By Richard T. Herman, Esq.
Yes. A child born in the United States to an undocumented mother is a U.S. citizen at birth. A child born in the United States to a mother on H-1B status is also a U.S. citizen at birth.
On June 30, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Trump v. Barbara that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully present or lawfully but temporarily present are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and are therefore citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.
That means President Trump’s Executive Order 14160, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship”, cannot deny U.S. citizenship to a baby born here simply because the parents are undocumented, on H-1B visas, on F-1 student visas, on tourist visas, or in another temporary immigration status.
The bottom line is simple: birth on U.S. soil still generally means U.S. citizenship.
Families with questions about birthright citizenship Supreme Court decision, citizenship, immigration status, documentation, removal defense, or family-based immigration can schedule a consultation with Herman Legal Group.
In Trump v. Barbara, the Supreme Court answered one of the most important immigration questions in modern American law:
Can a president deny U.S. citizenship to children born in the United States because their parents are undocumented or only temporarily present?
The Court’s answer was no.
The Court held that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. This aligns with the recent birthright citizenship Supreme Court decision.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion of the Court, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed that the executive order could not stand, but he relied on statutory grounds rather than the Court’s constitutional reasoning. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented.
The birthright citizenship Supreme Court decision underscores the importance of citizenship rights in modern America.
The birthright citizenship Supreme Court decision highlights the ongoing debate surrounding immigration and citizenship in America.
President Trump issued Executive Order 14160 on January 20, 2025.
The order attempted to deny federal recognition of U.S. citizenship to certain children born in the United States.
Under the order, a U.S.-born child would not have been recognized as a citizen if:
In real life, that would have meant:
A baby born in Cleveland to two undocumented parents would not have been recognized as a U.S. citizen.
A baby born in Columbus to two H-1B workers would not have been recognized as a U.S. citizen.
A baby born in Cincinnati to an F-1 student mother and an H-1B father would not have been recognized as a U.S. citizen.
A baby born in Detroit to a tourist visa mother and a temporary visa father would not have been recognized as a U.S. citizen.
The Supreme Court rejected that approach.
Birthright citizenship is the rule that a person born in the United States is generally a U.S. citizen at birth.
The first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment says:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Federal law uses the same basic language. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), a person born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a national and citizen of the United States at birth.
For more than a century, this rule has been understood to cover nearly all children born on U.S. soil, including children of noncitizen parents.
Yes. A child born in the United States to undocumented parents is a U.S. citizen at birth.
The Supreme Court held that undocumented immigrants who are physically present in the United States are subject to U.S. law and U.S. sovereign authority. They can be arrested, prosecuted, sued, taxed, subpoenaed, removed, and regulated. Because they are subject to U.S. jurisdiction, their U.S.-born children are also born subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
That is why the Court rejected the argument that undocumented parents fall outside the Citizenship Clause.
So, if a child is born in the United States to an undocumented mother and undocumented father, the child is a U.S. citizen at birth.
If a child is born in the United States to an undocumented mother and a father on H-1B, F-1, J-1, B-2, TPS, parole, or another noncitizen status, the child is also a U.S. citizen at birth.
Yes. A child born in the United States to H-1B parents is a U.S. citizen at birth.
H-1B status is lawful but temporary. Trump’s executive order specifically targeted children born to mothers who were lawfully but temporarily present in the United States, including those here on work visas.
The Supreme Court held that this limitation is not in the Constitution.
A child born in the United States to parents on H-1B, H-4, L-1, L-2, F-1, J-1, E-2, O-1, TN, B-1/B-2, or another temporary visa is a U.S. citizen at birth, unless one of the narrow traditional exceptions applies.
Those narrow exceptions include children of foreign diplomats and children born in territory under hostile enemy occupation.
For families navigating temporary work visas, green cards, and long-term immigration planning, Herman Legal Group’s employment-based immigration lawyers can help evaluate options.
The Supreme Court relied heavily on United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the landmark 1898 birthright citizenship case.
Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents. After a trip abroad, the federal government denied that he was a U.S. citizen. The Supreme Court held that he was a citizen because he was born in the United States and subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
The Trump administration argued that Wong Kim Ark protected only children of parents who were permanently domiciled in the United States. The Supreme Court rejected that narrow reading.
The Court explained that Wong Kim Ark confirmed a broad rule: children born in the United States are citizens at birth, with only narrow exceptions.
That precedent now remains the central constitutional foundation for modern birthright citizenship.
The key phrase in the Fourteenth Amendment is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
The Trump administration argued that this phrase excluded children of undocumented immigrants and temporary visa holders because their parents supposedly lacked permanent allegiance to the United States.
The Supreme Court rejected that argument.
The Court explained that “subject to the jurisdiction” means subject to the sovereign authority and laws of the United States. People physically present in the United States are generally subject to U.S. law, even if they are undocumented, visiting temporarily, studying, working, or waiting for immigration relief.
That is why a tourist who violates U.S. law can be arrested. An H-1B worker must follow U.S. law. An undocumented immigrant can be placed in removal proceedings. A foreign student can be prosecuted for a crime. A temporary visitor can be sued in court.
They are not outside U.S. jurisdiction. They are under it.
And because they are under U.S. jurisdiction, their U.S.-born children are citizens at birth.
After Trump v. Barbara, the answer is clear:
A child born in the United States to an undocumented mother is a U.S. citizen at birth.
This remains true even if the father is also undocumented.
This remains true if the father is on a temporary visa.
This remains true if neither parent has a green card.
The child should be eligible for a U.S. birth certificate, Social Security number, U.S. passport, and all other proof of citizenship normally available to U.S.-born citizens.
Parents should keep certified copies of the child’s birth certificate, hospital records, passport records, Social Security records, and any correspondence with federal or state agencies.
A child born in the United States to a mother on H-1B status is a U.S. citizen at birth.
This remains true if the father is also on H-1B.
This remains true if the father is on F-1, H-4, L-1, E-2, J-1, B-2, or another temporary status.
This remains true even though the parents are not lawful permanent residents.
The child’s citizenship comes from birth in the United States and subjection to U.S. jurisdiction, not from the parents’ immigration status.
| Parent Situation | Is the U.S.-Born Child a Citizen? |
|---|---|
| Mother undocumented, father undocumented | Yes |
| Mother undocumented, father on H-1B | Yes |
| Mother undocumented, father on F-1 | Yes |
| Mother on H-1B, father on H-1B | Yes |
| Mother on H-1B, father on H-4 | Yes |
| Mother on F-1, father on F-1 | Yes |
| Mother on tourist visa, father on tourist visa | Yes |
| Mother on J-1, father on J-2 | Yes |
| Mother on L-1, father on L-2 | Yes |
| Mother on E-2, father on E-2 | Yes |
| Mother undocumented, father green card holder | Yes |
| Mother on H-1B, father U.S. citizen | Yes |
| Child of foreign diplomat | Usually no |
| Child born during hostile enemy occupation | Usually no |
This decision gives immediate reassurance to immigrant families.
Children born in the United States to undocumented or temporary-status parents remain U.S. citizens. Their citizenship cannot be erased by executive order.
But the ruling does not fix the parents’ immigration status.
A U.S. citizen child does not automatically protect a parent from removal, detention, inadmissibility, unlawful presence bars, prior removal orders, criminal grounds, or other immigration problems.
A U.S. citizen child generally cannot petition for a parent’s green card until the child turns 21. USCIS explains that to petition for a parent to live in the United States as a green card holder, the petitioner must be a U.S. citizen and at least 21 years old. Families considering this path should review USCIS guidance on bringing parents to live in the United States as permanent residents and seek individualized legal advice.
Herman Legal Group assists with family-based immigration, citizenship and naturalization, waivers, consular processing, and removal defense.
The decision does not give undocumented parents legal status.
The decision does not cancel removal proceedings.
The decision does not erase unlawful presence.
The decision does not waive prior deportation orders.
The decision does not guarantee that a parent can adjust status in the United States.
The decision does not mean a U.S. citizen child can immediately sponsor a parent.
The ruling protects the citizenship of U.S.-born children. Parents still need a separate immigration strategy.
This case matters because birthright citizenship is not just an immigration rule. It is part of America’s constitutional identity.
The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted after the Civil War to repudiate Dred Scott v. Sandford, the infamous Supreme Court decision holding that Black people could not be citizens. The Citizenship Clause was designed to stop the government from creating hereditary classes of people born in America but excluded from full membership.
Trump’s executive order tried to make a child’s citizenship depend on the immigration status of the parents.
The Supreme Court said the Constitution does not work that way.
The Constitution does not say citizenship belongs only to children of citizens. It does not say citizenship belongs only to children of green card holders. It does not say citizenship depends on whether a parent has H-1B, F-1, B-2, TPS, parole, or no status at all.
It says: born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court drew a constitutional line that no president can cross.
Trump’s executive order tried to turn American-born children into immigration orphans — born here, living under our laws, but denied recognition as Americans by the federal government.
The Court said no.
A president can set enforcement priorities. A president can direct agencies. A president can ask Congress to change the law. But a president cannot rewrite the Fourteenth Amendment by executive order.
Children born here are not paperwork problems. They are citizens.
Yes. A baby born in the United States to undocumented parents is a U.S. citizen at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Yes. A baby born in the United States to H-1B parents is a U.S. citizen at birth. H-1B is temporary status, but the Supreme Court held that children born to temporarily present parents are still subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
The child is still a U.S. citizen if born in the United States, unless a narrow exception applies.
The child is still a U.S. citizen if born in the United States.
The child is still a U.S. citizen if born in the United States.
The child is still a U.S. citizen if born in the United States.
No. The Supreme Court reaffirmed United States v. Wong Kim Ark and relied on it as a central precedent.
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the injunction against enforcement of the order and held that children born in the United States to unlawfully or temporarily present parents are citizens at birth.
No. A U.S. citizen child’s citizenship does not automatically give lawful status to the parents. Parents may still need family-based immigration, waivers, asylum, cancellation of removal, consular processing, or other legal strategies.
Usually not until the child turns 21. USCIS states that a U.S. citizen must be at least 21 years old to petition for a parent to become a lawful permanent resident.
Herman Legal Group helps immigrants, families, workers, students, and employers understand fast-changing immigration law and build stronger immigration strategies.
If you have questions about birthright citizenship, documentation, family petitions, unlawful presence, removal defense, waivers, or long-term immigration planning, schedule a consultation with Herman Legal Group or call +1-216-696-6170.
For readers who want to review the decision, the executive order, the constitutional text, or practical documentation steps for a U.S.-born child, here are the key resources.
Supreme Court docket for Trump v. Barbara, No. 25-365
The official Supreme Court docket includes the case history, merits filings, amicus briefs, oral argument entry, and the June 30, 2026 judgment.
Supreme Court oral argument transcript in Trump v. Barbara
The official transcript of the April 1, 2026 oral argument, including the government’s argument for limiting birthright citizenship and the challengers’ response.
Oyez case page for Trump v. Barbara
A reader-friendly case page with background, procedural history, and oral argument materials.
Reuters coverage of the Supreme Court decision
A concise news summary of the ruling, the vote, the constitutional issue, and the practical impact of the decision.
Executive Order 14160: Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship
The White House version of President Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order.
Federal Register version of Executive Order 14160
The official published version of the executive order.
Government brief in Trump v. Barbara
The Trump administration’s Supreme Court brief arguing for a narrower reading of the Citizenship Clause.
AILA summary of Executive Order 14160
A legal-practice summary from the American Immigration Lawyers Association explaining the executive order and its intended effect.
Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship Clause
The constitutional text stating that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens.
Constitution Annotated: Citizenship Clause explanation
Congressional Research Service-style constitutional analysis of the Citizenship Clause and its history.
8 U.S.C. § 1401(a)
The federal statute recognizing that a person born in the United States and subject to U.S. jurisdiction is a U.S. citizen at birth.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark
The landmark 1898 Supreme Court decision confirming birthright citizenship for a child born in San Francisco to noncitizen parents.
Dred Scott v. Sandford
The infamous pre-Civil War decision that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to repudiate.
Apply for a child’s U.S. passport under age 16
State Department guidance on applying for a passport for a U.S. citizen child under 16.
Apply for a child’s passport under age 18
General State Department passport guidance for children and teenagers.
Social Security numbers for children
Social Security Administration guidance on obtaining a Social Security number for a child, including newborns.
Enumeration at Birth: requesting a Social Security number during birth registration
SSA guidance explaining how many parents request a newborn’s Social Security number through the hospital birth registration process.
Request a Social Security number for the first time
SSA instructions for applying for a first Social Security number if one was not requested at birth.
CDC: Where to Write for Vital Records
A state-by-state directory for obtaining certified birth certificates and other vital records.
USA.gov: Get copies of vital records and ID cards
A federal resource page for replacing birth certificates, Social Security cards, and other identity documents.
USCIS: Bringing parents to live in the United States as permanent residents
USCIS guidance explaining that a U.S. citizen generally must be at least 21 years old to petition for a parent.
USCIS: Green Card for immediate relatives of U.S. citizens
USCIS guidance on green cards for immediate relatives of U.S. citizens.
State Department: Family immigration
State Department guidance on family-based immigrant visas and sponsorship.
Citizenship and naturalization lawyers
Herman Legal Group’s citizenship and naturalization practice page.
