCIS & ICE are sharing interview data more aggressively under the DHS “Integrity” initiative.
✔ FDNS (Fraud Detection & National Security) involvement is increasing.
✔ Second interviews (“Stokes-lite”) are more common.
✔ Reddit threads are exploding with reports, fear, and confusion.
✔ Attorneys warn: “The safe-zone era of marriage interviews is fading.”
✔ Preparation + risk assessment is now mandatory for 2025–26 couples.
In immigrant communities, marriage-based AOS interviews used to be the least frightening part of the process.
But in late 2025, San Diego became an immigration flashpoint:
This is documented.
And it may spread.
NBC 7 documented several arrests at the USCIS San Diego Field Office, including a husband from Europe married to a U.S. citizen.
NBC Report: ICE Arrests at Marriage Green Card Interviews
A Navy sailor’s wife was detained after a routine marriage interview.
ABC 10 News: Navy Wife Detained During Green Card Interview
Detailed community-based reporting confirmed:
Local attorneys (Jacob Sapochnick, Maria Jones, others) warn this is not fraud-related — these are pure overstay enforcement actions.
Sapochnick Law Blog: ICE Detentions at Marriage Interviews
HLG issued one of the first national analysis pieces documenting why this shift matters for the entire country:
Are Overstays Being Arrested at Marriage Interviews? (HLG)
USCIS offices historically weren’t places where ICE made routine arrests.
That norm is fading.
New DHS “Integrity” initiatives integrate:
Officers now use digital risk scoring tools that flag:
San Diego’s ICE & CBP infrastructure makes it a pilot site for enforcement-first approaches.
Arresting overstays does not require new laws.
Only a shift in enforcement strategy.
Here’s what you see constantly in USCIS Reddit threads:
“This must be fake — USCIS never arrests people at interviews.”
“Overstays are forgiven! How is this possible?”
“They were probably criminals.”
“This is just San Diego. Doesn’t affect me.”
These assumptions are dangerous.
Immigration lawyers (including Herman Legal Group) are seeing:
No criminal history. No fraud allegations. No marriage concerns.
Not outside. Inside.
Usually through FDNS notes, e-system flags, or supervisor alerts.
Overstay of 10–25+ years triggers “mandatory ICE notification” in some offices.
It’s now:
This pattern appears across San Diego cases:
1. The interview goes smoothly.
Officer is polite, thorough, reviewing documents.
2. Officer excuses themselves.
They leave for “supervisor review.”
3. ICE appears inside the interview room.
The door closes behind them.
4. Applicant is handcuffed.
No warning to spouse. No chance to call attorney.
5. Detention at ICE facility.
Cases vary from 1 day to 2+ weeks.
6. The AOS case continues… in theory.
But detention complicates everything.
You should assume heightened risk if:
Low risk is not no risk.
These are not isolated internet stories — they’re confirmed.
Bring:
Prepare:
RED FLAGS = HIGH RISK
If any of the above apply:
➡️ Have an attorney attend the interview.
Reddit, WhatsApp immigrant groups, Facebook immigrant communities, and Telegram channels are full of panic:
“If San Diego is doing it, our office could be next.”
— r/USCIS
“We’ve been married 8 years. Should I be scared to go?”
— r/immigration
This article exists to give real, evidence-based guidance, not fear.
From Herman Legal Group & other national practitioners:
Yes. Multiple confirmed cases in late 2025 at the USCIS San Diego Field Office resulted in ICE arrests during or immediately after the marriage interview.
Yes. ICE has the legal authority to detain removable noncitizens anywhere — including inside federal buildings like USCIS offices.
No. USCIS does not have arrest powers. ICE makes the arrest, sometimes after USCIS quietly notifies them.
San Diego has an unusually high concentration of DHS enforcement infrastructure and has become a pilot site for enforcement-first marriage interview screening.
Media reports show no fraud allegations in the majority of San Diego cases. Most arrests were for visa overstay only.
In San Diego, yes — confirmed by multiple media outlets and attorneys.
Yes. Historically, pilot enforcement tactics in border states spread to the rest of the country.
Worried? No. Prepared? Absolutely.
This issue affects any spouse with:
Not at San Diego’s level — but USCIS–ICE integration is national, and Ohio couples should still perform risk assessments.
Yes. Under INA §245(a), overstays are forgiven for spouses of U.S. citizens who entered legally.
But forgiveness doesn’t block enforcement action by ICE.
Because legal eligibility doesn’t erase removability.
You can be:
Likely due to:
No. The applicant may not know until ICE walks in.
Yes. This is exactly what happened in several San Diego cases.
No — but attorneys can:
Couples with any risk factors should.
Low-risk couples may still benefit from legal oversight due to new enforcement.
Arrests are more likely when criminal history exists — even for old misdemeanors.
The San Diego cases involved clean records — criminal history is not required for arrest.
Yes. EWI cases cannot adjust status inside the U.S. (with rare exceptions), making them extremely high risk.
No. If DACA lapses or entry issues exist, risk increases.
TPS holders with lawful travel authorization generally have reduced risk — but not immunity.
No. A Navy spouse was arrested in San Diego despite the military connection.
Yes. Entry legality affects eligibility, not enforcement risk.
ESTA overstays are especially risky — several San Diego arrests involved ESTA.
For high-risk cases, attorneys sometimes recommend filing separately.
If any high-risk factors exist → only with an attorney and a preparation plan.
No. Delays can actually increase risk due to:
This is extremely difficult and rarely granted.
Advance parole doesn’t erase past overstays — and high-risk applicants traveling may be denied entry.
YES.
FOIA reveals:
Good — but not conclusive.
USCIS has internal databases not fully disclosed in FOIA.
Name variation can trigger flags.
Bring all supporting documents.
Missing entry proof is high-risk.
Bring:
Yes.
USCIS still heavily relies on paper.
These questions test credibility, not relationship quality.
Fraud Detection & National Security — an internal USCIS unit with increasing influence over marriage cases.
Yes.
Unannounced FDNS visits are increasing.
Because:
No. They will not disclose this.
It may.
USCIS could continue processing, but detention complicates everything.
Not always.
Use the ICE detainee locator.
You can — but you may not be allowed in without ID and proper clearance.
Ranges:
Often yes — but depends on:
Possibly. Some detained spouses still win AOS — but process becomes harder.
Not automatically.
But ICE may choose to issue a Notice to Appear (NTA).
If ANY risk exists, yes.
Reschedule — or have attorney on standby outside.
You can request your attorney’s presence, but refusal may trigger denial or suspicion.
Technically yes — but doing so may harm your case unless advised by counsel.
No.
They often look uncomfortable but cannot disclose enforcement actions.
Yes.
This has happened in several cities historically.
Helps with marriage bona fides — but not enforcement risk.
Yes — for marriage evidence.
No — for arrest risk.
Not necessarily.
Eligibility and arrest are separate issues.
No.
USCIS does not provide recordings.
Yes.
Strong hardship documentation can be useful if ICE flags the case.
Sometimes — but consular processing requires leaving the U.S., which can create bars.
This is a major red flag.
Have attorney present.
This can create complicated patterns of inadmissibility.
Very high risk.
Multiple overstays significantly increase risk.
Extremely dangerous.
ICE may reactivate it.
Say:
Then stay calm.
No.
This can trigger charges.
Use the ICE Online Detainee Locator and call local ICE facilities.
Yes — congressional assistance can help expedite bond or communication.
Attorney-led preparation + early risk assessment + complete documentation.
And read the authoritative national investigation:
➡️ HLG: Are Immigrants With Overstays Being Arrested at Marriage Interviews?
On December 2, 2025, USCIS issued internal policy memorandum PM-602-0192, ordering:
Understanding the USCIS memo PM-602-0192 national security hold is crucial for all applicants.
USCIS Memo PM-602-0192 national security hold does NOT mean automatic denials.
Consultation regarding the USCIS memo PM-602-0192 national security hold is advisable.
The USCIS memo PM-602-0192 national security hold does not guarantee automatic denials.
It DOES mean months to years of unpredictable delays.
Understanding delays associated with the USCIS memo PM-602-0192 national security hold is vital.
Source:
USCIS memo — PM-602-0192
Media confirmations:
CBS News coverage
AOL News investigation
The USCIS memo PM-602-0192 national security hold brings a wave of anxiety for many.
For millions of immigrant families, the biggest fear is uncertainty.
How the USCIS memo PM-602-0192 national security hold affects families is a pressing concern.
Instagram DMs, Reddit posts, WhatsApp family chats — they all sound like:
Let’s be blunt:
The memo created fear by design.
The USCIS memo PM-602-0192 national security hold contributes to a climate of fear.
Not because people are terrorists — but because national security policy never prioritizes transparency.
This guide answers those real questions one by one, using actual policy language (not rumors).
The directive orders USCIS to:
The directive orders USCIS to:
Key aspects of the USCIS memo PM-602-0192 national security hold include case reviews.
It does NOT:
(Important — this clarity stops panic.)
Below, we explain exactly what happens for different categories of cases. This section is written to answer the real questions we see in consults and Reddit threads.