Family-based immigration lawyers
Help with marriage-based green cards, parent-child petitions, fiancé visas, consular processing, waivers, and family immigration strategy.
H-1B immigration lawyer
Guidance for H-1B workers, employers, families, and children born in the United States to temporary visa parents.
Deportation and removal defense
Help for parents facing removal proceedings, ICE detention, bond issues, immigration court, or post-order strategy.
What to do if ICE comes to your door
A practical rights guide for immigrant families concerned about enforcement.
Book a consultation with Herman Legal Group
Schedule a consultation with Richard Herman or a Herman Legal Group attorney to discuss birthright citizenship, family immigration, removal defense, H-1B family planning, or documentation issues.
By Richard T. Herman, Esq.
Congress is moving toward final approval of a nearly $70 billion immigration enforcement package that would provide approximately $38 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and $26 billion for Customs and Border Protection (CBP), along with billions more for detention operations and immigration enforcement infrastructure. Funding extends through fiscal year 2029.
The Senate has already approved the package, and House approval appears likely. If enacted, it would provide immigration enforcement agencies with unprecedented resources through the remainder of President Trump’s term.
For immigrants, employers, universities, and families, this may prove more consequential than many executive orders, travel bans, court decisions, or USCIS policy memoranda because enforcement priorities only matter if the government has the personnel, detention capacity, transportation systems, attorneys, and technology necessary to implement them.
In short, this bill is not primarily about changing immigration law.
It is about dramatically expanding the government’s ability to enforce existing immigration laws.
Over the past year, immigration headlines have focused on:
Many of those developments generated enormous controversy.
But enforcement ultimately comes down to resources.
An immigration agency cannot significantly increase arrests without officers.
It cannot expand detention without beds.
It cannot conduct more workplace investigations without investigators.
It cannot increase removals without transportation and logistical support.
According to reporting from Reuters, Associated Press, and The Guardian, Congress in Washington is now attempting to provide those resources through an immigration enforcement bill on a scale not seen in modern immigration enforcement history.
Critics argue the measure delivers a large infusion of money with limited oversight, and some critics described a related provision as a slush fund.
That is why many immigration lawyers believe this legislation may ultimately have a greater practical impact than many of the immigration policies that have dominated headlines during the past year, because it is designed to facilitate a broader enforcement crackdown.
Current reporting indicates that the legislation includes approximately, as part of a broader homeland security funding structure aimed at strengthening border security:
Funding would support:
Funding would support:
Funding for new family detention faciilities allows parents and children to be held together during prosecution.
The package also contains billions of dollars for immigration enforcement initiatives, detention operations, and operational support.
While specific implementation details will evolve, the overall objective is clear: increase enforcement capacity.
The biggest Senate battle has already occurred.
The Senate passed the legislation by a 52-47 vote after more than 18 hours of proceedings on the senate floor during a vote-a-rama.
Senate Republicans advanced it without support from Democrats, underscoring how partisan the Senate passage was as lawmakers considered amendments during the process. The bill moved through Congress using budget reconciliation, which allows passage by a simple majority.
The focus now shifts to the House of Representatives, where the bill now heads and could be considered as soon as this week.
As of June 2026, House Republican leadership appears to have a viable path to passage.
If the House approves the measure, President Trump is expected to sign it quickly given the administration’s emphasis on immigration enforcement.
Barring an unexpected political development, the legislation appears likely to become law.
Probably.
That is the practical purpose of the legislation.
Additional funding does not automatically guarantee a specific number of arrests or deportations.
However, increased resources generally result in:
Immigrants with unresolved immigration issues, prior removal orders, pending enforcement matters, or significant status violations should pay close attention to these developments.
Almost certainly.
One of the greatest operational constraints facing immigration enforcement agencies has been detention capacity.
More funding means more contracts, more beds, more transportation resources, and more operational flexibility.
For immigration lawyers, that likely means:
This issue is particularly important because detention often shapes the outcome of removal proceedings.
Individuals who are detained frequently face greater challenges obtaining evidence, securing counsel, and preparing their cases.
Many immigrants assume that enforcement legislation only affects undocumented immigrants.
That assumption may be incorrect.
While this package is not a USCIS funding bill, enforcement initiatives often coincide with:
These concerns are especially relevant following USCIS’s May 2026 adjustment-of-status memorandum.
As discussed in HLG’s analysis of “Will USCIS Deny My I-485 Under the New 2026 Memo?”, many applicants are already concerned about expanded discretionary review in adjustment-of-status adjudications.
Likewise, applicants should understand the risks explored in HLG’s article “What Happens If Your Adjustment of Status Is Denied?“, particularly if increased enforcement resources result in broader government scrutiny of immigration benefits.
The legal standards governing green card eligibility may not change.
The intensity of review could.
International students should not assume they are insulated from these developments.
As discussed in HLG’s article “F-1 to Marriage Green Card“, many students are already navigating increased uncertainty regarding future immigration benefits.
Increased enforcement funding may result in:
Students should ensure that their immigration records remain accurate and that they promptly address any status concerns.
Employment-based immigrants should also pay attention.
Although the legislation primarily targets enforcement operations, increased government resources often lead to:
As discussed in HLG’s article “Should H-1B Holders Avoid Filing I-485 Right Now?“, employment-based immigrants are already confronting uncertainty created by recent USCIS policy developments.
This legislation could add another layer of scrutiny to an already evolving landscape.
Many employers may experience the effects of this legislation before individual immigrants do.
Historically, increased enforcement funding has often been accompanied by:
Industries that have historically experienced heightened scrutiny include:
Businesses that employ foreign nationals should review their compliance programs now rather than waiting for an audit notice.
One of the most important unanswered questions is whether Congress will significantly expand immigration court funding.
Enforcement agencies can scale rapidly when resources increase.
Immigration courts generally cannot.
If arrests, detention, and enforcement activity increase faster than adjudicative capacity, the result may be:
This imbalance could become one of the defining immigration challenges of the next several years.
Based on current legislative debate, immigration lawyers should prepare for six major trends, especially since senators spent the debate focused on passage rather than broader court-capacity concerns.
Additional resources typically translate into increased operational activity.
Detention growth appears to be a central objective of the legislation.
Employer compliance enforcement is likely to increase.
Applicants should expect more RFEs, NOIDs, fraud investigations, and discretionary review.
Expanded enforcement almost always produces constitutional and procedural challenges in federal court.
Court resources may not keep pace with enforcement resources.
Is this the largest immigration enforcement funding package in U.S. history?
It is widely being described as one of the largest immigration enforcement appropriations measures ever considered by Congress.
Has Congress already passed the bill?
The Senate has approved the package by a 52-47 vote, and it cleared the Capitol after a party-line Senate vote. House approval remains the next major step. Sen. Lisa Murkowski was the only Republican to oppose the bill.
Will deportations increase?
Most observers expect enforcement activity to increase if the legislation becomes law because the funding is specifically designed to expand operational capacity.
Will this affect legal immigrants?
Potentially yes. Increased enforcement resources often lead to greater scrutiny of immigration benefits, compliance issues, and fraud investigations.
Will this affect pending green card cases?
Indirectly, it could. Expanded enforcement resources frequently coincide with enhanced vetting and greater scrutiny of immigration applications.
Will immigration detention increase?
Most analysts expect significant detention expansion if the legislation becomes law.
Will employers face more audits?
Many immigration lawyers anticipate increased I-9 audits and workplace enforcement activity.
Herman Legal Group Analysis
Government Resources
Major Media Coverage
.
The biggest immigration story of 2026 may not be a travel ban.
It may not be a USCIS memo.
It may not be a Supreme Court case.
Instead, it may be Congress providing immigration enforcement agencies with the resources necessary to implement enforcement priorities at a scale not previously possible.
For immigrants, employers, and families, the most important question is no longer simply what immigration policies exist.
The question is whether the government now has the capacity to enforce them.
If Congress completes passage of this legislation, the answer may soon be yes.
Whether you are:
strategic planning has never been more important.
The immigration attorneys at Herman Legal Group closely monitor Congressional developments, USCIS policy changes, federal litigation, detention practices, immigration court developments, and enforcement trends nationwide.
Schedule a consultation with Richard Herman or an experienced Herman Legal Group attorney to discuss your options and develop a strategy tailored to your circumstances.
Call +1-216-696-6170 or schedule your consultation through the Herman Legal Group website.
For the broader political context, see our analysis of whether the immigration pendulum has started to swing back and the policy blueprint behind Stephen Miller’s attacks on Somali immigrants.
Maybe.
After more than a year of increasingly aggressive immigration enforcement, federal courts, public opinion surveys, business leaders, universities, faith organizations, and immigrant communities are beginning to push back against some of the Administration’s most ambitious immigration initiatives.
Within just a few days in June 2026:
The immigration pendulum refers to the historical tendency of immigration policy to swing between openness and restrictionism.
The question facing immigrants, employers, policymakers, and immigration lawyers is no longer simply whether immigration policy has become more restrictive.
The more important question may be:
Has the immigration pendulum started to swing back?
History suggests that possibility deserves serious consideration.
Immigration debates often focus on the latest executive order, court decision, enforcement action, or political controversy.
But immigration history is much bigger than any single administration.
Over the past 130 years, American immigration policy has repeatedly moved through cycles:
The details change.
The pattern remains remarkably consistent.
The Chinese Exclusion era eventually gave way to repeal.
The National Origins Quota System of 1924 ultimately yielded to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.
California’s Proposition 187 helped trigger one of the most significant political realignments in modern American history.
Post-9/11 security measures eventually generated renewed debates about civil liberties, due process, and immigration reform.
Again and again, the immigration pendulum has swung.
The question confronting the United States today is whether another swing has already begun.
Immigration was arguably the Administration’s strongest political issue entering 2025.
Many Americans were concerned about border security.
Many favored stronger enforcement.
Many supported removing violent criminals, gang members, traffickers, and recent unlawful entrants.
The Administration responded with one of the most aggressive immigration enforcement agendas in modern American history.
Among other initiatives, the government:
Initially, many of these efforts enjoyed significant public support.
But immigration politics has always been more complicated than campaign slogans.
Americans often support immigration enforcement in principle.
Yet public opinion frequently becomes more nuanced when enforcement appears to affect:
That distinction has repeatedly shaped immigration policy throughout American history.
It may be shaping 2026 as well.
Recent polling suggests Americans continue supporting border security while simultaneously expressing increasing concern about the scope and implementation of immigration enforcement.
That shift matters.
Because immigration policy rarely changes when only activists object.
Immigration policy changes when courts, businesses, universities, faith organizations, local communities, and ordinary voters begin asking the same question:
Has enforcement gone too far?
Every administration faces immigration litigation.
Every administration faces political opposition.
What makes 2026 different is the breadth of the reaction.
Pushback is emerging simultaneously from multiple institutions.
That is historically significant.
The judiciary has become one of the most important battlegrounds in immigration policy.
Recent federal court decisions have challenged:
The Rhode Island decision invalidating USCIS benefit freezes is particularly significant because it rejected efforts to suspend adjudications affecting nationals of designated countries. See Reuters coverage of the decision.
Likewise, the federal court ruling striking down the $100,000 H-1B filing fee signals growing judicial scrutiny of executive efforts to reshape immigration policy through administrative action rather than legislation. See Reuters coverage of the H-1B ruling.
The significance of these decisions extends beyond their immediate impact.
Historically, courts often serve as the first institutional check when executive authority expands rapidly.
Many of America’s most important economic sectors depend heavily upon immigrant labor and talent.
This includes:
When immigration restrictions begin affecting economic competitiveness, business opposition often follows.
The litigation challenging the $100,000 H-1B filing fee demonstrated the extent to which employers, educational institutions, and state governments viewed the policy as economically harmful.
Historically, business opposition has often played a major role in immigration policy reversals.
American universities remain among the world’s most important destinations for international students, physicians, engineers, scientists, and researchers.
Likewise, healthcare systems throughout the United States depend heavily upon immigrant physicians, nurses, researchers, and healthcare professionals.
Restrictions affecting recruitment, mobility, visa processing, and permanent residence pathways inevitably generate resistance from institutions that depend upon global talent.
That pattern is becoming increasingly visible.
Throughout American history, religious organizations have often played a significant role in immigration debates.
Churches.
Synagogues.
Mosques.
Refugee organizations.
Humanitarian nonprofits.
Legal service providers.
Many of these organizations have become increasingly vocal regarding detention practices, family separation concerns, refugee restrictions, and humanitarian protections.
Historically, when faith communities become deeply engaged in immigration issues, broader public conversations often follow.
Immigration enforcement is no longer an abstract policy debate.
Communities throughout the country increasingly experience immigration enforcement firsthand.
Families.
Employers.
Schools.
Hospitals.
Neighborhoods.
Local governments.
The result is a much more visible and personal immigration debate than existed during earlier enforcement eras.
And that visibility may be the most important difference between 2026 and previous immigration crackdowns.
One of the most important differences between today’s immigration debate and earlier periods of restriction is technology.
Historically, immigration enforcement largely occurred out of public view.
Most Americans rarely witnessed:
Today, that has changed dramatically.
Whether one supports or opposes current immigration policies, immigration enforcement is now more visible than at any previous point in American history.
That visibility affects public opinion.
Americans may support enforcement in the abstract.
They often react differently when confronted with individual stories involving:
Political scientists have observed this pattern repeatedly throughout American history.
The more personal immigration stories become, the more complicated immigration politics tends to become.
No one knows whether 2026 will ultimately represent a turning point.
No one knows whether recent court victories will survive appeal.
No one knows whether current polling trends will continue.
But history teaches an important lesson.
Periods of aggressive immigration restriction frequently generate counterreactions.
Often they are all four.
The question facing America today is not whether immigration enforcement will continue.
It almost certainly will.
The question is whether the country is beginning to move from an era dominated by enforcement toward an era increasingly focused on limits, accountability, due process, and balance.
The answer may shape American immigration policy for years to come.
If immigration policy appears unusually contentious in 2026, it is worth remembering that the United States has experienced similar moments before.
In fact, the history of American immigration is not a straight line.
It is a political pendulum.
For more than 130 years, immigration policy has repeatedly swung between two competing impulses:
Economic anxiety, national security concerns, demographic change, cultural tensions, labor demands, and political movements have repeatedly pushed the country in one direction before economic realities, constitutional principles, and changing public attitudes eventually pulled it back; this idea helps explain recurring shifts in both policy and public opinion.
Understanding these historical cycles provides important context for today’s debates over detention, deportation, travel bans, visa restrictions, asylum policy, adjustment of status, and executive authority.
The question is not whether America has experienced immigration backlashes before.
It has.
The question is whether 2026 represents the beginning of another historical correction.
The first major modern immigration backlash emerged during the late nineteenth century.
Chinese immigrants had played a critical role in building railroads, mining operations, agriculture, and infrastructure throughout the American West.
Yet as economic conditions deteriorated during the 1870s and 1880s, political leaders increasingly blamed immigrants for labor competition and declining wages.
The result was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the first major federal law restricting immigration based primarily on nationality and ethnicity.
The law prohibited most Chinese labor immigration and established a framework that would influence American immigration policy for decades.
Supporters argued that exclusion was necessary to protect American workers.
Critics argued that it institutionalized racial discrimination.
At the time, exclusion enjoyed broad political support. High tariffs and immigration restrictions became common after 1828.
Few imagined it would eventually be viewed as one of the most notorious immigration laws in American history.
Yet over time public attitudes changed.
The law was eventually repealed in 1943 during World War II.
What had once been considered necessary became viewed as inconsistent with American values.
See the National Archives’ historical overview of the Chinese Exclusion Act: Chinese Exclusion Act Records.
The first lesson of immigration history is simple:
Policies that seem politically untouchable today may appear very differently decades later.
The next major restrictionist wave arrived after World War I.
Economic instability.
Political unrest.
Fear of communism.
Concerns regarding cultural change.
These forces combined to produce one of the most restrictive immigration systems in American history.
Congress enacted the Immigration Act of 1924, also known as the Johnson-Reed Act.
The law established the National Origins Quota System.
Immigration from Northern and Western Europe was favored.
Immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe was sharply restricted.
Asian immigration remained largely prohibited.
Supporters argued that the legislation protected American identity and social cohesion.
Opponents argued that it codified ethnic, religious, and racial discrimination.
At the time, the law reflected mainstream political opinion.
Yet by the 1950s and 1960s, many Americans viewed the quota system very differently.
Civil rights movements, changing demographics, and Cold War concerns increasingly undermined support for immigration policies based on national origin.
The very system that had dominated American immigration policy for forty years ultimately became politically unsustainable.
Historical materials regarding the 1924 law are available through the Office of the Historian: Immigration Act of 1924.
Once again, the pendulum moved.
If 1924 represented the high-water mark of immigration restriction, 1965 represented one of the most significant expansions in modern immigration history.
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 abolished the National Origins Quota System and fundamentally transformed the American immigration system.
See the Office of the Historian’s discussion of the law: Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.
The consequences were profound.
Over the following decades, immigration from Asia, Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East increased dramatically.
American cities changed.
Universities expanded.
Industries gained access to global talent.
Entrepreneurship flourished.
Yet success produced new political tensions.
As immigration increased, concerns regarding border security, labor markets, assimilation, and government services became increasingly prominent.
The seeds of the next backlash had already been planted.
The U.S. economy was most open after World War II until about 2010.
By the 1980s, unauthorized immigration had become a major political issue.
Congress responded with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA).
IRCA represented an attempt to balance competing priorities.
The law legalized millions of undocumented immigrants already living in the United States.
At the same time, it imposed sanctions on employers who knowingly hired unauthorized workers.
Congress hoped legalization and enforcement would work together.
For a brief period, many believed the immigration debate had been resolved.
It had not.
Unauthorized migration continued.
Enforcement expanded.
Political disagreements intensified.
The lesson was important.
Immigration policy rarely produces permanent victories.
The competing interests underlying immigration debates inevitably reemerge.
Perhaps the most important historical comparison to today’s politics is California’s Proposition 187.
In the early 1990s, immigration became one of California’s most divisive political issues.
Governor Pete Wilson embraced aggressive immigration enforcement as a central political strategy, reflecting how some elected officials use immigration crackdowns during periods of backlash.
Proposition 187 sought to deny many public services and benefits to undocumented immigrants.
Initially, the measure appeared politically successful.
Voters approved it.
Supporters celebrated it.
Opponents challenged it.
Much of the initiative was later blocked in federal court.
See the Ninth Circuit’s discussion of the litigation: League of United Latin American Citizens v. Wilson.
But the most important consequence may have been political rather than legal.
What appeared to be a short-term political victory ultimately produced long-term consequences that many supporters never anticipated.
That historical lesson remains highly relevant today.
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 transformed immigration policy.
National security became the dominant immigration concern.
The attacks had fundamentally altered the political environment.
Yet even during this period, concerns gradually emerged regarding:
The post-9/11 era demonstrates another recurring feature of immigration history.
Periods of heightened security concerns often produce expanded government authority.
Over time, courts, advocacy groups, and public opinion frequently begin examining the limits of that authority.
In 2010, Arizona enacted SB 1070, one of the most controversial immigration laws in modern American history.
Supporters argued that federal authorities had failed to secure the border.
Opponents argued that the law encouraged racial profiling and undermined federal authority.
The litigation eventually reached the Supreme Court.
In Arizona v. United States, the Court invalidated several major provisions while preserving others.
See the Supreme Court opinion:Arizona v. United States.
The case reinforced a recurring principle of immigration law:
While states may play important roles, immigration remains primarily a federal responsibility.
More importantly, SB 1070 demonstrated how aggressive enforcement measures often generate significant legal and political resistance.
The family separation controversy of 2018 may offer one of the clearest examples of how immigration politics can change rapidly.
Many Americans supported stronger border enforcement.
Many supported greater deterrence.
Yet public reaction shifted dramatically when images emerged showing children separated from parents.
Litigation accelerated.
Media attention intensified.
Political pressure mounted.
Eventually, policy changes followed.
The lesson was not that Americans opposed immigration enforcement.
The lesson was that many Americans viewed certain enforcement methods as unacceptable.
That distinction remains important today.
The current period may eventually become known as one of the most consequential immigration enforcement eras in modern American history.
Recent years have seen:
For example, USCIS recently adopted PM-602-0199, which significantly altered the agency’s approach to adjustment-of-status adjudications.
Readers may review the memorandum here: USCIS PM-602-0199.
Supporters argue these policies restore integrity to the immigration system.
Critics argue they exceed statutory authority, create unnecessary hardship, and undermine longstanding immigration principles. The U.S. economy was most open after World War II until about 2010.
Negative net migration was recorded in the U.S. in 2025, influenced by restrictive immigration policies.
The legal battles are only beginning.
The purpose of studying these earlier periods is not to suggest that history repeats itself perfectly.
It does not.
Every era is different.
Every immigration debate is unique.
Yet certain patterns emerge repeatedly.
Periods of restriction often generate:
Over time, those forces sometimes produce significant policy corrections.
The question facing the country today is whether those forces are beginning to converge once again.
The answer may determine the future of American immigration law.
History alone cannot tell us whether the immigration pendulum is swinging back.
History provides context.
What matters now is the evidence.
Are the same warning signs that preceded previous immigration policy reversals beginning to appear again?
No single court decision can answer that question.
No single poll can answer it.
No single protest, lawsuit, election, or executive order can answer it.
But when multiple indicators begin moving in the same direction at the same time, it is worth paying attention.
And that is precisely what appears to be happening in 2026.
Historically, one of the earliest signs of an immigration pendulum shift is judicial intervention.
During periods of rapid immigration expansion, courts often defer to executive agencies.
During periods of aggressive restriction, courts frequently begin examining whether those agencies have exceeded their legal authority.
That process appears to be accelerating.
The question is no longer whether courts will review these policies.
The question is whether courts will continue invalidating them.
Recent decisions suggest that possibility is real.
On June 5, 2026, Chief Judge John McConnell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island issued one of the most significant immigration rulings of the year.
The court invalidated USCIS policies that had effectively frozen or delayed immigration benefits for nationals of dozens of designated countries.
The affected benefits reportedly included:
See Reuters coverage of the Rhode Island ruling.
The importance of the decision extends far beyond the plaintiffs.
The court’s ruling reinforces a fundamental principle of administrative law:
Federal agencies cannot simply stop adjudicating applications because they disagree with the applicants’ nationality.
USCIS may deny applications.
USCIS may investigate applications.
USCIS may issue Requests for Evidence.
USCIS may conduct security reviews.
But courts have repeatedly emphasized that agencies must operate within the limits established by Congress and the Administrative Procedure Act.
That principle could have implications far beyond the specific policies challenged in Rhode Island.
For a detailed analysis of the ruling, see HLG’s article: Rhode Island Court Strikes Down USCIS Benefits Freeze: What It Means for Your Green Card, Work Permit, Citizenship and Asylum Case.
Just days later, another federal court delivered a second major setback to the Administration.
On June 8, 2026, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin invalidated the Administration’s controversial $100,000 H-1B filing fee.
See Reuters coverage of the H-1B ruling.
The Administration argued that the fee would protect American workers and discourage outsourcing.
Opponents argued that the fee effectively functioned as an unauthorized tax imposed without congressional authorization.
The court agreed.
The significance of the decision goes beyond H-1B visas.
The ruling reflects a broader judicial concern:
Can the executive branch fundamentally reshape immigration policy without Congress?
That question lies at the heart of many of the most important immigration lawsuits currently pending nationwide.
For employers, universities, hospitals, and foreign professionals, the decision represented a major victory.
For courts, it represented another indication that judges are increasingly willing to scrutinize aggressive immigration initiatives.
For a detailed analysis of the ruling, see HLG’s article: Federal Judge Strikes Down Trump’s 100000 H 1B Fee: Is the H-1B Crackdown Over?
Perhaps the most underreported immigration story of 2026 is the dramatic growth of immigration habeas corpus litigation.
For decades, many immigration detention cases remained largely hidden from public attention.
Today, that is changing.
Across the country, federal courts are increasingly hearing challenges involving:
While individual outcomes vary, the volume of litigation itself is significant.
Historically, surging habeas litigation often reflects growing concern regarding executive detention authority.
Federal judges are being asked to answer increasingly fundamental questions:
These questions increasingly place courts at the center of immigration policy.
And history suggests that when federal courts become deeply involved in detention issues, broader legal changes often follow.
Perhaps the most politically significant development involves public opinion.
For much of 2024 and early 2025, immigration was one of the Administration’s strongest political issues.
Many Americans wanted stronger border security.
Many supported tougher enforcement.
Many favored removing violent criminals and gang members.
But public opinion is rarely static.
Recent polling suggests Americans may be drawing distinctions between:
ICE killing American protestors in Minneapolis has accelerated American’s disapproval of Trump’s aggressive immigration enforecement.
Those distinctions matter.
A May 2026 Pew Research Center survey found that 52% of Americans believed the Administration was doing too much regarding deportations.
Only 31% believed the government was doing the right amount.
See Pew Research’s deportation survey.
A Harvard-Harris survey similarly found growing concern regarding immigration enforcement practices.
See Harvard-Harris Poll.
Meanwhile, Gallup reported record-high percentages of Americans viewing immigration as beneficial to the country.
See Gallup’s immigration findings.
Record Gallup polling shows 79% of U.S. adults believe immigration is beneficial. The majority of Americans favor pathways to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.
Importantly, these surveys do not suggest Americans oppose immigration enforcement.
Most do not.
What they suggest is something more nuanced:
Americans increasingly appear to support enforcement directed at genuine public safety threats while expressing greater skepticism toward broad enforcement actions affecting families, students, workers, and longtime residents.
That distinction may prove enormously important politically.
Historically, major immigration policy shifts rarely occur without business involvement.
Employers care about labor supply.
Universities care about students and researchers.
Hospitals care about physicians and nurses.
Technology companies care about engineers and scientists.
When immigration policies begin affecting economic competitiveness, political dynamics often change.
The challenge to the $100,000 H-1B fee demonstrated the breadth of institutional opposition.
States argued that the policy harmed:
This mirrors previous periods in American history when business interests became major participants in immigration debates.
Labor shortages have been reported in sectors reliant on immigrant labor due to stricter regulations. High tariffs and immigration restrictions have increased U.S. economic closure. Bipartisan pressure is leading policymakers to explore targeted enforcement exemptions for essential workers.
Economic pressure often becomes one of the most powerful forces driving policy change.
The next major immigration battle may already be underway.
On May 21, 2026, USCIS issued Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199.
See PM-602-0199.