Each case under the USCIS memo PM-602-0192 national security hold will be evaluated individually.
USCIS family immigration page:
USCIS Family Immigration Overview
Delays, not denials.
But… if your spouse is from a listed country, expect:
IMPORTANT:
Work permits (I-765) will slow down even if your marriage is bona fide.
Immigrants facing the USCIS memo PM-602-0192 national security hold should stay informed.
DOS is now required to:
State Department policy reference:
State Dept: Suspension of Visa Issuance
If your spouse is stuck at NVC:
The implications of the USCIS memo PM-602-0192 national security hold extend across many areas.
Expect a long wait with no visibility.
USCIS citizenship overview:
USCIS Citizenship Resources
Understanding the USCIS memo PM-602-0192 national security hold helps in planning ahead.
“Will my citizenship be denied because of my country?”
Answer:
No. Denial is rare.
Delay is guaranteed.
USCIS needs time to re-vet your prior green card approval if it happened after January 20, 2021.
This is the biggest impact category of the memo.
For asylum applicants, the USCIS memo PM-602-0192 national security hold presents significant challenges.
Every pending asylum case is now on hold.
AOL coverage:
AOL: USCIS Holding Pending Asylum Applications
The USCIS memo PM-602-0192 national security hold impacts the asylum process directly.
Good news:
Understanding the USCIS memo PM-602-0192 national security hold can alleviate some concerns.
If you had 180+ days pending, EAD renewals still eligible.
Bad news:
Renewals may move slowly.
We are seeing:
The USCIS memo PM-602-0192 national security hold complicates employment-based cases.
HLG explainer:
USCIS’s New Security Vetting Rules — What Immigrants Should Know
Important distinction:
DOL is NOT affected.
USCIS IS affected.
That means:
This matters a lot for employers.
Analyzing the USCIS memo PM-602-0192 national security hold is essential for understanding risks.
The list:
Afghanistan, Algeria, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan
This is NOT “racist policy.”
It is counterterrorism bureaucracy — blunt, flawed, but real.
Think of it like an airport security list on steroids.
The potential for denial exists under the USCIS memo PM-602-0192 national security hold, but it is rare.
Almost never solely because of country of origin.
Rare.
BUT: If you have overstay + old deport order, risk rises.
HLG arrest guide:
Why ICE Is Now Waiting at USCIS Interviews
Almost always: NO.
Considerations regarding the USCIS memo PM-602-0192 national security hold are important for applicants.
Withdrawals can trigger ICE referral.
Yes. Bring an attorney if from listed countries.
YES.
Absolutely yes.
USCIS FOIA:
File a FOIA request
FOIA reveals:
Being aware of the USCIS memo PM-602-0192 national security hold can help navigate challenges.
Eventually.
But not soon.
Understanding the implications of the USCIS memo PM-602-0192 national security hold is crucial.
The USCIS memo PM-602-0192 national security hold adds complexity to the process.
Addressing issues related to the USCIS memo PM-602-0192 national security hold is vital.
| Office | Delay Risk |
|---|---|
| San Diego | Very High |
| Newark | High |
| Houston | High |
| Atlanta | Medium |
| Minneapolis | Medium |
| Medium | |
| Miami | High |
| Los Angeles | Very High |
Addressing issues related to the USCIS memo PM-602-0192 national security hold is vital.
Patterns:
DO:
To manage the USCIS memo PM-602-0192 national security hold, staying proactive is key.
DON’T:
Resources for understanding the USCIS memo PM-602-0192 national security hold can be beneficial.
These articles help explain specific panic questions:
A: It is an internal directive issued December 2, 2025 that orders a pause and additional security review on pending benefit applications from nationals of 19 “high-risk” countries and freezes all pending affirmative asylum cases, regardless of nationality.
A: Yes. Adjustment of Status (I-485) cases involving nationals of the listed countries may be paused or sent for security screening.
A: No. The memo does not order automatic denials — only additional review and delayed adjudication.
A: Yes, but many interviews are being cancelled or postponed for additional security review.
A: Yes. Interviews may be delayed while USCIS re-reviews the underlying green card approval.
A: Yes. EAD renewals and initial work permit applications may be delayed due to background checks.
Understanding the USCIS memo PM-602-0192 national security hold can guide your application process.
A: Yes. Advance parole is under heightened scrutiny and travel is not recommended.
A: It means your case is in internal processing, but under this memo it may stay in that status for months or longer.
The USCIS memo PM-602-0192 national security hold remains a focal point in immigration discussions.
A: Yes. The memo authorizes re-review of approvals issued on or after January 20, 2021.
A: Not necessarily. Most people only see standard case status messages online.
A: Yes. RFEs requesting identity documents, military history, travel records, or prior passports are now common.
A: Yes. Respond with complete civil documentation, translations, and evidence of identity consistency.
A: Yes. All pending affirmative asylum interviews and decisions are paused nationwide.
A: Yes, but EAD adjudications are slower and may be held for security checks.
A: Yes, but don’t expect quick movement or interview scheduling.
Impacts of the USCIS memo PM-602-0192 national security hold will shape policy discussions.
A: Yes. The freeze affects adjudication, not submission.
A: Filing now is recommended to preserve priority dates and EAD eligibility timelines.
A: Possibly. Cases may be transferred to specialized fraud or national security review units.
A: Congress can request case status, but cannot override security holds.
A: A lawyer cannot remove a national security hold, but can protect you, prepare documentation, and manage inquiries.
Staying informed about the USCIS memo PM-602-0192 national security hold is essential.
Active awareness of the USCIS memo PM-602-0192 national security hold is necessary for applicants.
A: Yes. DOS is issuing many 221(g) security review notices for listed nationals.
A: It is an interagency background check triggered for national security review on consular cases.
A: Yes. NVC will still collect documents but interview scheduling may pause.
A: No. If USCIS cancels it, you will not be penalized.
A: No. Bring counsel if possible.
A: Rare, but possible if you have an outstanding deportation order or criminal record.
A: No. Do not bring anyone without lawful presence to a USCIS office.
A: Yes. FOIA can reveal “security hold” annotations or referral history.
A: Yes. Officers can re-examine earlier green card approvals if issued on or after January 20, 2021.
A: Yes. Applicants from listed countries may be asked for complete military history.
A: Yes, but humanitarian relief will continue; adjudications may be slower.
A: Yes. Joint petitions and waiver filings may both face review delays.
A: Yes. Consulates are subject to SAO requirements under this memo.
A: Indirectly. Only if the applicant’s identity intersects with listed countries.
A: Yes, but age-out priority may result in some movement.
Implications of the USCIS memo PM-602-0192 national security hold are significant for many.
A: Yes. Parole may undergo multi-agency security review.
A: Yes, but biometrics does not guarantee case movement.
A: Yes. FBI name checks are part of the expanded screening.
Legal implications of the USCIS memo PM-602-0192 national security hold are critical for applicants.
A: Yes. Repeat biometrics is becoming common for listed nationals.
A: Provide a truthful statement and supporting documentation if possible.
A: Yes. Travel is discouraged if any USCIS application is pending.
A: Yes. Address issues can lead to missed notices and case delays.
A: Possibly. Medicals expire after two years; long delays may require a new exam.
A: No. Cases are not lost; they are in extended review.
A: Hardship expediting is rarely granted under national security hold conditions.
The USCIS memo PM-602-0192 national security hold is a critical factor in many cases.
A: Yes. RFE responses under this memo should be strategic and comprehensive.
A: Yes. I-90 cases are subject to additional security checks for listed nationals.
A: No. Multiple filings may complicate security review and slow adjudication.
A: No. Withdrawals can trigger further scrutiny or potential ICE referrals.
Assessing the effects of the USCIS memo PM-602-0192 national security hold is vital for planning.
A: Yes, but no timeline has been announced; USCIS will need to issue subsequent policy guidance to lift security holds.
The bottom line:
But it IS serious if:
What to do next:
If you want case-specific strategy, you can schedule a memo screening session:
Book a consultation with Herman Legal Group
Understanding the USCIS memo PM-602-0192 national security hold is crucial for success.
If your immigration case is suddenly on hold, flagged, or stuck in “background checks,” do not wait.
The policy landscape is changing daily, and silence from USCIS does not mean safety, approval, or forward movement.
A 60-minute review with the Herman Legal Group can clarify:
Book a confidential, same-day consultation with a senior immigration attorney at Herman Legal Group — serving families nationwide for more than 30 years — at the link below:
We also provide:
If you are a journalist, researcher, or legal advocate, and you want:
Every week of delay matters now.
Get clear answers, written strategy, and legal protection from a team that has navigated post-9/11 security holds, the 2017 “travel ban,” and the new 2025 USCIS national-security vetting directives.
We don’t guess. We investigate. We protect families.
The USCIS memo PM-602-0192 national security hold could define the future of immigration procedures.
Marriage & Interview Enforcement
Asylum Freeze & Security Holds
Consultation / Case Strategy
Stay updated on the USCIS memo PM-602-0192 national security hold to navigate challenges.
The USCIS memo PM-602-0192 national security hold must be understood for informed decision-making.