The memorandum fundamentally reorients adjustment-of-status adjudications by emphasizing that adjustment is an “extraordinary” discretionary benefit rather than a routine pathway to permanent residence.
The policy has generated intense debate.
Supporters argue the memorandum restores congressional intent and strengthens discretionary review.
Critics argue the policy exceeds statutory authority and effectively rewrites longstanding adjustment-of-status principles.
For an in-depth discussion, see HLG’s analysis: USCIS PM-602-0199: What the New Adjustment of Status Memo Means for Green Card Applicants.
Whether PM-602-0199 ultimately survives judicial review remains uncertain.
But one thing appears increasingly likely:
The memorandum will generate substantial litigation.
And that litigation may become one of the defining immigration battles of the next several years.
Taken individually, each of these developments could be dismissed as isolated events.
A court ruling.
A lawsuit.
A poll.
A policy dispute.
Viewed together, however, they suggest something larger.
Courts appear increasingly willing to scrutinize executive immigration authority.
Businesses appear increasingly willing to challenge immigration restrictions.
Public opinion appears increasingly nuanced.
Litigation is expanding.
Institutional resistance is growing.
Historically, these are precisely the kinds of indicators that often emerge before significant policy corrections occur.
That does not mean every Administration policy will be struck down.
It does not mean enforcement will end.
It does not mean immigration reform is imminent.
But it may mean the legal and political environment is beginning to change.
And history suggests that once those changes begin, they can accelerate surprisingly quickly.
The most important question facing immigration lawyers, policymakers, employers, and immigrant families is no longer whether immigration enforcement will continue.
It will.
The more important question is whether Americans are beginning to distinguish between enforcement that promotes public safety and enforcement that appears excessive, indiscriminate, or inconsistent with traditional American values.
That distinction has shaped every major immigration cycle over the past 130 years.
It may shape the next one as well.
If history is any guide, the most important immigration stories of 2026 have not happened yet.
The Rhode Island decision.
The H-1B fee ruling.
The growing wave of habeas corpus litigation.
The debate over PM-602-0199.
The shifting public opinion data.
These developments may prove significant.
But historically, they are not the end of the story.
They are often the beginning.
When immigration pendulums begin moving, the movement tends to unfold over years rather than months, and history suggests the pendulum will swing back even if that outcome is never guaranteed.
The legal battles expand.
Political coalitions shift.
Public opinion evolves.
Courts become increasingly involved.
Economic realities begin exerting pressure.
Eventually, policymakers are forced to respond.
The question is not whether immigration policy will continue changing.
The question is how.
For much of the twentieth century, Congress was the primary arena for immigration reform.
That is increasingly no longer true.
Congress remains deeply divided.
Comprehensive immigration reform appears unlikely in the near future.
As a result, presidents increasingly rely upon executive authority.
Federal agencies increasingly rely upon administrative guidance.
And federal courts increasingly become the institutions deciding where executive authority ends.
That pattern is already visible.
The most consequential immigration developments of 2026 have emerged not from Congress but from litigation.
The Rhode Island decision.
The H-1B fee ruling.
The expanding detention cases.
The growing Administrative Procedure Act challenges.
The constitutional claims.
The statutory interpretation disputes.
Immigration lawyers should expect significantly more litigation over:
The judiciary is likely to remain the central battlefield for immigration policy throughout the remainder of the decade.
Few policies have generated as much concern among immigration lawyers as USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199.
See USCIS PM-602-0199.
The memorandum fundamentally alters how USCIS approaches adjustment of status.
Historically, adjustment of status has served as one of the most important pathways to permanent residence.
Family members.
Spouses.
Parents.
Employment-based applicants.
Diversity visa winners.
Many have relied upon adjustment of status to obtain lawful permanent residence without leaving the United States.
PM-602-0199 reemphasizes that adjustment is discretionary and describes it as an extraordinary form of relief.
Supporters view the memorandum as a restoration of congressional intent.
Critics argue that the policy improperly elevates discretion above statutory eligibility.
Those competing interpretations are almost certain to generate litigation.
Several questions are likely to emerge:
The answers may ultimately come from federal courts.
And those answers could affect hundreds of thousands of future green card applicants.
For ongoing coverage, see HLG’s adjustment-of-status resources:
One of the most overlooked developments in immigration law is the increasing importance of detention litigation.
Historically, detention cases often remained hidden from public view.
Today, federal courts are confronting increasingly difficult questions involving:
These cases are shaping the future of immigration law in ways that many outside the legal profession do not fully appreciate.
History suggests that when detention litigation reaches critical mass, broader legal reforms often follow.
The outcome of these cases may influence:
For immigration practitioners, detention and habeas corpus litigation may become one of the most important practice areas of the next decade.
One of the strongest forces in immigration history is economics.
Political movements come and go.
Court decisions rise and fall.
Economic realities remain.
The United States continues to face long-term demographic challenges:
Many sectors of the economy depend heavily upon immigrant workers.
Healthcare.
Technology.
Agriculture.
Construction.
Hospitality.
Research.
Education.
The conflict between immigration restriction and labor market demand is likely to intensify.
The H-1B litigation may represent an early example of this tension.
See Reuters coverage of the H-1B ruling.
Historically, economic pressures have often moderated restrictive immigration policies.
There is little reason to believe that dynamic has disappeared.
American universities have historically played an important role in immigration debates.
They attract:
Restrictions affecting international mobility create direct consequences for higher education.
Universities are likely to become increasingly active participants in immigration litigation, policy debates, and legislative advocacy.
This trend is already emerging.
And it is likely to grow.
One of the most interesting developments in recent polling is not that Americans support immigration.
Nor is it that Americans support enforcement.
Both can be true simultaneously.
The more important finding is that voters increasingly appear to distinguish between categories of immigrants.
For example:
Many voters support removing violent criminals.
Many voters support border security.
At the same time, many voters express discomfort regarding enforcement actions involving:
That distinction matters.
Historically, major immigration shifts often occur when voters begin differentiating between categories rather than viewing immigration as a single issue.
The data increasingly suggest that process may already be underway.
See:
One of the most intriguing historical comparisons involves California’s Proposition 187.
At the time, many supporters viewed Proposition 187 as a decisive political victory.
Yet the long-term consequences proved far more complicated.
Large immigrant communities became politically engaged.
Naturalization increased.
Voter participation expanded.
Political coalitions changed.
California’s political landscape shifted for generations.
The episode is often cited in debates over how aggressive immigration politics reshaped electoral coalitions in states that later became reliably Democratic, including many blue states.
History never repeats itself perfectly.
But it often rhymes.
The question is whether today’s enforcement era may eventually generate similar long-term consequences.
If it does, historians may look back on 2025 and 2026 as a turning point rather than a destination.
After more than three decades practicing immigration law, several trends appear increasingly likely.
Federal courts will remain central players in immigration policy.
The volume of immigration litigation will continue increasing.
Administrative Procedure Act litigation will expand.
Courts will increasingly scrutinize whether agencies have exceeded their statutory authority.
Detention-related litigation will become one of the fastest-growing areas of immigration law.
The adjustment-of-status memorandum is unlikely to avoid judicial review.
Federal courts will eventually confront its legality and scope.
Immigration will remain one of the defining political issues of the decade.
But the debate will become more nuanced.
The central question will increasingly shift from:
“Should immigration laws be enforced?”
to:
“How should immigration laws be enforced, and where should the limits be?”
That distinction may ultimately define the next chapter of American immigration history.
Every generation believes its immigration battles are unique.
In some ways they are.
Yet history reveals a remarkably consistent pattern.
Periods of restriction often generate counterreactions.
Periods of expansion often generate backlash.
No immigration status quo lasts permanently because the pendulum keeps moving.
The pendulum keeps moving.
The evidence emerging in 2026 does not prove that another major shift has begun.
But it strongly suggests that the forces capable of producing such a shift are increasingly visible.
Courts.
Businesses.
Universities.
Faith communities.
Local governments.
Public opinion.
Demographic realities.
Economic pressures.
All are beginning to influence the conversation.
Whether those forces ultimately reshape immigration policy remains uncertain.
What is certain is that immigration law is entering a period of extraordinary legal, political, and historical significance.
And the next chapter is still being written.
If sections above focused on history, politics, litigation, and public opinion, this final section focuses on something far more important:
What should you do now?
Whether the immigration pendulum is swinging or not, one reality remains unchanged:
People still need green cards.
Families still need reunification.
Employers still need workers.
Students still need visas.
Detained immigrants still need legal representation.
Businesses still need compliance strategies.
And immigration cases still move forward every day.
The biggest mistake applicants can make during periods of uncertainty is assuming that policy changes, court rulings, or political headlines eliminate the need for planning.
They do not.
In fact, periods of legal uncertainty often make strategic planning even more important.
Adjustment of status applicants face one of the most uncertain environments in years.
USCIS’s new memorandum, PM-602-0199, places increased emphasis on discretion and describes adjustment as an extraordinary benefit.
See USCIS PM-602-0199.
While litigation may eventually challenge aspects of the policy, applicants should assume the memorandum will influence adjudications for the foreseeable future.
That means applicants should focus on presenting the strongest possible discretionary case.
In addition to establishing statutory eligibility, applicants should consider documenting:
Many applicants have historically assumed that eligibility alone was enough.
The new environment suggests that discretionary evidence may become increasingly important.
Related HLG resources:
Spouses of U.S. citizens remain among the strongest categories under immigration law.
However, increased scrutiny means applicants should prepare for more detailed review.
That includes:
Applicants should not assume that straightforward cases will remain straightforward.
Even strong cases may face Requests for Evidence or additional scrutiny.
The best strategy is preparation.
The H-1B fee ruling was an important victory.
See Reuters coverage of the H-1B ruling.
But employers should not assume the legal battles are over.
The Administration may appeal.
New regulations may emerge.
Additional restrictions may be proposed.
Employers should:
Businesses that plan ahead are generally better positioned to adapt to changing immigration policies.
Related resources:
International students face a particularly challenging environment.
Students should pay close attention to:
Students should also keep detailed records.
In periods of increased scrutiny, documentation often becomes critical.
This includes:
The strongest future immigration cases are often built on records created years earlier.
Perhaps no group is more directly affected by changing immigration policies than individuals in removal proceedings.
For these individuals, legal developments matter immediately.
Recent litigation involving detention, bond hearings, habeas corpus, and executive authority demonstrates that immigration law continues evolving rapidly.
Individuals facing removal should:
Waiting is rarely a successful strategy.
Preparation almost always is.
Related resources:
One of the most important lessons from recent habeas corpus litigation is that detention cases are highly fact-specific.
Many detainees mistakenly assume that detention automatically means removal.
That is not true.
Depending upon the circumstances, detainees may have:
The legal landscape continues to evolve.
Individuals detained by ICE should seek legal counsel as quickly as possible and ensure family members maintain copies of all relevant records.
Consular processing applicants face unique challenges.
Administrative processing.
Security reviews.
Interview delays.
Travel restrictions.
Policy changes.
All can affect visa issuance.
Applicants should:
Patience remains important.
So does preparation.
Periods of uncertainty often produce panic.
Panic leads to mistakes.
Among the most common mistakes:
Requests for Evidence.
Notices of Intent to Deny.
Interview notices.
Biometrics appointments.
Missing deadlines can have severe consequences.
Immigration law is highly fact-specific.
What worked for one person may not apply to another.
Always verify information through reliable sources.
Useful resources include:
The earlier legal issues are identified, the more options typically exist.
Many immigration problems become significantly harder to fix after deadlines pass or adverse decisions are issued.
One of the central themes of this article is uncertainty.
No one knows whether the immigration pendulum is swinging.
No one knows how courts will ultimately rule.
No one knows what policies future administrations will adopt.
No one knows whether Congress will act.
But uncertainty does not eliminate opportunity.
The immigrants who are most successful during periods of change are often those who prepare before changes occur.
They maintain records.
They preserve evidence.
They comply with requirements.
They understand their options.
They seek advice when needed.
And they position themselves to adapt as circumstances evolve.
That approach remains just as important today as it was during every previous immigration cycle discussed in this article.
Has the immigration pendulum really started to swing back?
No one can answer that with certainty.
What we can say is that several indicators that historically preceded immigration policy shifts are now visible:
Whether these developments become a lasting trend remains to be seen. But they are significant enough that immigration lawyers, policymakers, employers, and immigrant families should pay close attention. See Pew Research’s immigration polling. (Pew Research Center)
What happened in the Rhode Island immigration case?
On June 5, 2026, Chief Judge John McConnell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island invalidated USCIS policies that had delayed or blocked immigration benefit adjudications for nationals of 39 designated countries.
The court found that the policies unlawfully prevented immigrants from receiving decisions on applications involving asylum, employment authorization, adjustment of status, and naturalization. See Reuters coverage and Rhode Island Current’s coverage with link to the 135-page opinion. (Reuters)
What happened to the $100,000 H-1B filing fee?
On June 8, 2026, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin ruled that the Administration’s $100,000 H-1B filing fee was unlawful because it constituted an unauthorized tax that Congress had never approved.
The court concluded that the executive branch lacked authority to impose such a fee unilaterally. See Reuters coverage of the ruling. (Reuters)
Is the H-1B issue over?
No.
The government is expected to appeal.
Additional litigation is likely.
Future administrations may attempt different approaches.
Employers and foreign professionals should continue monitoring developments closely. (Reuters)
What is PM-602-0199?
PM-602-0199 is USCIS’s May 21, 2026 memorandum concerning adjustment of status adjudications.
The memorandum emphasizes that adjustment of status is a discretionary benefit and describes adjustment as an extraordinary form of relief rather than a routine pathway to permanent residence.
Read the memorandum here:
Will PM-602-0199 be challenged in court?
Many immigration lawyers believe litigation is likely.
Potential challenges could involve:
As of publication, significant litigation appears increasingly likely.
Can USCIS still deny adjustment of status even if I qualify?
Yes.
Adjustment of status has always been discretionary.
The practical question is how USCIS exercises that discretion.
Applicants should assume that positive equities are becoming increasingly important.
What are positive equities?
Examples include:
Are immigration courts becoming more important?
Yes.
Many of the most important immigration issues are increasingly being litigated in:
Litigation is likely to remain one of the primary drivers of immigration law for years to come.
What is habeas corpus in immigration law?
A habeas corpus petition asks a federal court to review whether immigration detention is lawful.
Recent years have seen substantial growth in detention-related habeas litigation involving:
Are Americans becoming more supportive of immigration?
The answer is nuanced.
Recent polling suggests Americans continue supporting border security and removal of violent criminals.
At the same time, many Americans appear increasingly skeptical of broad deportation programs and certain enforcement practices. See Pew Research, Harvard-Harris, and Gallup immigration research. (Pew Research Center)
Why do immigration pendulum swings happen?
Historically, immigration policy is influenced by:
When these forces change, immigration policy often changes as well.
Could Congress pass major immigration reform?
Anything is possible, but comprehensive immigration reform appears unlikely in the near term given current political divisions.
Most major developments are likely to come from:
What should immigrants do right now?
The safest strategy is preparation:
Periods of uncertainty reward preparation.
Rhode Island USCIS Benefits Freeze Case
H-1B $100,000 Filing Fee Litigation
USCIS Policy Memorandum
Public Opinion Research
Pew Research Center
Harvard-Harris Poll
Gallup
Historical Sources
Chinese Exclusion Act
Immigration Act of 1924
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965
For more than 130 years, American immigration policy has moved through cycles.
Restriction.
Expansion.
Backlash.
Reform.
Enforcement.
Accommodation.
The details change with broader shifts in U.S. foreign policy and economic openness.
The pattern remains remarkably familiar.
Whether 2026 ultimately becomes remembered as a turning point remains uncertain.
But the forces that have driven previous immigration shifts are increasingly visible:
Recent immigration debates also reflect larger arguments about democracy, presidential power, and how far a president can reshape policy without Congress. Both Democrats and Republicans have helped drive these swings, and a second term often intensifies an existing enforcement approach rather than fully resetting it.
History suggests those forces should not be ignored.
For immigrants, employers, families, students, and communities, the lesson is not to panic.
The lesson is to prepare.
Because while no one knows exactly where the immigration pendulum is heading next, one thing is certain:
It has never remained still for long.
Even after USCIS clarification, applicants should prepare the affirmative record described in our immigration equities package for adjustment of status.
Applicants evaluating the updated memo should also review current guidance for filing Form I-485 under visa-bulletin constraints.
Later I-485 guidance does not eliminate technology-driven scrutiny or denial risk. Review how USCIS AI analyzes adjustment cases, what happens after an I-485 denial, and whether USCIS may force consular processing.
USCIS’s later I-485 guidance should also be read alongside federal limits on categorical agency action. See our guide to the court order vacating immigration-hold policies.
By Richard T. Herman, Esq. Founder, Herman Legal GroupNo, USCIS has not withdrawn PM-602-0199.However, there is growing evidence that DHS and USCIS have softened the most aggressive public interpretation of the memorandum following intense criticism from immigration lawyers, employers, universities, advocacy organizations, and the media. For those wondering, Did USCIS walk back the I-485 memo? The answers lie in the details of the policy changes and their interpretations. The result is a confusing but critically important reality: The memo remains in force. The law has not changed. But the government’s explanation of the memo appears to have evolved. As we explore the implications, many will ask: Did USCIS walk back the I-485 memo? Understanding this is essential for applicants. That distinction may determine the future of hundreds of thousands of pending and future adjustment-of-status applications.
Marriage-based adjustment remains available. Employment-based adjustment remains available. Adjustment for parents of U.S. citizens remains available. Adjustment for many F-1 students, H-1B workers, L-1 executives, and other eligible applicants remains available.USCIS Has Not Eliminated Adjustment of Status
Congress has not amended INA §245. USCIS cannot rewrite the Immigration and Nationality Act through a memorandum.USCIS Has Not Changed the Statute
The biggest practical effect of PM-602-0199 may be increased emphasis on:USCIS May Be Applying Greater Discretionary Scrutiny
Interviews continue. Approvals continue. Cases continue moving forward. The recent developments surrounding the Did USCIS walk back the I-485 memo? have raised questions among many applicants regarding their adjustment of status applications. Understanding the implications of the Did USCIS walk back the I-485 memo? is crucial for applicants navigating this process. For clarity, let’s discuss—Did USCIS walk back the I-485 memo? This question has been on the minds of many immigration applicants.Attorneys Are Not Reporting Mass Denials
The future may belong to applicants who not only prove eligibility but also demonstrate why they deserve a favorable exercise of discretion.Strong Cases Need Stronger Presentation
Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199“Adjustment of Status Is a Matter of Discretion and Administrative Grace, and an Extraordinary Relief that Permits Applicants to Dispense with the Ordinary Consular Visa Process.” This USCIS policy memorandum guides adjudication practice but does not itself change statutes or regulations. Official USCIS Memorandum: https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/memos/PM-602-0199-AdjustmentOfStatusAndDiscretion-20260521.pdf USCIS simultaneously issued a press release stating:
“US Citizenship and Immigration Services will grant adjustment of status only in extraordinary circumstances.”The policy memo and the press release together triggered immediate concern. USCIS Press Release: https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/news-releases/us-citizenship-and-immigration-services-will-grant-adjustment-of-status-only-in-extraordinary The immigration bar immediately reacted. Many lawyers interpreted the announcement as an attempt to dramatically curtail adjustment of status and force applicants into consular processing abroad.
Adjustment was already a discretionary benefit under immigration law, not an automatic entitlement.The statute did not change. Federal court precedent did not change. So why issue PM-602-0199?
The I-485 memo is part of a larger procedural tightening that also includes mandatory USCIS e-filing rules and tougher public charge screening at U.S. embassies.
For deeper strategy on the same 2026 adjustment-of-status policy shift, see HLG’s guides to the new USCIS I-485 memo, whether USCIS may deny an I-485 under the new memo, the top I-485 denial risks in 2026, extraordinary circumstances under the new I-485 framework, and the impact on marriage green cards in 2026.
As President-elect Trump takes office again on January 20, 2025 all immigration is up in the air. The EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program is no exception. Immigration is one of Trump’s top priorities so EB-5 investors should be prepared for changes and take advantage of the program.
Some see opportunities for growth and stability, others see challenges and slowdowns, but potential reforms could attract investors eager for a favorable environment and a more efficient application process.
Opportunities:
Challenges:
For EB-5 investors, Trump 2.0 may mean a focus on economic contributions and business growth. By fixing inefficiencies and innovation the administration can make the US the go to destination for investment immigration.
This guide looks at the history, what to expect under Trump 2.0 and strategic advice for investors.
The EB-5 program was created in 1990 to stimulate economic growth in the US through foreign investment and in return provide permanent residency (green cards) to the investors, their spouses and minor children.
Here’s a summary:
Investment Amount:
Job Creation:
Proof of Funds:
With its dual focus on economic growth and job creation, the EB-5 program is most relevant during economic recovery or political shifts. Regulatory policies and market developments have a significant impact on foreign investors interested in the EB-5 program, particularly those looking to diversify their portfolios within the U.S. market.
How It Works
Some policies created bottlenecks but his administration laid the groundwork for a business friendly approach.
EB-5 was largely left alone during Trump’s first term but investors still faced challenges especially with processing times and additional requirements for green card issuance.
Minimal Policy Changes for EB-5:
Processing Delays:
Green Card Issues:
Requests for Evidence (RFEs):
Hong Kong’s Reclassification (July 2020):
More Scrutiny and Delays:
The first Trump administration saw an initial increase in productivity of the Immigrant Investor Program Office (IPO) in processing EB-5 cases but it couldn’t keep up with demand.
While the Trump administration improved backlog management the rapid pace of processing was not sustainable in the long term. But the infrastructure and resources built during this period will be the foundation for future progress.
FOIA request revealed that as of May 29, 2024:
The EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022 (RIA) has changed how IPO processes cases:
A second Trump administration could bring more challenges to EB-5 investors and build on what we saw during his first term. Here’s what we think:
Despite all these challenges EB-5 is still a unique immigration pathway compared to other visa options.
Trump supporters argue that his presidency will be good for EB-5
Trump supporters argue that his presidency will be good for EB-5
Compared to other US immigration programs EB-5 is one of the most stable:
This stability is reassuring for both entrepreneurs and investors alike, ensuring continued interest in the program.
Government is improving financial and informational systems to prevent fraud and compliance. This will be more visible as IPO emphasizes transparency and transaction review.
Certainty through the RIA
Republican administrations including Trump have always supported tax cuts for high net worth individuals. This could:
Trump’s merit based immigration system will align well with EB-5:
Economic Contributions:
After Trump’s election, markets surged:
SEC Regulatory Changes
Cryptocurrency is the New Frontier
Trump’s relationships with global leaders including Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan will bring more foreign direct investment to the US:
These relationships are expected to facilitate increased foreign direct investment in the U.S., particularly in sectors like real estate and infrastructure.
This will bring more foreign investment to EB-5 projects and the economy.
Whether you are optimistic or cautious you should act now.
There has been some controversy around EB-5 thanks to high profile players like Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and former White House Advisor. With deep ties to luxury real estate and political influence Kushner’s family business shows how the program has become a powerful tool for developers and raises questions of conflict of interest.
The program was ignored at first but became a lifeline for developers after the 2008 financial crisis.
Jared Kushner resigned from Kushner Companies when he became a senior White House advisor to Donald Trump but the family name was still used in EB-5 pitches overseas.
The Kushner family using EB-5 shows how the program is used to benefit luxury real estate instead of its intended purpose of helping rural or distressed areas.
EB-5 was meant to invest foreign capital in struggling communities to revitalize the economy in:
For wealthy Chinese families the visa is the main goal:
Advantages for Connected Developers
Projects associated with politically connected families like the Kushners have an added draw for foreign investors:
Democracy Forward, a watchdog group, filed a lawsuit The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the Trump Administration seeking transparency on Jared Kushner’s involvement in the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program. The lawsuit was filed after federal agencies, including the Department of State (DOS), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) failed to disclose critical information about Kushner’s connection to the program.
The lawsuit raises concerns about the EB-5 program being used to benefit Kushner Companies’ real estate projects and cites federal investigations into these allegations.
Anne Harkavy, Executive Director of Democracy Forward:
“A nice way of saying this White House has no conflict of interest policy might be ‘ethically challenged.’ The public deserves to know if helping out the Kushner family was why President Trump reauthorized the EB-5 program and to what extent Kushner’s personal financial needs are driving White House policy on this.”
The RIA law was an attempt to address the EB-5 deficiencies:
The Kushner family’s use of the EB-5 program shows the bigger problems with the program. While intended to help struggling communities the program has been hijacked by luxury developers. Projects tied to influential families like the Kushner’s only exacerbate
General EB-5 Questions
Questions About Trump’s Policies and How They Affect EB-5
Investment Questions
Processing and Adjudication
Regional Centers and Project Selection
Global Investor
Compliance, Fraud and Oversight
Future of EB-5
The EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program has survived multiple administrations and is here to stay as part of U.S. economic policy. Trump’s second term will bring both opportunities and challenges. Proper planning, informed decision making and professional guidance will help investors navigate the changes.
Call the Herman Legal Group if you have questions about EB-5 or need help with your petition.
With Trump re-elected, we need to know what will happen to marriage-based immigration, K-1 visas, CR1/IR1 visas and green cards. While his second term policies are still unknown, we can look to his past actions and statements, including numerous immigration executive orders, to get a sense of what might change. Here’s what applicants and sponsors can expect and what to do.
As the U.S. heads into a second Trump administration, understanding the immigration policy changes is key for families and businesses. Here’s what to analyze and how to prepare:
Whether you are a foreign worker, a family seeking immigration benefits or an employer of international talent, you need to be prepared.