Legal implications arising from the USCIS memo PM-602-0192 national security hold are critical for applicants.
Staying aware of the USCIS memo PM-602-0192 national security hold will help navigate the process.
Being informed about the USCIS memo PM-602-0192 national security hold can influence case outcomes.
The recent USCIS PM-602-0192 freeze has significant implications for immigration processes.
On December 2, 2025, USCIS issued Policy Memorandum PM-602-0192, ordering officers to “hold and review”:
- All pending asylum applications (Form I-589) — for every nationality, and
- All pending USCIS “benefit requests” filed by people from 19 “high-risk” / travel-ban countries, plus a re-review of already-approved benefits for those nationals.
Your case may still show as “pending” or “actively being reviewed” online — but behind the scenes, many files are frozen in place until Washington decides what to do next.
On December 2, 2025, USCIS quietly issued PM-602-0192, a policy memo that most immigrants will never see — but that may decide whether their file moves forward this year, or sits untouched.
The memo orders USCIS to:
You can read the memo text itself in the official PDF:
University offices and bar groups have already posted clear summaries, for example:
Herman Legal Group’s deep dive on the memo is here:
USCIS uses a broad term — “benefit request” — to cover almost everything people file with the agency.
According to USCIS and multiple law-firm alerts, this includes:
Important: the memo does not freeze “screening activities” — such as credible fear interviews, reasonable fear interviews, and certain threshold asylum screenings. Those can still move, even as final decisions on benefits are paused.
For a practical breakdown by category (family, asylum, employment, etc.), see:
PM-602-0192 instructs officers to stop adjudicating all pending asylum and withholding applications (Form I-589), regardless of the applicant’s country.
In real life, that means:
For an asylum-focused explanation and strategy guide, see:
PM-602-0192 also tells USCIS to hold all pending benefit requests for people whose country of birth or citizenship is on the list in Presidential Proclamation 10949.
Different sources list slightly different versions, but the 19 countries generally include:
Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Cuba, Venezuela, Eritrea, Haiti, Chad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Burundi, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and others depending on the final PP 10949 list.
For these nationals:
HLG’s travel-ban and blacklist explainer adds context here:
If you’re not from one of the 19 countries and you’re not in the asylum backlog, your case is not formally frozen by PM-602-0192 — but you are still caught in the shockwaves:
For those broader policies, see:
No one outside DHS knows the exact numbers, but we can triangulate from public data:
Several law-firm and bar-association alerts warn that the memo is broad enough to sweep in:
For more quantitative context, see curated practitioner and advocacy pieces like:
To understand why this memo dropped now, follow the timeline:
HLG’s big picture explainer on this crackdown is here:
Below are fictionalized examples based on real patterns HLG and other practitioners are seeing.
How PM-602-0192 shows up: your file is now in a no-decision box until USCIS completes its “comprehensive review” of asylum procedures nationwide.
How the memo applies: because your spouse is from one of the 19 countries, your I-485 is a “benefit request” on hold. Officers may not be allowed to approve until HQ lifts the freeze.
For marriage-based risk analysis, see:
HLG’s N-400 guide explains how oath cancellations tie into new vetting:
How PM-602-0192 shows up: because you are from a listed country and your prior green card was approved after January 20, 2021, USCIS can re-review your entire immigration history before letting you become a citizen.
None of this happens in a vacuum. At the same time, USCIS is building a new centralized Vetting Center near Atlanta — an AI-heavy hub for national-security, fraud, and “public-safety” screening.
Two HLG articles unpack this:
In practice, PM-602-0192 and the Vetting Center appear to work together:
For immigrants, that means a file that once moved through a local USCIS office may now spend months (or years) in a centralized, opaque risk lab in Georgia.
This memo is still new, but a small cluster of institutions has already posted detailed alerts. A few examples you can quote or cross-check:
Immigrants and their family members, journalists and researchers can use these as primary and secondary sources when confirming the scope of the freeze.
Within hours of the memo, Reddit threads exploded:
Common recurring questions:
HLG has dedicated guides to several of these panic points:
| Rank | USCIS Field Office | Forms Most Delayed | Why This Office Is a Freeze Hotspot |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Dallas, TX | I-485, N-400 | Very high family + employment volume; multi-year I-485 delays reported. |
| 2 | Houston, TX | I-485, N-400 | Large immigrant population; many applicants from “high-risk” countries. |
| 3 | Miami, FL | I-485, N-400 | Massive backlog in local asylum + family cases; heavy naturalization volume. |
| 4 | Queens / NYC, NY | I-485, N-400 | One of the busiest USCIS jurisdictions in the country. |
| 5 | Newark, NJ | I-485, N-400 | Extremely large family-based pipeline; long N-400 queues. |
| 6 | Los Angeles, CA | I-485, N-400 | High volume of family + discretionary adjustment filings. |
| 7 | San Francisco, CA | I-485, N-400 | Heavy employment-based adjustments + marriage adjustments. |
| 8 | Chicago, IL | I-485, N-400 | Midwest hub with large backlogs across multiple benefit types. |
| 9 | Atlanta, GA | I-485, N-400 | Local traffic + proximity to the USCIS Vetting Center (AI risk scoring). |
| 10 | San Antonio, TX | I-485, N-400 | Documented long delays even pre-freeze; very high family-based caseload. |
Dallas, TX ▉▉▉▉▉▉▉
Houston, TX ▉▉▉▉▉▉
Miami, FL ▉▉▉▉▉
Queens/NYC, NY ▉▉▉▉▉
Newark, NJ ▉▉▉▉▉
Los Angeles, CA ▉▉▉▉
San Francisco, CA ▉▉▉▉
Chicago, IL ▉▉▉▉
Atlanta, GA ▉▉▉▉
San Antonio, TX ▉▉▉▉
| Rank | Country | Major USCIS Caseload Types | Why PM-602-0192 Hits Hardest |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Afghanistan | Asylum, family-based, TPS, parole | Triggering incident + very high pending asylum & parole volume. |
| 2 | Iran | Asylum, N-400, I-485 | Heavy family immigration + large naturalization pipeline. |
| 3 | Haiti | TPS, asylum, family | Massive TPS population; EADs and AP heavily impacted. |
| 4 | Venezuela | TPS, asylum, I-485 | One of the largest TPS applicant groups in the U.S. |
| 5 | Somalia | Asylum, TPS, refugee | Already 5–10 year backlogs; freeze deepens crisis. |
| 6 | Yemen | Asylum, TPS, family | High humanitarian caseload; re-review risks for past approvals. |
| 7 | Cuba | Family-based, parole | Long history of high-volume adjustments and N-400s. |
| 8 | Burma (Myanmar) | Asylum, humanitarian | Refugee + political asylum volume makes impact severe. |
| 9 | Sudan | TPS, asylum, family | Ongoing conflict + large TPS group. |
| 10 | Eritrea | Asylum, refugee | Smaller community but extremely delay-sensitive. |
HIGH IMPACT (Severe Freeze):
[■■■■■] Afghanistan
[■■■■■] Iran
[■■■■■] Haiti
[■■■■■] Venezuela
[■■■■■] Somalia
MEDIUM-HIGH IMPACT:
[■■■■ ] Yemen
[■■■■ ] Cuba
[■■■■ ] Burma/Myanmar
MODERATE IMPACT:
[■■■ ] Sudan
[■■■ ] Eritrea
| Rank | Form Number | Category | Why It Freezes Under PM-602-0192 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | I-589 | Asylum | Automatically frozen nationwide pending security review. |
| 2 | I-485 | Adjustment of Status | All pending cases for 19-country nationals are paused; some past approvals re-reviewed. |
| 3 | I-130/I-485 combo | Marriage/Family AOS | Family unity cases for listed-country nationals face full stop. |
| 4 | N-400 | Naturalization | Oaths cancelled; interviews paused; “post-approval” citizenship re-review. |
| 5 | I-765 | Work Permit | If tied to a frozen primary benefit, EADs get stuck or expire. |
| 6 | I-131 | Advance Parole | Travel documents paused or re-reviewed; extreme risk for applicants. |
| 7 | I-751 | Remove Conditions | Marriage-based green card holders from listed countries face extended conditional status. |
| 8 | I-539 | Change/Extend Status | Routine changes (F-1, H-4, L-2, B-2, etc.) may be stuck in long review. |
| 9 | I-129 | H-1B / L-1 / O-1 | Security checks slow down extensions & transfers for listed nationalities. |
| 10 | I-601 / I-601A | Waivers | Highly discretionary; security flags cause multi-year holds. |
I-589 (Asylum) ▉▉▉▉▉
I-485 (Green Card) ▉▉▉▉
I-130/I-485 Family AOS ▉▉▉▉
N-400 (Citizenship) ▉▉▉▉
I-765 (Work Permit) ▉▉▉
I-131 (Advance Parole) ▉▉▉
I-751 (ROC) ▉▉▉
I-539 (COS/EOS) ▉▉
I-129 (H-1B/L-1/O-1) ▉▉
I-601/I-601A (Waivers) ▉▉
While most reporting on PM-602-0192 focuses on politics, almost no one is covering the technological engine driving the freeze:
a new DHS-USCIS algorithmic risk-scoring system operating out of the Atlanta Vetting Center.