To guide your strategy in preparing for Trump 2.0, the following chart will provide some key guidance.
| Policy Area | Trump’s First Term | Biden Administration | Second Trump Term Expectations |
| Public Charge Rule | Introduced strict financial proof | Reversed rule | Likely reinstatement, reflecting President Trump’s last term policies |
| Adjustment Interviews | Mandatory for all cases | Waived for low-risk cases | Universal reinstatement |
| Sponsor Income Requirements | Increased income thresholds | Restored previous thresholds | Higher financial requirements |
| Form I-944 | Required detailed financial proof | Eliminated | Likely reinstatement |
| K-1 Fiancé Visas | Slower processing and increased RFEs | Stabilized | Potential additional scrutiny |
| Policy Area | Trump’s First Term | Biden Administration | Second Trump Term Expectations |
| Requests for Evidence (RFEs) | Increased RFEs, particularly for employment cases | Reduced issuance | Higher rates of RFEs as USCIS reviewing officer examines applications more thoroughly |
| Processing Times | Lengthened processing times | Improved efficiency | Anticipated delays |
| Premium Processing | Limited availability | Expanded premium processing | Potential restrictions |
| Policy Area | Trump’s First Term | Biden Administration | Second Trump Term Expectations |
| Travel Bans | Imposed regional bans targeting nations | Rescinded bans | Potential expansion to new regions |
| Enhanced Vetting | Introduced social media reviews | Limited screening | Broader scrutiny |
| Refugee Caps | Significantly reduced quotas | Increased admissions | Stricter limits |
| Policy Area | Trump’s First Term | Biden Administration | Second Trump Term Expectations |
| H-1B Wage Requirements | Increased wage thresholds | Reverted to prior calculations | Higher wage thresholds |
| Specialty Occupation | Narrowed definitions | Broadened criteria | Stricter eligibility |
| H-4 Work Authorization | Threatened removal | Preserved authorization | Likely elimination |
| Compliance and Oversight | Enhanced audits and reviews | Reduced compliance pressure | Stricter compliance requirements |
| OPT and STEM OPT | Heightened scrutiny | Expanded opportunities | Stricter oversight |
President-elect Donald Trump is preparing to remake the U.S. immigration system from day one on January 20, when he takes office. Immigration has been a big part of Trump’s platform and his second term will deliver on the promises he made during the 2024 campaign.
From his campaign speeches to policy statements, Trump has made immigration reform his top priority. His latest moves include high-profile appointments and a clear timeline for action. Here are the key parts of his plan:
Trump has tapped immigration hawks to lead the charge:
Both have been on the airwaves, explaining the administration’s plans to crack down on immigration and secure the border.
The administration will use the budget reconciliation process, which allows some measures to pass with a simple majority in Congress. Here’s what’s expected to be in the package:
Republicans hope to get this to Trump’s desk by late January or early February.
Trump will sign multiple executive orders on his first day, one of which Miller described as an order to “secure the border.” These will include:
Unlike his first term, Trump has a plan and experience. As immigration advocate Ira Mehlman says:
“They’ve had four years to learn the system and they’re ready to do it.”
While Trump’s base supports his stance, critics warn of big economic and social costs. Here are the concerns:
Trump has hinted he’s open to a legislative solution for Dreamers, young people brought to the US illegally as children. But that will likely require Democratic support for more border security.
Democratic leaders and immigration advocates are gearing up to push back. Senate hearings have already shown differing views:
Durbin summed up the opposition’s view:
“Deporting every undocumented immigrant would cost hundreds of billions and tear families apart. Let’s focus on those who are a real threat.”
As Trump takes office the fight over immigration policies will be front and center in both the political and legal arenas. With his base behind him and Democratic governors and advocacy groups opposed, the country is in for an immigration showdown.
Whether it works will depend on his administration’s ability to get through Congress, public opinion and the courts. One thing is for sure: immigration will be a hallmark of his presidency.
The administration will move quickly in several areas:
USCIS Adjudication Practices:
Humanitarian Programs:
I-9 Audits and Worksite Inspections:
Travel Restrictions:
USCIS Vigorously Enforce Immigration Law
Delays and Denials:
Requests for Evidence (RFEs)
Extreme Vetting
Public Benefits and Financial Eligibility Rules
Best and Brightest
Mandatory Interviews
Delays and Backlogs
Higher Standards for U.S. Citizenship
Family-Based Immigration
As his term goes on, Trump will likely:
for H-4 spouses and other individual programs.
Policies during Trump’s previous administration suggest this plus the pandemic reduced the foreign born workforce. The impact was measurable:
Developed by the conservative Heritage Foundation with input from former Trump administration officials, Project 2025 outlines the immigration policies Trump could implement if re-elected.
Now that the 2024 presidential election is over the biggest question being asked is what will the second Trump administration do on immigration?
Former president Donald Trump made immigration the centerpiece of his campaign and promised the “biggest deportation operation in American history” if re-elected. His proposals go way beyond what he did in his first term and will impact millions of immigrants and change the way America approaches immigration enforcement, border protection, security and family reunification.
Trump’s immigration platform goes beyond undocumented immigrants. His policies will change the very fabric of U.S. immigration, legal pathways, citizenship and protections for asylum seekers.
Some of Trump supporters have characterized November 5, 2024 as “Liberation Day” — the day when Trump won the election and put him on the path to free America from “foreign occupation” by gangs and drug cartels.
Trump has pledged to move significant federal law enforcement resources to immigration enforcement, especially against gang and cartel activity. Federal law enforcement officers will play a crucial role in executing large-scale immigration enforcement operations and arresting undocumented individuals as part of this initiative.
Key Themes and Anticipated Changes
“Our Country is Full”
In 2019, President Trump tweeted, “Our Country is Full,” signaling an emphasis on restricting immigration. His administration’s focus included building border walls, deporting undocumented immigrants, altering DACA, and scrutinizing naturalized citizens. Applicants for fiancé, spouse, and family visas should expect stricter requirements and longer wait times.
As the new administration begins, Trump’s plan is clear: border walls, mass deportations and less humanitarian protection. Employers, immigration advocates and migrants should stay informed and consider getting ahead of the changes.
In this article we will look at Trump’s immigration policies, the social and economic consequences and the bigger picture for immigrant communities and the country.
Before we get into the policies of the second Trump administration, we need to first look at what the voters said on November 5, 2024.
Recent polling shows Americans are more in favor of stricter immigration policies, in line with former President Donald Trump’s position. According to the AP Vote Cast survey, more Americans now favor deporting undocumented immigrants rather than a pathway to legal status. This shift underscores the public’s support for stricter immigration law and highlights the legal implications of such policies.
This shows Trump’s tough stance on immigration is working more than ever with more voters in favor of more.
But we’ll see if Americans will continue to support this when they watch on the news every night: families being torn apart, parents being arrested and imprisoned and children crying.
Trump’s immigration plan goes beyond deportation and enforcement, he wants to overhaul the entire U.S. immigration system. Here are the main parts of his plan:
Number: Trump wants to deport up to 20 million people, including undocumented immigrants and those with temporary legal status. This is more than any previous deportation effort and includes people who have lived in the U.S. for years. The immigration courts are already overwhelmed, and such a large-scale deportation plan would exacerbate the backlog in asylum system, necessitating a significant expansion of resources to handle the influx of new cases.
Trump’s Vision for Mass Deportations
Military and Law Enforcement: President Donald Trump officials say he would use a wide range of resources to enforce deportations of unauthorized immigrants, including the U.S. military, National Guard and local law enforcement. This could mean extensive cooperation with state and local police to find and detain undocumented immigrants.
Executive Authority: Trump could use emergency powers and numerous executive orders and actions to speed up deportations and bypass some protections for undocumented immigrants. Legal scholars say he could use obscure wartime provisions that were used for mass detentions in the past, like during World War II for Japanese, German and Italian nationals.
More Contracts with Private Companies: The deportation process would likely involve private contractors for detention facilities, transportation and deportation flights. Private companies already manage many parts of immigration detention and this could increase if deportation efforts grow.
Historical Comparison: Trump’s plan is modeled after Eisenhower’s “Operation Wetback” in the 1950s where the U.S. forcibly deported people of Mexican descent, including U.S. citizens. But Trump’s is bigger and broader, targeting long-time residents and new arrivals.
More ICE: The new administration will remove the limits on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) put in place by the Biden administration so ICE will be more active against undocumented people in the U.S.
Alien Enemies Act: new Trump administration will use the Alien Enemies Act to target violent gangs like Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua and cartel members with a focus on reducing organized crime in immigrant communities.
Experts say deporting 20 million people in 4 years is impossible without significant resources, an expanded law enforcement workforce and a lot of money: Mass deportations at this scale means massive arrests, detentions and immigration hearings. Each stage requires due process which means legal representation, appeal rights and judicial review. To achieve this scale would mean bypassing or stretching legal protections — which would be challenged in court.
Cost of Mass Deportations
Trump’s immigration enforcement plan includes a big increase in immigration enforcement with military and local police.
Trump’s immigration plan includes ending asylum protections and revoking humanitarian protections for people from conflict zones.
Response:
The administration is also planning to take away certain rights from immigrant families, including birthright citizenship and public education for undocumented children.
Response:
While Trump’s plans have practical and legal obstacles, his influence on the judiciary and potential congressional support will make it more doable this time around. But implementing such a massive program will require navigating logistical challenges, getting funding and overcoming legal hurdles.
Congress will have a big role in responding to Trump’s immigration plans. Lawmakers can limit funding, exercise oversight and shape legislation.
A big part of resisting Trump’s immigration agenda is to change the national conversation around immigration.
Response:
With Donald Trump’s election, the Biden administration is preparing for a border surge at the southern border as immigrants try to get in before Trump’s policies kick in.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has started developing contingency plans, expecting some migrants to try to get into the U.S. before the inauguration, fearing Trump’s policies.
Don’t Enter Illegally: A CBP spokesperson told migrants to use safe and legal entry methods and not to believe smugglers. CBP said U.S. immigration laws are still in effect and migrants should use legal channels.
Carrying out Trump’s deportation plan would require massive resources. The Supreme Court has previously ruled on issues related to citizenship rights and equal access to education, which could play a significant role in the legal challenges against such mass deportation policies when the Trump administration regains office.
Let’s get into it:
Financial
Workforce
Tax Revenue Loss
Contribution: In 2022, undocumented immigrants paid around $100 billion in federal, state and local taxes. Their removal would reduce tax revenue and strain government resources, impacting public services like schools and infrastructure.
Trump’s deportation plan would devastate families, especially mixed-status households. Here’s what it would look like:
Public support for stricter immigration enforcement has increased and recent polls show a majority of Americans support deporting millions of undocumented individuals. Trump has exploited this sentiment, framing immigration as a threat to American identity, economic stability and national security. His language has gotten more extreme:
Ahead of potential policy changes, immigrant rights organizations are mobilizing and preparing legal responses:
As a snapshot of what an aggressive enforcement strategy might look like, let’s remember what happened in 2018.
In 2018, almost 100 workers were arrested in a massive immigration raid at a meatpacking plant in Tennessee, including Nayeli, a mother and long-time plant employee. The raid, with helicopters and federal agents, left a community in shock. Children came home to find their parents missing and hundreds of students were absent from school the next day. For many families the fear and trauma still lingers.
Nayeli, one of those arrested and released, still fears these big raids will come back. She now organizes for immigrant rights in her community and advocates for protections and policies that recognize immigrants’ contributions. Her story shows the human impact of immigration raids and what many fear could happen on a much bigger scale.
With Trump back in the White House, big changes are coming to U.S. immigration policies, especially for employment-based immigration. From stricter visa requirements to program terminations, Trump’s second term will increase scrutiny and add new restrictions. Employers and visa holders should prepare now by understanding what’s coming and taking proactive steps to minimize risk.
More Scrutiny and Requirements
Trump’s administration may eliminate the visa interview waiver (or “dropbox”) for visa renewals which would mean:
Trump’s administration may re-impose strict work authorization rules for F-1 students:
Limiting TPS Eligibility
Longer Visa Wait Times and Entry Restrictions
Take proactive steps now to mitigate some of the risks:
While President Trump’s reelection may introduce significant changes to immigration policies, early preparation and professional guidance can help you navigate potential challenges. By submitting applications promptly, strengthening financial records, and anticipating stricter rules, you can increase your chances of success.
Don’t face these changes alone—seek professional assistance to ensure your application meets all requirements. Stay proactive, stay informed, and take action to protect your immigration goals.
24/7 Support, Just A Call Away!
Donald Trump is back in office January 20, 2025, and DACA is once again on everyone’s mind. Over 500,000 people currently have DACA protections and are wondering if they will lose those protections and possibly face being placed in removal proceedings?
3.6 million Dreamers in the U.S. but only a fraction have legal status.
530,000 are currently enrolled in DACA, down from 800,000. 1/3 of DACA holders live in California.
DACA doesn’t offer a path to citizenship but allows recipients to live, work and drive in the U.S.
As Trump takes office in January, the future of DACA is uncertain. With Trump’s deportation promises, advocates are calling for action now to protect current status and navigate the uncertain future.
Advocates are telling beneficiaries to renew now and prepare for policy changes.
DACA was established by executive order by President Barack Obama in 2012 and provides temporary protection from deportation and work permits to undocumented immigrants brought.
To qualify, you must:
There are currently 530,000 Dreamers. But the program is temporary and in legal limbo. Courts have ruled a president can end DACA if done properly so the program is precarious.
Key features:
There are about 530,000 Dreamers nationwide, but new applications have been blocked since 2017. 160,000 of those are in California.
Under Biden, advocates tried to defend DACA, including appealing the Texas district court’s ruling that the program is illegal. He also expanded medical insurance coverage for DACA holders. If Trump tells the Justice Department to drop those appeals, DACA will be terminated. The government could also use the information provided by DACA applicants to deport.
For many, the end of DACA is not just a policy change, it’s a life changing event. Here are a few profiles in courage:
Ramiro Luna: Advocating and Anxious
Karina Serrato Soto: Planning for the Worst
Jonathan Alvizo: Climbing Walls
For Jonathan Alvizo, 30, an art director and DACA recipient, the program is a blessing and a curse.
In the meantime, resilience is key in the immigrant community. Advocates and recipients will fight to keep their rights and stay here.
Trump’s first term was tough on undocumented immigrants:
Advocates worry those policies will return and create fear among DACA recipients and their families.
In 2017, during his first term, Trump tried to terminate DACA, citing its legality. The decision was met with immediate lawsuits. In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled against the administration, saying it didn’t provide a valid reason to end the program. Despite that, lawsuits against DACA have continued. In 2021, a federal judge declared the program unconstitutional, blocking new applicants.
The DACA lawsuits are far from over. Experts say the case will go to the Supreme Court again, possibly as late as summer 2026. In the meantime:
During the campaign, Trump talked tougher on immigration, so DACA is in danger again.
Trump’s second term is full of uncertainty. He hasn’t said what he’ll do to DACA, but his campaign focused on stricter immigration and mass deportations. Legal and political analysts say there are several possibilities:
Trump could try to end the program again, maybe this time with a more calculated approach to address past court criticisms. He might provide a detailed reason to meet legal standards, like broader immigration policy goals.
Trump may end DACA altogether, stop new applications and renewals. That would:
The administration could limit renewals or tighten eligibility requirements:
This would leave Dreamers in limbo and more vulnerable.
Work permits, the heart of DACA, could be changed. Possible changes:
This would impact Dreamers’ financial stability and career prospects.
Public sympathy for Dreamers, many of whom are students or essential workers, might keep Trump from acting immediately. Instead, he could focus on other immigration priorities like border security or visa restrictions.
Trump might push for comprehensive immigration reform. That could mean:
The uncertainty around DACA has big implications for recipients. Most are in their late 20s and have built their lives around the program. For many, DACA is not just a legal status but a lifeline to:
Without DACA, recipients will face big disruptions: job loss, deportation risk and reduced access to resources.
Current proposals would limit access to federal student loans and grants to institutions that offer in-state tuition to undocumented immigrants, including Dreamers. If that happens:
Experts advise eligible DACA recipients to renew as soon as possible. Renewals currently take 4 months and may take longer under Trump. Consider:
In case of changes, proactive steps can help Dreamers cope with this uncertainty:
1. Renew Early
2. Stay Informed
Follow reliable news and government sources for updates.
3. Get Legal Advice
4. Other Relief Options
May Include:
5. Financial and Career Resilience
6. Documentation:
Make sure personal and legal documents are up-to-date and accessible.
DACA is temporary so we need a permanent solution for Dreamers. As policies change, the push for stability and recognition of Dreamers’ contributions will continue. If you’re affected by these changes, get support and be proactive about your future.
Organizations like Sacramento State’s Dreamer Resource Center help undocumented students. These centers offer:
The Biden administration’s push to codify DACA faces legal obstacles:
The National Immigration Law Center (NILC) plays a pivotal role in the fight against anti-immigrant policies, emphasizing the urgency and determination to protect DACA recipients and advocate for the rights of all immigrants.
Advocacy in Action
United We Dream is mobilizing to defend DACA from a potential GOP-led White House and conservative Supreme Court:
Despite all this immigrant advocacy groups are preparing for the worst.
The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which gives deportation protection and work authorization to over 500,000 undocumented individuals brought to the U.S. as children, is under attack in the courts.
Despite changes in the policy and ongoing processing of renewal requests, initial DACA requests are currently prohibited as dictated by a federal district court of ruling.
On September 13, 2023 a federal judge ruled the revised DACA policy is unlawful, just like previous previous rulings.
This adds to the uncertainty around DACA’s future as the decision has been appealed to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and that case is ongoing.
Without protections, DACA recipients are at risk. So we need legislation.
The Supreme Court could decide the program’s fate in the next two years.
An October 10, 2024 hearing in federal court may end up determining the fate of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Here are the arguments, what’s at stake and what could happen.
Judicial Panel: The case is before a three-judge panel:
Appeal: If the decision is adverse to DACA the case will go to the Supreme Court which previously blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to end the program but has not yet ruled on the legality of DACA.
Timing: A decision from the Fifth Circuit could come in a few months. This will either affirm or block DACA and will likely be appealed to the Supreme Court for the final decision.
Opening Briefs:
Reply Briefs:
Next Steps
Vice President Kamala Harris: A long-time advocate for DACA, Harris said, “As Attorney General of California, as a U.S. Senator and now as Vice President I’ve fought to defend and protect DACA. We must get a path to citizenship for Dreamers.”
Tips for DACA Recipients
As they say, to know what the future holds, you have to know the history. It is important to know the history of DACA litigation, and the opposition that really gained momentum starting in 2017.
Early Challenges and Supreme Court Review in 2020
Judge Andrew Hanen’s Decisions
Why Congress Must Act
Recent Actions by the Biden Administration
Need for Legislation
On June 21, 2024, the Biden administration announced a new policy to simplify the work visa application process for foreign nationals educated in the U.S., including DACA recipients, also known as Dreamers.
This will help highly skilled individuals who graduated from U.S. colleges and universities to stay in the country and contribute to the economy.
Why This Matters for Dreamers
For Dreamers, this means a clearer pathway to long term stability in the U.S. Currently DACA only provides temporary work permits but H-1B visas provides a separate status and can lead to permanent residency.
Background and Issues
Streamlining the 212(d)(3) Waivers: For DACA Recipients, Dreamers and Others
The 212(d)(3) waiver, also known as the D-3 waiver, is a lifeline for DACA recipients and Dreamers applying for temporary work visas at U.S. Embassies. This waiver allows eligible individuals to get nonimmigrant visa status without facing years of exclusion from the U.S. By fixing this process, DACA recipients and others can get stable employment, pathway to permanent residency and potentially citizenship.
D-3 Waiver Updates
Overcoming Nonimmigrant Visa Barriers
Eligibility and Impact
Current D-3 Waiver Process and Issues
The current D-3 waiver process requires applicants to leave the U.S., apply for a visa at a U.S. consulate or embassy and wait for approval from the Department of State and DHS. This process is full of risks and uncertainties as applicants only find out the outcome after they leave the U.S. and can be away for a long time.
Key Issues
D-3 Waiver Process Improvements
The new Foreign Affairs Manual updates are a step in the right direction. It states that it is in the public interest to admit individuals who have U.S. degrees or skilled credentials and that these cases should be prioritized.
Additional Reforms Needed
To make it even better:
These wouldn’t create new visa categories, just streamline the waiver process for existing visa pathways so more eligible individuals can participate in the program.
Impact if Implemented
If done, this could benefit tens of thousands of DACA recipients, Dreamers and other qualified individuals:
The new Foreign Affairs Manual updates are a step in the right direction for a more streamlined D-3 waiver process but there’s more to be done. By having pre-departure waiver approvals, centralizing processing and standardizing across locations, DHS and DOS can make it easier for qualified individuals to get visas, return to the U.S. quickly and contribute to American society.
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) grants work authorization and protection from deportation to eligible young immigrants who came to the U.S. as children. Despite ongoing legal challenges, courts are mandating the continuation of processing DACA renewal requests. With ongoing legal challenges and policy changes, it’s crucial to stay up to date. Here’s a comprehensive guide to DACA renewal eligibility, renewal application process, and how to navigate the process.
DACA Renewal Reminders
Recent Court Decisions on DACA
DACA Eligibility
Basic Eligibility for Initial Applicants
Though initial applications are not being processed, it’s good to know the eligibility requirements in case of future changes. Applicants must meet:
Individuals who obtained their initial DACA status prior to July 16, 2021, are still recognized in terms of their current grants and related employment documents.
Age Requirements
How to File for DACA Renewal
1. Collect Supporting Documents
To support your application for DACA renewal, gather documents that prove you meet each eligibility requirement.
Examples of Required Documents:
2. Fill Out the Required Forms
Applicants must fill out:
Note: Make sure to use the latest versions of these forms from the USCIS website, as older forms will be rejected.
3. Pay the Required Fee
DACA applications require a non-refundable filing fee of $85. There is no fee waiver for DACA but fee exemptions are available in limited cases for those who can’t afford the fee. I-765 filing fee if filing by paper is $520, and $470 if filing online.
Fee Exemptions: Limited Availability
USCIS offers fee exemptions for DACA applicants in extreme financial hardship. To be eligible, you must show one of:
Documentation for Fee Exemptions:
Using a USCIS Online Account for DACA Applications
USCIS has an online account system for applicants to manage their DACA cases.
Benefits of a USCIS Online Account:
For legal representatives, having a USCIS account allows you to manage multiple clients’ cases, making it easier to track DACA cases.
Travel for DACA Recipients
DACA recipients should be aware that some travel restrictions will impact their continuous residence.
Criminal Convictions that Affect DACA Eligibility
Some convictions will disqualify you from DACA. These include:
Protect yourself from Immigration Scams
USCIS warns applicants to beware of scams and get information only from official sources. Unauthorized individuals will promise faster service for a fee but they can’t expedite the process.
DACA Fraud
Applicants should be aware of the serious consequences for lying on DACA applications.
Why Timing Matters for Renewal
To keep your DACA and Employment Authorization Document (EAD) benefits, you need to renew before your current DACA and EAD expires. Renewing too close to the expiration date can result in your EAD expiring and you may not be able to work legally and could start accruing “unlawful presence” which can impact future adjustments to a lawful immigration status.
USCIS Recommended Renewal Timeline
Apply 120-150 Days Before Expiration
USCIS advises DACA recipients to submit their renewal applications 120-150 days before their current DACA and EAD expiration date. This is called the “application window”. Applying within this window will avoid gaps in protection and work authorization.
The DACA Renewal Calculator at the end of this guide will help you find this 120-150 day application window.
Get Ready for Your Renewal
DACA Renewal Calculator
Using this guide and calculator will help you avoid delays and stay protected under DACA. Always recommended to consult with a legal expert for specific situations.
Renewal is still important to stay under DACA. Here’s what to consider:
Advance parole allows DACA recipients to travel abroad for:
Travel Risks: Although advance parole is still available, legal uncertainty is a risk. If DACA is terminated while you’re abroad, re-entry could be complicated. Always consult with a legal expert before traveling.
Potential for adjustment of status through marriage to US Citizen: Re-entry to the U.S. on advance parole, will cure the prior “entry without inspection,” thus making the DACA recipient eligible for adjustment of status through marriage to a U.S. citizen.
Long-Term Options for DACA Recipient
Since DACA is temporary, it’s important to explore other immigration options. DACA recipients should get screened regularly as life changes may open up new paths. Some options include family-based petitions, employment-based visas, U visas and more.
A. Family-Based Petitions
Family-based petitions allow certain family members to sponsor DACA recipients for permanent residency:
For some, family-based petitions may allow adjustment of status in the U.S. so you don’t need to go through consular processing abroad which can be risky.
B. Employment-Based Immigration
DACA recipients may also be eligible for employment-based visas, especially those with specialized skills or education:
DACA recipients should consult with an immigration attorney who specializes in employment visas to see if you qualify as this path requires a well-prepared application and often a long wait.
C. U Visa for Crime Victims
The U visa is an option for DACA recipients who have been victims of certain crimes and have cooperated with law enforcement:
This visa also offers a path to LPR status after 3 years, so it’s a long-term solution for those who qualify.
D. Travel on Advance Parole for Adjustment of Status
Advance parole can be important for DACA recipients who are pursuing family-based petitions especially if they entered the U.S. without inspection:
However, travel on advance parole is not a guarantee of re-entry and may be risky so consult a lawyer.
245(i) Adjustment Eligibility
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 245(i), some individuals can adjust status in the U.S. even if they entered without inspection or worked without authorization. Key points:
This is great for older DACA recipients or those whose parents had petitions filed before 2001.
Employment-Based Adjustment with Current Employer
Some DACA recipients may be eligible for an employment-based adjustment due to their professional qualifications and work history:
Given the complexity of employment-based visas, recipients should consult with specialized immigration lawyers to navigate these options.
Plan for Uncertainty
Since DACA is in legal limbo, recipients should explore all possible immigration options. Here’s what to do:
Advance Parole is a permit that allows DACA recipients to travel outside the U.S. and re-enter lawfully. But there are rules and procedures to follow. Below we explain how to apply, eligibility, required documents and tips for safe travel.
Before You Travel
What is Advance Parole?
Advance Parole is a travel document issued by USCIS that allows DACA recipients to leave and re-enter the U.S. legally. It’s usually for:
Filing Fee: $630
Advance Parole Benefits and Limits
Benefits
Limits
Who Can Apply for Advance Parole?
DACA recipients can apply for Advance Parole if:
How to Apply for Advance Parole
Step 1: Check Eligibility and Purpose of Travel
Before applying for Advance Parole, consult with an immigration attorney to confirm your eligibility. Certain factors like removal orders or unlawful presence may bar your re-entry to the U.S.
Common Questions on Eligibility
Purpose of Travel
Basic Eligibility Questions: Answering “No” to any of the following means you are not eligible for Advance Parole now.
Further Questions
If you answer “Yes” to any of the following, consult an immigration attorney before applying for Advance Parole.
Step 2: Fill out Form I-131, “Application for Travel Document”
Step 3: Gather Supporting Documents
Provide proof of why you need to travel. Examples:
Step 4: Assemble the Application Package
Package contents should include:
Supporting Documents
Tip: Make two copies of your application. Keep one with you during travel and leave one with a trusted contact in the U.S.Completed I-131 application
Step 5: Submit
Step 6: USCIS Resources
Check the USCIS I-131 instructions for more information.