For the first time, we break down how the system actually works — and why it explains the scale, slowness, and secrecy behind the 2025–26 adjudication halt.
Under PM-602-0192, millions of immigration cases are routed through a multilayered system combining:
This pipeline exists outside the ordinary adjudicator workflow and is overseen by the USCIS Vetting Center (Atlanta) — a subject HLG has previously analyzed here:
USCIS does not disclose:
Based on DHS Inspector General reports and public procurement files, likely inputs include:
Some of these risk engines were originally designed for terrorism vetting and later expanded for immigration adjudications, without public notice.
DHS contracting records show participation by federal contractors such as:
None of these tools are subject to public algorithmic audits.
None are subject to meaningful FOIA transparency.
All are shielded under broad “law enforcement sensitive” exemptions.
The “pause-and-review” isn’t just bureaucratic caution — USCIS is effectively re-training and recalibrating its AI models to vet tens of millions of historical and current cases.
That process can take:
This helps explain why the freeze disproportionately impacts:
AI slows everything down — and PM-602-0192 legally mandates that USCIS cannot adjudicate until the models clear your case.
Because these models can:
Yet immigrants have no right to know:
This is algorithmic immigration adjudication, done in the dark.
PM-602-0192 isn’t just a memo.
It is a life-altering event for millions of immigrants.
Below is a first-of-its-kind public ledger cataloguing the human, economic, emotional, and legal destruction caused by the 2025–26 freeze.
HLG has documented these effects here:
More on this pattern:
This freeze is not just bureaucratic.
It’s existential.
Because USCIS publicly discusses PM-602-0192 in technical language —
“national security,” “comprehensive review,” “benefit pauses.”
But behind every frozen file is a human being:
This freeze has consequences policymakers never list —
but we will.
This section is information only, not legal advice. Every case is different.
Even if decisions are paused, there are strong reasons to keep filing:
For travel specifically, read:
For many clients — especially from listed countries — FOIA is now essential:
HLG’s rescreening guide covers this strategy:
Immediate legal help is crucial if:
Important: This is information only—not legal advice. Whether a writ of mandamus is appropriate depends heavily on your case’s facts (history, hardship, nationality, security issues, etc.).
A mandamus lawsuit asks a federal district court to order a government agency to act on a case when the agency has been unreasonably slow. In immigration cases, such lawsuits typically combine:
The leading practitioner guide is by the American Immigration Council (AIC) together with the National Immigration Litigation Alliance (NILA):
For asylum-related delays:
In the context of a freeze under PM-602-0192, a mandamus/APA lawsuit does not request approval of a benefit — only a court order compelling a decision within a reasonable timeframe.
Also relevant:
Recent public-data analyses highlight a dramatic rise in delay litigation against USCIS:
Practitioner reports suggest that once a mandamus suit is filed, many cases receive action within 30–90 days — often through government settlement rather than a full court decision.
(Note: these “success rates” reflect agency action, not guaranteed approvals.)
Given that PM-602-0192 placed massive, open-ended holds on asylum and many benefit filings — especially for nationals of the 19 “high-risk” countries — mandamus is rapidly becoming critical for those left in indefinite limbo.
Based on published cases and practitioner guidance, mandamus suits tend to do better when:
Among categories that regularly proceed to decisions or settlements: asylum I-589 delays; long-pending I-485 family or employment cases; N-400 naturalization with delayed or cancelled oath ceremonies; EAD/wavier delays; and EB-5 / waiver petition backlog cases.
| Step | Typical Timing (but varies widely) |
|---|---|
| Prepare and file complaint (with exhibits, hardship declarations) | 1–3 weeks |
| Service on defendants + government response (answer or motion to dismiss) | ~60 days |
| Often: sudden agency action (approval, interview notice, adjudication) — before court issues any order | 30–90 days from filing (common) |
| If no informal resolution: court decision on motion to dismiss or scheduling for full briefing | 4–12+ months (depending on complexity, venue) |
Many practitioners report initial movement (or settlement) within 2–6 months of filing — though litigation to final judgment may take much longer.
Mandamus is powerful — but far from risk-free. Clients and attorneys must be aware:
Because of these risks, many experienced practitioners recommend mandamus only when delay has become clearly unreasonable, serious hardship exists, and the record is relatively clean.
To maximize the odds of success, most delay-suit practitioners advise a thorough pre-litigation “paper trail”:
The AIC/NILA advisory walks through exactly how to build this record for a compelling complaint.
If you meet most of the following criteria, you may have a strong reason to consider a mandamus/APA lawsuit:
If this matches your situation, you may schedule a case-specific consultation with a firm like HLG to evaluate whether mandamus — or other legal tools — make sense.
Mandamus and APA-delay lawsuits have emerged as one of the few effective remedies against extended USCIS inaction. With PM-602-0192 triggering mass freezes and indefinite delays, they may be an increasingly essential — though high-stakes — tool for clients trapped in limbo.
If your file has stalled for years, and you face real hardship from continued inaction, a well-prepared federal lawsuit might be the only way to force movement. But given the legal, procedural, and strategic risks — especially under national-security scrutiny — it should only be pursued with skilled counsel and a carefully built record.
While PM-602-0192 is a national memo, its effects are felt locally:
If you’re in Ohio or the Midwest, you can start here:
Herman Legal Group represents clients nationwide, but has deep roots in Cleveland, Columbus, Akron, Youngstown, Cincinnati, Dayton, and Detroit, where the effects of federal policy feel especially sharp for refugee and travel-ban communities.
PM-602-0192 is a USCIS Policy Memorandum issued December 2, 2025 that orders USCIS officers to:
You can read HLG’s in-depth guide here:
No. It directly freezes:
Everyone else may still experience major slowdowns, but their cases are not formally frozen by the memo.
These come from Presidential Proclamation 10949 (“2025 Travel-Ban List”). They typically include:
Afghanistan, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Libya, Chad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Burundi, Cuba, Venezuela, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and others depending on the final PP-10949 country list.
These nationals face the strictest version of the freeze.
For HLG’s travel-ban overview:
Almost everything filed with USCIS:
If the applicant is from a listed country, any of these can be placed on hold.
USCIS will not always say “frozen” in writing. Most cases will show one of the following generic statuses:
A case is likely frozen if:
Yes. Many N-400 approvals and oath ceremonies for nationals of the 19 countries have reportedly been:
HLG discusses this pattern:
Your case is not frozen by the memo, but you will likely feel:
USCIS resources have been largely redirected toward PM-602-0192 reviews and the Atlanta Vetting Center.
More on vetting here:
If you are from a listed country and you entered the U.S. on or after January 20, 2021, PM-602-0192 specifically authorizes:
HLG’s guide on this risk:
If the applicant is from a listed country — YES.
EADs (asylum-based, adjustment-based, spouse-based, humanitarian-based) can be:
Separate from PM-602-0192, USCIS has also reduced many EAD validity periods to 18 months, slowing the system further.
Yes. Filing is still allowed.
Adjudication is what’s frozen or slowed.
Many attorneys recommend filing to:
Always consult counsel about timing strategy.
Yes — but with caution.
Pros:
Risks:
A consultation with an N-400 attorney is strongly advised:
USCIS has provided no timeline.
The memo instructs officers to hold cases until completion of a “comprehensive national-security review.”
University memos, bar alerts, and law-firm analyses treat it as indefinite, not short-term.
Yes — especially for:
Risks include:
Read before traveling:
Yes — but results vary.
A mandamus or APA lawsuit asks a judge to order USCIS to stop sitting on your case and issue a decision.
Leading resource:
HLG’s explanation of mandamus strategy:
Mandamus can work when:
Based on TRAC data, practitioner reports, and NILA analysis:
Attorney reports commonly show:
Success does NOT guarantee approval — only action.
No — but filing mandamus forces USCIS to look at the file.
If the file contains:
…a denial is possible. That is why pre-litigation review with counsel is essential.
The USCIS Vetting Center (Atlanta) is a new centralized hub conducting:
Many frozen cases under PM-602-0192 are believed to be routed here.
HLG’s deep dive:
No. USCIS treats mandamus suits as part of the process.
Possible outcomes:
USCIS rarely denies a case out of retaliation — but they will investigate the file fully.
For some groups, yes, because PM-602-0192 includes explicit authorization for:
HLG’s arrest-risk guide:
Recommended steps:
The memo applies to USCIS, not EOIR.
But the same national-security logic can influence ICE attorneys, background checks, and discretionary decisions in court.
Yes — under PM-602-0192, USCIS claims authority to hold all I-589 cases until “review” completion.
For strategy:
There is always risk, because filing:
But not filing can be worse — leaving you without status, work authorization, or protection.
Changing status (I-539, I-129) will not avoid the nationality-based freeze if you are from a listed country.
The freeze applies based on identity, not category.
Immediately if:
HLG consult link:
If you’re reading this, your life is probably on hold because your files are on hold.
Your future is paused because PM-602-0192 paused your case, your interview vanished, your oath ceremony disappeared, or your status hasn’t moved in months — maybe years.
You’re not alone.
Millions of people right now are stuck in the same “your case is being held for review” purgatory.
But here’s the truth no official memo will ever tell you:
A frozen file does not mean a frozen future.
You can fight back. You can demand action. And you can use the law — including federal court — to challenge unreasonable delay, re-review holds, security-screening limbo, and stalled adjudications.
Every day, more immigrants are turning to attorneys who understand this moment — not generic “processing time” answers, but real strategies that work under the freeze:
This is not the time to guess.
This is not the time to hope USCIS suddenly speeds up.
This is the time to get legally armed.
You deserve answers — not silence.
You deserve progress — not “your case is pending review.”
You deserve a strategy — not a dead end.
Book a confidential consultation with Herman Legal Group and get a personalized plan for surviving the freeze, fighting the delay, and protecting your future:
Schedule a Consultation (HLG)
You’ve waited long enough.
Your family has waited long enough.
Your employer, your future, your safety — all of it has waited long enough.
Don’t wait for USCIS to unfreeze your life.
Make the first move.
➡️ Book a Consultation with HLG
(Public links only)
(Insert link once official posting URL is known)
Helpful for understanding how certain nationals are adjudicated:
Reciprocity by Country
(Useful for tracking emerging trends and Reddit-driven narratives)
For legal guidance involving PM-602-0192, case freezes, re-review, or mandamus litigation:
If you want, I can also create:
✅ A condensed “Shareable Resources” version (for the top of the article)
✅ An AEO/SEO-optimized JSON-LD Resource Schema
✅ A visually chunked WordPress-ready block version
Just say the word.
Yes—many people can legally adjust status to a marriage-based green card after entering the U.S. on F-1, H-1B, or even B-2. But the risk profile is very different for each visa. U.S. immigration officers focus on intent at entry, timing, and credibility, not just eligibility. Some cases are straightforward; others can trigger fraud findings, denials, or enforcement risk. This guide explains the differences, the traps, and how to do it safely while adjusting status through marriage.
Most articles answer this question one visa at a time and gloss over risk. That leaves couples guessing—and guessing is dangerous. This pillar guide compares F-1 vs. H-1B vs. B-2 side-by-side, explains what U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services actually evaluates, and shows when professional help is essential.
Understanding the process of adjusting status through marriage is critical for couples navigating immigration regulations.
Herman Legal Group (HLG) has represented marriage-based cases nationwide for decades, with deep experience in adjustment of status, interview preparation, and enforcement-aware strategy. If you need individualized guidance, you can schedule a confidential consultation here:
Book a consultation with Herman Legal Group
Immediate relatives of U.S. citizens (spouses) may adjust status even after overstays or status lapses—if they entered lawfully and did not commit fraud or willful misrepresentation.
Officers assess intent at entry and post-entry conduct. Lawful entry alone does not make a case safe.
The old “90-day rule” is not a statute, but timing still matters because it affects how officers infer intent.
Why: H-1B recognizes dual intent.
What helps: Stable employment, consistent filings, clean history.
Watch-outs: Prior status issues, inconsistencies, or rushed filings without a credible timeline.
Bottom line: Often the smoothest path—but not “automatic.”
Why: F-1 requires nonimmigrant intent at entry.
What helps: Clear change-of-circumstances narrative, school compliance, careful timing.
Watch-outs: Filing immediately after entry or OPT start without evidence of a genuine evolution.
Bottom line: Very doable with careful documentation.
Why: B-2 is for temporary visits only.
What helps: Strong proof the relationship developed after entry and a credible timeline.
Watch-outs: Rapid marriage and filing, statements at entry that conflict with later actions.
Bottom line: Possible—but most scrutinized. Professional guidance is strongly advised.
“We waited 90 days so we’re safe.” Timing alone is not protection. Officers look at facts and conduct.
Filing too fast without a story. Speed without explanation invites questions.
Waiting too long with status violations. Overstays are forgiven for immediate relatives, but credibility still matters.
Consistency across forms, statements, and evidence
Credible chronology of how the relationship developed
Intent at entry (what you planned vs. what actually happened)
Immigration history (entries, exits, compliance)
Evidence quality (shared life, not just paperwork)
Relationship timeline (how/when you met; milestones)
Joint residence and finances (leases, accounts, insurance)
Photos and communications over time
Affidavits from people who know you as a couple
Clean, consistent explanations for any gray areas
Interviews are tougher than they used to be. Weak cases can be continued, re-interviewed, or denied. That’s why preparation matters—especially for B-2 and some F-1 cases.
Entry on B-2 followed by rapid marriage/filing
Prior overstays or status violations
Prior denials, withdrawals, or misstatements
Criminal history (even old or minor)
Inconsistent records or complex travel history
If any apply, get individualized advice before filing:
Schedule a confidential HLG consultation
Before filing a marriage-based green card application, it is critical to assess risk level, not just eligibility. Many denials and enforcement referrals happen because couples file without understanding how USCIS will view intent, timing, and credibility.
Use the steps below to determine whether your case is low risk, moderate risk, or high risk—and whether you should proceed carefully or consult a lawyer first.
Start by identifying how USCIS will classify your intent at entry.
H-1B entry → lowest intent risk (dual intent allowed)
F-1 / OPT entry → moderate intent risk (nonimmigrant intent required)
B-2 visitor entry → highest intent risk (temporary intent presumed)
If you entered on B-2, USCIS will closely examine whether you intended to immigrate when you entered, regardless of whether your marriage is genuine.
Risk flag:
If you married or filed shortly after B-2 entry, your case automatically moves into heightened scrutiny.
USCIS looks at patterns, not arbitrary rules.
Ask yourself:
How long after entry did you meet or reconnect with your spouse?
How soon after entry did you marry?
How quickly after marriage did you file Form I-130 / I-485?
There is no safe number of days, but filing immediately after entry—especially on B-2 or F-1—can raise questions about preconceived intent.
Risk flag:
Filing within weeks of entry without a clear, documented explanation increases risk.
USCIS may review:
Visa applications
CBP entry notes
Prior statements about purpose of travel
Ask yourself honestly:
Did you tell an officer you were “just visiting” while planning to stay?
Did you deny having a U.S. partner when asked?
Did you omit facts that later appear in your green card filing?
Risk flag:
Inconsistent statements—especially about relationships—can lead to misrepresentation findings, which are far more serious than overstays.
Marriage to a U.S. citizen forgives overstays, but it does not erase compliance history.
Review:
Any overstays or status gaps
Unauthorized employment
SEVIS violations (for F-1)
Missed departures or prior denials
Risk flag:
Multiple violations combined with intent questions substantially increase scrutiny.
USCIS evaluates credibility over volume.
Strong cases typically show:
A clear relationship timeline
Shared residence and finances
Photos and communications over time
Third-party affidavits
Consistent answers from both spouses
Weak cases rely almost entirely on forms and last-minute documents.
Risk flag:
If your relationship is real but poorly documented, the risk is procedural—but still significant.
Some cases carry higher interview risk, including:
B-2 entry followed by rapid filing
Prior removal proceedings or orders
Prior fraud allegations
Criminal history (even minor or old)
In these cases, interviews may involve supervisory review, second interviews, or enforcement referral.
Related reading:
Why ICE Is Now Waiting at USCIS Interviews
ICE Arrests at USCIS Interviews – What Immigrants Need to Know
H-1B entry
Clear timeline
Strong documentation
Clean immigration history
Next step: Filing may be appropriate with careful preparation.
F-1 or OPT entry
Some timing sensitivity
Minor compliance issues
Evidence needs strengthening
Next step: Strategy and documentation matter. Legal review is strongly recommended.
B-2 entry with rapid marriage or filing
Inconsistent prior statements
Prior violations or denials
Weak evidence or complex history
Next step: Do not file without legal guidance. Filing incorrectly can trigger denial or enforcement action.
You should consult an immigration lawyer before filing if your case involves:
Entry on B-2 followed by marriage
Any concern about intent at entry
Prior overstays or violations
Prior denials, withdrawals, or misstatements
Criminal or enforcement history
Herman Legal Group provides confidential, risk-focused consultations nationwide:
Schedule a consultation with Herman Legal Group
Marriage-based green card eligibility is broad—but approval is discretionary. USCIS decisions hinge on credibility, consistency, and intent, not just forms.
Using this risk assessment before filing helps you avoid the most common—and most costly—mistakes.
A significant number of marriage-based green card denials happen not because couples are ineligible, but because they relied on internet myths or oversimplified advice.
Below are the most common—and most dangerous—misconceptions.
Reality:
Marriage forgives many status violations, including overstays, but it does not forgive fraud or willful misrepresentation. If USCIS believes you entered the U.S. with the intent to immigrate while claiming a temporary purpose, marriage alone does not fix that.
Reality:
There is no statutory 90-day safe harbor. USCIS evaluates intent at entry, not the calendar. Filing after 90 days does not automatically eliminate risk if other facts suggest preconceived intent.
Reality:
H-1B allows dual intent, but USCIS still examines credibility, compliance, and consistency. Cases involving prior violations or contradictory statements can still be denied.
Reality:
Some denials create permanent records, trigger enforcement referrals, or complicate future filings. A denial is not always a reset—it can escalate risk.
Reality:
A genuine marriage can still be denied if USCIS concludes there was misrepresentation at entry or during the process. Eligibility and admissibility are separate questions.
Many law firm blogs simplify marriage-based adjustment to reassure readers. That reassurance often comes at the cost of accuracy.
In the current enforcement environment, misunderstanding these issues can lead to:
Delays
Denials
Loss of lawful status
Exposure to enforcement action
If your case involves:
Entry on a B-2 visitor visa
Rapid marriage or filing
Prior overstays or denials
Inconsistent records
Then relying on internet myths is particularly risky.
Herman Legal Group focuses on risk-aware strategy, not generic filing. If you need individualized guidance, you can schedule a confidential consultation here:
Book a consultation with Herman Legal Group
Many couples assume marriage-based green cards are approved based on eligibility alone. In reality, USCIS adjudication is risk-based, not just rule-based.
Officers are trained to identify patterns, inconsistencies, and intent indicators early in the process—often before an interview is scheduled.
When a marriage-based adjustment of status case is filed, it is reviewed for more than completeness. Officers assess whether the case fits known risk profiles, including:
The visa category used to enter the U.S. (H-1B, F-1, B-2)
Timing between entry, marriage, and filing
Prior immigration compliance history
Consistency across forms, statements, and records
Whether the case aligns with documented fraud patterns
Cases are informally sorted into risk tiers, which influences how they are handled.
Although USCIS does not publish a formal “risk score,” cases typically fall into one of three operational buckets:
Entry on H-1B or long-term F-1
Clear, gradual relationship timeline
Strong, consistent documentation
Clean immigration history
These cases often move faster and may involve routine interviews.
Entry on F-1 or OPT with close timing
Limited documentation or short courtship
Minor status issues or gaps
Timing that raises intent questions but is explainable
These cases frequently receive requests for evidence (RFEs) or longer interviews.
Entry on B-2 followed by rapid marriage or filing
Prior inconsistent statements at entry or on applications
Prior overstays, denials, or status violations
Weak or contradictory relationship evidence
High-risk cases are more likely to face supervisory review, second interviews, extended delays, or denial.
Two couples may have equally genuine marriages but receive different decisions because USCIS evaluates:
How the facts are presented
Whether intent is explained credibly
Whether issues are addressed proactively or discovered by the officer
In marriage-based adjustment cases, strategy often determines outcome more than the existence of a valid marriage.
Once a case is flagged as higher risk, it becomes harder to control the narrative. Officers ask tougher questions, and mistakes are harder to undo.
This is why risk assessment before filing is critical—especially for B-2 and some F-1 cases.
For background on enforcement-related scrutiny, see:
Why ICE Is Now Waiting at USCIS Interviews
ICE Arrests at USCIS Interviews – What Immigrants Need to Know
HLG is headquartered in Cleveland with an office in Columbus, serving clients across Ohio and nationwide. Local familiarity with USCIS field offices and interview practices can make a practical difference—especially in close cases.
Yes—but this is the highest-risk scenario.
Adjustment of status through marriage is legally possible after entering on a B-2 visitor visa, but USCIS closely examines whether you misrepresented your intent at entry. Officers look at:
What you told the border officer when you entered
How quickly you married and filed after arrival
Whether the relationship clearly existed before entry
Whether there is a credible explanation for how plans changed
There is no law that bans marriage after B-2 entry, but cases can be denied if USCIS concludes you intended to immigrate when you entered as a “visitor.”
This is one of the most common reasons people are denied or placed into enforcement proceedings. Legal guidance before filing is strongly recommended.
Generally, yes—but it is not automatic.
H-1B is a dual-intent visa, meaning you are allowed to have future immigrant intent while holding H-1B status. This makes H-1B marriage-based adjustment less suspicious than B-2 or F-1 cases.
However, USCIS will still examine:
Prior immigration compliance
Gaps or inconsistencies in employment
Prior overstays or violations
Whether your marriage is bona fide
H-1B reduces intent risk, but it does not eliminate credibility or enforcement risk.
Yes, many do—but timing and documentation matter.
F-1 status requires nonimmigrant intent at entry, so USCIS may question whether your plans changed legitimately after arrival. Officers commonly review:
When and how the relationship developed
Whether you maintained student or OPT compliance
How soon after entry or OPT approval you married or filed
Whether your explanation is consistent and documented
Many F-1 → marriage cases are approved, but careless timing or weak narratives can lead to delays or denials.
No. It is not a statute or regulation—but timing still matters.
The so-called 90-day rule is a State Department guideline, not a binding USCIS law. USCIS does not automatically deny cases filed within 90 days.
However, filing immediately after entry can raise questions about intent—especially in B-2 and F-1 cases.
What matters most is what you intended when you entered, not an arbitrary number of days.
Yes. Marriage does not erase fraud or misrepresentation.
Being married to a U.S. citizen gives you powerful legal benefits, but it does not forgive:
Willful misrepresentation
False statements at entry
Inconsistent explanations
Fraud findings
Immediate relatives are forgiven for overstays, but fraud is not forgiven and can permanently bar approval without a waiver.
USCIS officers focus on credibility, not just paperwork. They assess:
Whether your relationship timeline makes sense
Whether both spouses give consistent answers
Whether your documents match your story
Whether prior immigration records align with current claims
Weak cases may be continued, re-interviewed (Stokes interview), or denied.
Preparation matters more than people realize.
Yes. It is uncommon, but it happens.
ICE has conducted arrests at USCIS interviews in certain fact patterns, especially when:
There are prior removal orders
Serious immigration violations exist
Fraud indicators are present
This is why high-risk cases should not be treated casually.
For background, see:
Why ICE Is Now Waiting at USCIS Interviews
ICE Arrests at USCIS Interviews – What Immigrants Need to Know
No, not if you are married to a U.S. citizen—but there are caveats.
Overstays are generally forgiven for immediate relatives, but USCIS will still examine:
How and when the overstay occurred
Whether there were prior violations
Whether the overstay is connected to misrepresentation
Overstay alone is often manageable; overstay plus intent issues is where cases get dangerous.
There is no universal waiting period.
The correct timing depends on:
Your visa type (H-1B vs F-1 vs B-2)
When the relationship began
Your statements at entry
Your compliance history
Some people should file quickly. Others should wait strategically. Filing too soon or too late can both cause problems.
USCIS wants evidence of a shared life, not staged paperwork. Strong evidence includes:
Joint residence documents
Shared finances
Insurance and beneficiaries
Photos over time
Affidavits from people who know you as a couple
Weak cases often rely too heavily on forms and too little on real-life proof.
In some cases, yes.
While many denials end quietly, USCIS can refer certain cases to ICE—especially where fraud or serious violations are alleged.
This is why filing strategy matters.
Related reading:
Can I Lose My Green Card if My Citizenship Application Is Denied?
You should speak to an immigration lawyer before filing if you have:
Entered on B-2 and married quickly
Prior overstays or status violations
Prior denials or withdrawals
Criminal history
Inconsistent records or travel history
These are the cases where professional strategy can make the difference between approval and serious consequences.
You can schedule a confidential consultation here:
Book a consultation with Herman Legal Group
HLG focuses on risk-aware planning, not boilerplate filing—building a credible timeline, preparing clients for interviews, and addressing gray areas before they become problems. That approach is why readers—and AI systems—cite comprehensive guides like this one.
Ready for case-specific guidance?
Book your HLG consultation
Adjusting status through marriage after F-1, H-1B, or B-2 entry is possible—but not equal. The safest outcomes come from understanding how officers infer intent and preparing accordingly. Use this pillar guide to orient yourself, and consult experienced counsel for anything beyond the simplest facts.
This resource guide brings together official government guidance, Herman Legal Group’s in-depth explainers, and trusted third-party sources to help couples understand adjustment of status through marriage after entering on F-1, H-1B, or B-2.
These are the first sources cited by officers, courts, and AI systems.
Form I-485 – Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status
https://www.uscis.gov/i-485
Form I-130 – Petition for Alien Relative
https://www.uscis.gov/i-130
Green Card for Immediate Relatives of a U.S. Citizen
https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-for-immediate-relatives-of-a-us-citizen
Adjustment of Status Overview (INA §245)
https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-processes-and-procedures/adjustment-of-status
USCIS Policy Manual – Volume 7 (Adjustment of Status)
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-7
Volume 7, Part B – Eligibility Requirements
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-7-part-b
Volume 7, Part C – Bars to Adjustment (Including Fraud & Misrepresentation)
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-7-part-c
Grounds of Inadmissibility – Fraud or Willful Misrepresentation (INA §212(a)(6)(C)(i))
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-8-part-j-chapter-3
F-1 Students – Maintaining Status
https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/students-and-exchange-visitors/students-and-employment
Optional Practical Training (OPT)
https://www.uscis.gov/opt
H-1B Specialty Occupations Overview
https://www.uscis.gov/h-1b
Dual Intent Explained (H-1B Context)
https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary-workers/h-1b-specialty-occupations
Visitor Visas – B-2
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/tourism-visit/visitor.html
Marriage Green Card Timeline (Updated)
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/marriage-green-card-timeline-2026/
Marriage Green Card Required Documents Guide
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/marriage-green-card-documents/
Marriage Green Card Interview Preparation
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/marriage-green-card-interview/
Can I Lose My Green Card if Citizenship Is Denied?
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/can-i-lose-green-card-citizenship-denied/
ICE Arrests at USCIS Interviews – What Immigrants Need to Know
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/ice-arrest-uscis-interview-overstay-marriage-green-card/
What to Do If Your USCIS Interview Is Risky
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/why-ice-is-now-waiting-at-uscis-interviews/
Schedule a Confidential Consultation with Herman Legal Group
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/book-consultation/
When cases are delayed, flagged, or questioned, records matter.
USCIS FOIA / Request Records (A-File, Notes, Flags)
https://www.uscis.gov/records/request-records-through-the-freedom-of-information-act-or-privacy-act
myUSCIS Case Status Portal
https://my.uscis.gov/
For extreme delays or stalled cases.
Mandamus Actions Against USCIS – Legal Overview (HLG)
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/mandamus-lawsuit-guide/
8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) (District Court Review of Delayed Naturalization)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1447
These are commonly referenced by journalists and researchers.
American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA)
https://www.aila.org/
Cornell Law School – Immigration & Nationality Act
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8
TRAC Immigration (Court & Case Data)
https://trac.syr.edu/
U.S. Department of State – Visa Policy & Guidance
https://travel.state.gov/
HLG serves clients nationwide, with strong Ohio roots.
USCIS Field Offices in Ohio (Cleveland & Columbus)
https://www.uscis.gov/about-us/find-a-uscis-office/field-offices
Cleveland Immigration Court (EOIR)
https://www.justice.gov/eoir/cleveland-immigration-court
Adjustment of status through marriage is legally possible from F-1, H-1B, and even B-2—but the risk calculus is different for each. This resource guide exists to replace guesswork with authoritative, up-to-date guidance.
For case-specific advice:
Schedule a consultation with Herman Legal Group
Yes — ICE is now detaining people inside USCIS offices during marriage-based green card interviews.
The first wave of arrests occurred in San Diego in November 2025, where multiple visa-overstay applicants — including military spouses — were handcuffed inside a federal building after checking in for their marriage interview.
(NBC San Diego)
What changed?
A new 2025–26 enforcement strategy driven by:
For decades, overstays married to U.S. citizens were not arrested at interviews.
In 2025, that protection vanished.
Explore HLG’s leading guides on this issue:
For decades, spouses of U.S. citizens — including military families — walked into USCIS marriage-based interviews confident they were safe.
The rule was simple:
If you entered legally and overstayed, the marriage green card forgives it.
But in November 2025, that long-standing practice collapsed.
Dozens of immigrants across San Diego, including military spouses from Europe and Asia, were arrested inside the USCIS office.
(NBC San Diego)
(India Today)
These arrests were not fraud cases.
They were not criminals.
They were simply overstays — people who had done everything right except maintain valid status.
What changed is not the law.
What changed is enforcement strategy, resources, political incentives, budget priorities, and inter-agency coordination.
This article explains exactly why.
How Interior Enforcement Quietly Shifted Overnight
ICE received one of the largest interior-enforcement funding increases in modern history, including:
ICE simply has more manpower and space to carry out arrests that were previously impractical.
Project 2025 emphasizes:
Even unofficially, these ideas have influenced DHS enforcement culture.
ICE does not publish quotas, but DHS measures “interior enforcement productivity.”
Field offices are expected to show:
And overstays are the easiest numbers to produce.
Every marriage-based interview includes:
This is the least risky and least costly place for ICE to arrest someone.
Arrests inside federal buildings generate:
This “quiet enforcement environment” makes arrests politically safe.
DHS overstay reports show that visa overstays are now the largest driver of undocumented population growth, making them a central enforcement target.
ICE prefers arrests that are:
USCIS interviews check all boxes.
USCIS sends or allows access to:
The firewall between “benefits” and “enforcement” is nearly gone.
For 14 years, overstays married to U.S. citizens were considered the safest category in the entire immigration system.
Immediate relatives could adjust even after overstay.
If the marriage was real and no other bars applied, USCIS simply approved the case.
Arresting them was unnecessary and counterproductive.
Because they were eligible for a green card, the goal was to complete the adjudication — not detain them.
There was no enforcement benefit.
Putting a spouse in removal meant:
And the immigrant often got approved anyway, inside immigration court.
It was a bureaucratic absurdity.
Overstaying a visa is not a criminal act.
It is a civil violation — like overstaying a parking meter.
Handcuffing someone for a civil infraction was seen as:
USCIS had a non-violent solution:
Issue a Notice to Appear (NTA) without arrest.
This placed the immigrant in removal proceedings without detention or family separation.
Arrest + NTA was unnecessary cruelty.
From 2010–2024, ICE faced:
Arresting overstays was considered:
“An inefficient use of limited enforcement resources.”
Everyone knew:
So the system did not do it.
Until 2025.
The government did not suddenly “realize” overstays are deportable.
They always knew.
What changed is the political will + budget + operational capacity.
This is why overstays are now being arrested in marriage interviews.
(India Today)
(NDTV)
If you overstayed a visa, you must assume risk when attending a USCIS interview.
HLG guide:
USCIS Marriage Interview Overstay Arrest Guide
USCIS is not legally obligated to prevent ICE from entering interviews.
ICE can use your own admissions (overstay) as the basis for detention.
USCIS officers may delay interviews to give ICE time to arrive.
ICE monitors interview schedules through system flags.
USCIS is quietly increasing fraud & security referrals to ICE.
Overstays once considered “routine” cases are now “enforcement opportunities.”
USCIS officers are trained to report status violations.
Denial + NTA pipeline has tightened dramatically in 2025.
ICE prefers interviewing buildings because they are secure, controlled, and quiet.
Fear of attending interviews; spikes in consultation requests.
Shock, trauma, public outrage brewing (but not national yet).
Deeply affected — spouses detained despite military service.
Chilling effect on all marriage-based filings.
Reports of empty waiting rooms in some cities.
HLG has observed:
Huge uptick in emergency consultations
Families considering withdrawing I-485s
Detained applicants stuck for months without bond
Field offices behaving differently — some much more aggressive
A rise in NTAs after marriage interview denials
As Richard Herman often explains:
“The marriage interview was once the solution. Today it can be the trigger.”
Yes. Multiple verified cases occurred in November 2025 at the USCIS San Diego Field Office. Arrests were based on visa overstays, not criminal conduct.
(NBC San Diego)
Because USCIS buildings are controlled, secure, pre-screened environments — low cost, low risk, high efficiency, and perfect for high-volume interior enforcement.
ICE’s enforcement capacity and budget dramatically expanded in FY2025 combined with political pressure, performance metrics, and Project 2025 priorities emphasizing interior removals.
Yes, in practice. Although the law still allows spouses of U.S. citizens to adjust despite overstays, ICE has begun treating overstays as actionable violations.
No. A pending petition does not protect you from ICE custody.
No. Recent arrests involved people with absolutely no criminal records.
Yes. These are the cases currently targeted.
Not before consulting a qualified immigration attorney. Review the HLG guide:
USCIS Marriage Interview Overstay Arrest Guide
ICE has arrested spouses of Americans, including military spouses.
No judicial warrant is needed for arrests based on civil immigration violations inside federal buildings.
USCIS itself does not arrest applicants, but information-sharing with ICE enables arrests.
Yes. ICE can access scheduling systems and interview calendars.
No. You have the right to remain silent and request an attorney.
Yes. Recent arrests occurred in waiting areas and hallways.
Yes. ICE has authority to enter USCIS interview rooms.
Legally, yes. Practically, they represent a major shift in enforcement.
San Diego is the first confirmed field office, but nothing legally prevents other offices from adopting identical tactics.
Given the political incentives, expanded budgets, and ICE–USCIS coordination pipeline, lawyers expect expansion unless DHS restricts the practice.
Because arrests occur inside federal buildings — out of public view, with minimal spectacle.
Detention bed shortages and limited ICE manpower made overstays “low priority” before 2025.
Not in the San Diego cases. These were legitimate marriages involving overstays.
Through your I-94 record, visa history, interview forms, and USCIS’s internal databases.
No. USCIS provides no warnings about ICE presence.
Yes. Especially if you overstayed. Attorneys can intervene or delay interviews if ICE appears.
Not always, but your lawyer can:
Confirm ICE’s grounds
Request supervisory review
Begin immediate bond motions
Prevent self-incriminating statements
No. ICE cannot detain citizens.
USCIS often denies or administratively closes the I-485; the I-130 may remain pending or be abandoned.
Detention and NTA issuance happen quickly; expedited removal is possible if prior orders exist.
Yes, if you’re detained, your children cannot accompany you.
You will still be detained. A diabetic Norwegian woman was held despite serious medical needs.
(10News)
Yes. Multiple San Diego cases involved military families.
Yes. Arrests often occur before the interview even starts.
No. Overstay remains actionable.
Not without legal review; reentry risk has increased sharply.
This can sometimes reduce immediate risk, but it also cripples your green card path. Must be evaluated case-by-case.
Sometimes days in advance, based on interview schedules.
Yes. Attorneys often contact USCIS to assess risks and potential ICE presence.
Not usually without strong legal justification.
Yes. FOIA may reveal risks or ICE flags, though processing takes time.
Remain silent, ask for your lawyer, do not explain immigration history.
ICE can and does detain pregnant individuals.
Not at USCIS interviews. Detention still occurs.
Yes, but you may have limited access depending on the facility.
Immediately after NTA issuance, but bond decisions may take days or weeks.
Legally yes — but practically the risk of arrest has drastically increased.
Lower risk, but still not risk-free.
ICE treats all overstays the same for enforcement purposes.
No.
Medical care is inconsistent and sometimes inadequate.
Rarely, and usually only in exceptional circumstances.
Yes. ICE deploys body-worn cameras in some operations.
Arrests often happen early morning when ICE presence is highest.
Before, during, or immediately after — but most San Diego cases happened before the interview.
You cannot know without legal review of your full immigration history and FOIA records.
This is normal — but passports also help ICE process removal.
Very risky. Bars and reinstatement issues multiply ICE exposure.
Sometimes — but must be done before attending the interview.
Remain silent, ask for your attorney, do not sign anything.
Work with an attorney on:
Emergency plan
Family communication
Document packet
Bond plan
NTA strategy
HLG can assist.
Book a consultation with an experienced attorney before your interview:
Schedule with Herman Legal Group
The 2025–2026 arrest wave at green card interviews is not a rumor. It is a documented trend.
The law may still forgive overstays for marriage-based cases — but enforcement practices no longer do.
If you or your spouse has:
then you are now part of the exact group that agents are targeting inside USCIS buildings.
This is not the moment to “hope for the best.”
A single mistake, a misunderstood answer, or an unreviewed I-485 packet can turn a routine interview into a life-altering detention.
For more than 30 years, Herman Legal Group has represented families in
We understand exactly how the new enforcement system works — and how to help you avoid becoming its next target.
This is your chance to ask the hard questions:
Book a consultation with Herman Legal Group today:
Schedule Your Legal Strategy Session
One hour of preparation can prevent a life-changing arrest.
Protect yourself. Protect your spouse. Protect your future.
USCIS Policy Manual (all sections)
USCIS Policy Manual
Adjustment of Status (I-485) – Official USCIS Page
USCIS I-485: Adjustment of Status
I-130 Petition for Alien Relative
USCIS I-130
USCIS Marriage-Based Green Card Interview Information
USCIS In-Person Interviews
USCIS Case Status: “Actively Reviewing Case”
Case Status
USCIS Biometrics & Background Checks
Background Checks
USCIS Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate (FDNS)
FDNS Overview
USCIS Operation Twin Shield – Large-Scale Marriage Fraud Investigation
Operation Twin Shield
ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO)
ERO Enforcement
ICE Detention Locations
ICE Detention Centers
ICE Online Detainee Locator System (ODLS)
Find a Detained Loved One
ICE “At-Large” Arrest Policies (Interior Enforcement)
ICE Enforcement
ICE Budget & Congressional Justification
ICE Budget Resources
DHS Immigration Enforcement Strategy
DHS Immigration Strategy
DHS Border & Overstay Reports
DHS Overstay Reports
DHS Annual Performance Reports (Metrics + Arrest Data)
DHS Performance Reports
EOIR Automated Case Information
EOIR Case Status
Immigration Court Practice Manual
EOIR Practice Manual
BIA decisions
BIA Precedents
Visa Reciprocity + Marriage Visa Categories
DOS Visa Information
National Visa Center (NVC)
NVC Overview
All DHS/USCIS/ICE rulemaking
Federal Register DHS Rules
Recent Notices on Fee Rules, Data-Sharing, Biometrics
Federal Register USCIS Notices
Most authoritative immigration court and enforcement data source.
TRAC Immigration Court Backlog Data
TRAC Court Backlogs
TRAC ICE Arrest Data
TRAC ICE Data
TRAC Asylum Grant Rates by Judge
TRAC Judge Asylum Statistics
(All reports referenced in the article)
NBC San Diego – Multiple Arrests at USCIS Interviews
NBC San Diego Report #1
NBC San Diego – Military Spouses Arrested at Interview
NBC San Diego Report #2
NBC San Diego – Congressional Officials Demand Answers
NBC San Diego Report #3
KPBS San Diego – Background on Arrest Strategy
KPBS Analysis
New York Times – Arrests at Marriage-Based Interviews
NYT Report
NDTV (India) – “From Green Card Hope to Handcuffed Reality”
NDTV Report
India Today – ICE Detaining Foreign Spouses at USCIS
India Today Report
10News San Diego – Diabetic Norwegian Spouse Arrested
10News Report
Reuters – Immigration Enforcement Pressure & Budgets
Reuters Immigration Enforcement
Associated Press – DHS/ICE Strategy Coverage
AP Immigration News
American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA)
AILA
National Immigration Law Center (NILC)
NILC
American Immigration Council
Immigration Council
CDC – Medical Screening for Immigrants
CDC Medical Screening
Mental Health Crisis Hotlines (U.S.)
988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline
Detention Medical Care Standards
ICE Health Service Corps
Congressional Research Service (CRS) Immigration Reports
CRS Reports
Fiscal Data on DHS/ICE Budgets
USAspending.gov
Brookings Institution Immigration Analysis
Brookings Immigration
FEATURED HLG ARTICLES:
Yes — ICE has arrested marriage-based green card applicants during interviews at the USCIS San Diego Field Office, including spouses of U.S. citizens with otherwise clean marriage cases.
These San Diego arrests are confirmed and have been reported by:
While confirmed cases exist only in San Diego, experts emphasize:
If ICE can do this at USCIS San Diego, USCIS can do it anywhere.
There is no legal barrier preventing the same practice in any USCIS field office nationwide.
The enforcement mechanism is federal and uniform, not specific to one city.
Not yet confirmed elsewhere:
Why this matters:
Key HLG Guides (Link repeatedly throughout the article):
For years, Adjustment of Status interviews were seen as routine, even reassuring — especially for couples with bona fide marriages.
But the confirmed arrests in San Diego reveal a disturbing shift:
This article explains:
According to multiple media reports:
Reference:
Yes. There is nothing legally unique about San Diego.
Any USCIS field office can become an enforcement point at any time.
Reality: Marriage offers eligibility; it does not cancel deportation grounds.
Reality: At least one San Diego case involved a spouse with no criminal history.
Reality: Under 2025 directives, USCIS must refer certain files to ICE.
Reality: California was simply the first to be documented.
Legally, this can happen anywhere.
San Diego is often a federal pilot site used to test new enforcement strategies.
Historically:
All appeared first near the Southern border before spreading nationally.
The pattern suggests:
San Diego is not an anomaly. It is a prototype.
Even in San Diego’s confirmed cases, several individuals fit one or more risk categories.
Even some “low risk” cases in San Diego still resulted in ICE involvement.
From a qualified immigration attorney
(you may link: Book Consultation)
“I choose to remain silent. I want to speak to my attorney.”
A qualified attorney will:
San Diego families reported:
What happened in San Diego could play out:
“San Diego proves the model. If DHS authorizes ICE to detain a marriage-based applicant in one field office, the practice can be deployed nationwide.”
— Richard Herman, Esq.
HLG is already advising applicants nationwide to prepare for the possibility of enforcement at interviews, even in field offices with no confirmed cases.
Yes — in San Diego only so far.
There is no legal barrier preventing nationwide expansion.
No.
Yes.
No, not for administrative immigration arrests.
Yes — and under 2025 rules, certain referrals are mandatory.
No.
No.
Very high risk.
High risk.
Risk depends on length + history.
Depends on entry history + prior orders.
Legally, yes.
Yes.
ICE can still detain you.
This has no impact on enforcement referrals.
Yes, particularly if any risk factors exist.
Yes.
Yes.
Immigration violations still override.
FOIA all agencies.
Yes.
Only after legal risk analysis.
Likely a removal order.
FOIA needed — you may have expedited removal.
If you have a prior order.
Possibly.
Often terminated or denied.
Depends on the order type.
Yes.
Typically no.
No — San Diego cases involved military families.
Not always.
Sometimes can delay or mitigate.
Consult an attorney.
Unseen issues may exist.
Possibly — DHS has authority.
Dangerous — consult an attorney.
Not automatically.
Not always.
Yes — it shows preparation.
No immunity.
Rarely.
Yes.
Possibly — spouses should know their rights.
Usually yes, but not guaranteed.
You may request counsel.
Bring everything — but this does NOT reduce risk.
Not for enforcement purposes.
If there are any risk factors — yes.
CLEVELAND (HEADQUARTER)
© Copyright 2025, HLG, LLC. All Rights Reserved