Step 7: Travel Preparation
Documents to Carry
Step 8: Re-entering the U.S. with Advance Parole
When you get back, you will go through inspection at the port of entry and CBP may ask you questions about your trip. Stay calm and have all your documents ready.
Advance Parole Travel Tips
Emergency Advance Parole Requests
For emergency situations, you may be able to request expedited processing of Advance Parole. But the reason must be serious, like a medical emergency or family emergency. Always check with USCIS for current instructions on emergency requests.
Traveling on Advance Parole Risks
Traveling abroad with Advance Parole has risks, including being denied re-entry. Travel history may also impact future immigration options so consult with an immigration attorney to consider these risks.
More Resources
General Advance Parole Question
Eligibility and Application Process
Traveling with Advance Parole
Risks and Consequences
Uncommon Questions or Situations
After Approved Advance Parole
Advance Parole allows DACA recipients to travel but you must follow all the rules and understand the risks. With proper planning and documentation, you can make the immigration process much easier and minimize travel risks. Always consult an immigration attorney.
The “Parole in Place” (PIP) program allows family members of U.S. military members and veterans to potentially adjust their status and become lawful permanent residents (green card holders) even if they entered the U.S. illegally. PIP is not a separate immigration status but a tool to help non-citizen family members become permanent residents without having to leave the U.S.
PIP is a temporary permission to be in the U.S. (usually in one-year increments) and allows eligible individuals to apply for a work permit. This is a benefit for non-citizen family members of U.S. military members to get lawful status and potentially apply for a green card even if they entered the U.S. illegally.
With PIP, eligible applicants can adjust status without leaving the country and re-entry issues.
You may be eligible if:
Note: PIP is discretionary, approval is not guaranteed. USCIS will grant it only if they think it serves a public benefit, like military family unity. Individuals with criminal convictions or other serious issues may not be eligible.
To apply for PIP, gather and submit the following documents to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS):
Additional Supporting Evidence
Note: There is no fee for PIP. Submit your application to the USCIS field office serving your area, some offices may have additional requirements (e.g. a written statement explaining how you entered the U.S. or proof of an I-130 petition). After submission, USCIS may schedule an interview, which is usually short but can be longer if more information is needed.
If Parole in Place is Granted: What’s Next
You’ll receive an I-94 card as proof of PIP status. This card is good for one year and should be kept safe as it allows you to:
Family Members Eligible for a U.S. Green Card
Under U.S. immigration law, only certain family members of U.S. citizens are eligible for a green card as “immediate relatives”:
Immediate relatives have priority for green cards without long waiting lines and PIP allows them to adjust status in the U.S.
How to File for Adjustment of Status
Once PIP is approved you can:
Consult an attorney for guidance on filing a family-based green card application as the process can be tricky.
Important Notes
PIP applications have a high denial rate and success depends on the strength of your case. It’s recommended to get legal help especially if you have other issues (e.g. criminal history) that can affect your adjustment to permanent residence. An immigration attorney can also help you with local requirements and USCIS office.
1. Population: Who are the Dreamers?
2. Age: A Young Population
3. Origins and U.S. Arrival: Diverse Backgrounds, Deep Roots
4. Education: Many Dreamers are in School
5. Workforce: Filling Gaps in High-Demand Sectors
6. Economic Impact: Growing the U.S. Economy
7. Family Ties: Supporting U.S. Citizen Families
The Dream Act of 2023 will provide a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers, ending years of uncertainty and allowing them to fully contribute to American society. With their youth, education, work skills and deep family ties, Dreamers are uniquely positioned to strengthen the U.S. workforce and economy.
Passing this legislation would not only recognize their contributions but also secure a better future for American families and communities. Only by giving them a path to citizenship can Congress ensure Dreamers can continue to build their lives in the country they call home.
Since 2012, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program has given protection from deportation and work authorization to young undocumented immigrants, allowing them to build lives, families and careers in the U.S. Despite its success, DACA is under legal threat. If it ends or renewals stop, the impact will be catastrophic for recipients, their families and the U.S. workforce and economy.
1. Job Losses: Thousands Each Week
Estimated Monthly Job Losses by Sector
Total Jobs Lost Monthly: 18,600
2. Economic Impact: State by State
3. Shrinking DACA Population: A Generation Without Opportunity
1. Family Separation: 1,000 U.S. Citizens Daily
Monthly Numbers of U.S. Citizen Family Members Affected
2. The Human and Financial Cost to Family
We Need Action Now
DACA has been a lifeline for hundreds of thousands of young immigrants who have made the U.S. their home, contributing to the economy and their communities. With the program under attack like never before, only Congress can provide a permanent solution to protect Dreamers and prevent the disaster of ending DACA.
Why a Permanent Solution Matters
DACA 12 Years Later: Lives
The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program has allowed undocumented youth to build lives in the U.S., many now working, in college and raising families. As DACA turns 12, the program is under legal attack and recipients and their families are in crisis. Here’s the situation.
DACA’s History and Purpose
12 Years of Growth: The Evolution of DACA Recipients
2024 vs. 2012
Personal Story: Reyna Montoya
Reyna Montoya, one of the first DACA recipients, went from student to teacher and community leader. DACA allowed her to graduate from college and make a difference in her community. Like many other Dreamers, she now advocates for a safer future and urges Congress to act.
A New Profile: DACA Recipients Today
DACA Population Characteristics
Uncertainty: Legal Challenges and Limited Access
was supposed to be temporary but congressional inaction has left recipients in limbo:
Congress Must Act Now
“DACA policy has given young undocumented immigrants a chance to build lives in the U.S. but without a permanent solution their future is uncertain. Congress can:
Now is the Time
President Obama’s original DACA statement said it was temporary and that Congress needed to act. Twelve years later, the call to act is still urgent. With legal threats looming, Congress must pass a pathway to citizenship to give DACA recipients, their families and their communities stability and certainty.
The Dream Act: Stalled
Since its introduction over 20 years ago the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act has been at the center of U.S. immigration reform. Designed to provide a pathway to legal status for undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as minors, often called Dreamers, the Dream Act continues to be a topic of political debate and hope for millions who want to fully participate in American society. This article will look at the history, main provisions, potential effects and current status of the Dream Act.
History
The idea of the Dream Act was born out of the need to address the special challenges faced by undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children. These young people, many of whom were raised in American communities and educated in American schools, find themselves in a legal limbo.
They are American in culture yet undocumented in status, with limited access to work, education and financial aid because of their immigration status.
In 2001 Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) introduced the first version of the Dream Act to provide conditional residency to young undocumented immigrants and a pathway to permanent residency if they met certain educational or military service requirements.
Since then various versions of the Dream Act have been introduced in Congress but despite broad public support the Act has not been passed into law. However it paved the way for other initiatives including Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) which temporarily protects eligible Dreamers from deportation.
While different versions of the Dream Act have been introduced, most have had the same core criteria and goals. Main provisions of the Dream Act include:
The Dream Act has big implications for Dreamers and the U.S. as a whole. Advocates say passing the Dream Act would bring significant economic benefits, support the American workforce and uphold American values of fairness and opportunity. Here are some of the main effects:
In 2012 the Obama administration introduced the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. DACA provides temporary relief from deportation and work authorization for eligible Dreamers and allows them to renew every two years. While it’s temporary relief it’s not a permanent solution. Legal challenges and changes in administration policies have put the program in jeopardy and left DACA recipients in limbo.
In 2021 the American Dream and Promise Act passed the House of Representatives which included the Dream Act. But it did not move in the Senate. President Biden has said he supports comprehensive immigration reform including the Dream Act but the Act’s fate is up to bipartisan cooperation in Congress.
For and Against the Dream Act
For
Against
The Dream Act is a symbol and a solution to a problem affecting millions of young people in the U.S. While the road to passage is uncertain the debate around the Dream Act shows we need a compassionate and forward thinking approach to immigration reform.
For Dreamers passing the Act would mean more than status it would mean the opportunity to fully be themselves, enrich American society and build a secure and stable future. As the country figures out its immigration policy the Dream Act is a reminder of the values of resilience, opportunity and the American dream.
General DACA Program Questions
DACA Litigation and Status
DACA and Health Care
DACA and Advance Parole (Travel Authorization)
DACA and H-1B Visas
DACA and Adjustment of Status (Green Card Pathways)
Employment and Work Authorization
Educational Opportunities
Family Sponsorships and DACA
DACA Renewal Process
DACA in the Courts
DACA’s future is more uncertain than ever. As the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals hears the case, a final decision from the Supreme Court could end the program for good, with huge implications for over 500,000 recipients, their families and communities. The Biden administration’s recent actions give temporary relief but no legislative solution leaves DACA recipients in limbo.
For over a decade, DACA has kept families together, supported the U.S. workforce and allowed young immigrants to build their lives in the only country they know as home. As the courts decide the program’s fate, the need for Congress to pass a permanent fix grows. Protecting Dreamers and a pathway to citizenship is crucial for the stability and prosperity of American communities and the economy.
Judge Hanen’s ruling against DACA makes clear the ongoing legal and political fight around the program and the need for legislative reform. As the Biden administration appeals, DACA’s future is uncertain and we’re looking to Congress and the Supreme Court for a solution. In the meantime, Dreamers and their allies will keep pushing for a safe and permanent path to citizenship.
We’ll see if the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court decides DACA’s fate but legislative reform is still needed. S will accept the application and payment but will not process or approve any first-time applications under current rules.
DACA’s future is more uncertain than ever. As the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals hears the case, a final decision from the Supreme Court could end the program for good, with huge implications for over 500,000 recipients, their families and communities. The Biden administration’s recent actions give temporary relief but no legislative solution leaves DACA recipients in limbo.
For over a decade, DACA has kept families together, supported the U.S. workforce and allowed young immigrants to build their lives in the only country they know as home. As the courts decide the program’s fate, the need for Congress to pass a permanent fix grows. Protecting Dreamers and a pathway to citizenship is crucial for the stability and prosperity of American communities and the economy.
Judge Hanen’s ruling against DACA makes clear the ongoing legal and political fight around the program and the need for legislative reform. As the Biden administration appeals, DACA’s future is uncertain and we’re looking to Congress and the Supreme Court for a solution. In the meantime, Dreamers and their allies will keep pushing for a safe and permanent path to citizenship.
We’ll see if the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court decides DACA’s fate but legislative reform is still needed.
24/7 Support, Just A Call Away!
The Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program which temporarily protects migrants from deportation to countries in crisis and provides work authorization has grown under the Biden, whom some refer to as the “TPS President.” TPS is one of the few executive tools to provide work authorization without Congressional approval.
TPS is back in the news.
Donald Trump will be sworn in as President on January 20, 2025. The incoming Trump administration has recently indicated uncertainty about whether it will cut or end the program in his second term.
During the first Trump administration the program was under attack like never before with terminations that put over 300,000 people at risk of deportation.
Past Legal Battles
Lawsuits in 2017 and 2018 blocked Trump’s initial attempts to terminate TPS for countries like Haiti and Sudan. Courts ruled that the terminations were discriminatory and lacked basis.
Uncertain Future
Legal challenges may delay or prevent terminations but they depend on what Trump does and the political climate. Even without premature terminations of existing TPS designations, Trump can simply not extend the existing country-specific designations, most of which will expire in 2025.
The future of TPS and the lives of over a million people are at stake. If Trump’s plan goes through this could mean the deportation of hundreds of thousands of people who have built lives in the US. Many TPS holders have been here for decades, contributing to the economy and community.
Over 2/3 of TPS holders have U.S. citizen children. Terminating TPS without alternatives would not only disrupt lives but also industries that rely on this workforce. This guide explains the key issues, the growth, what’s next and what TPS holders can do to protect themselves.
History:
Past Terminations:
TPS allows immigrants from designated countries (17) to live and work in the US temporarily without fear of deportation when conditions in their home countries are unsafe.
A country can be designated for TPS for the following reasons:
Important Notes:
Who Decides on TPS Designations?
The homeland security secretary has sole authority to designate, extend or terminate TPS for a country.
Decisions are made in consultation with agencies like the State Department and National Security Council.
Duration of TPS Designations:
Eligibility Requirements
To qualify for TPS you must:
Ineligibilities: You may not be eligible if:
Key Features:
Benefits of TPS
TPS offers several benefits to beneficiaries:
TPS holders are in all states but the largest populations are in:
Their large and longstanding number shows their integration in US communities.
Florida Will Be Hit the Hardest
As President-elect Donald Trump prepares to take office again his threats to end TPS have reignited fears especially in his home state of Florida, the state that will lose the most.
TPS is crucial for many living and working in the Sunshine State. Trump’s promise to terminate these protections will not only harm the individuals directly affected but also disrupt Florida’s communities and economy.
Step 1: Country Designation
The Secretary of Homeland Security determines which countries are eligible for TPS based on:
The decision to designate or redesignate a country is made in consultation with other agencies like the Department of State and National Security Council.
Step 2: Registration
Foreign nationals from designated countries must:
Step 3: Benefits
If approved TPS recipients are:
Expiration and Renewal of TPS
TPS designations are reviewed and extended based on country conditions:
Extensions only apply to individuals who already have TPS; new applicants need a redesignation
TPS offers benefits to give individuals a sense of security and opportunity while their countries are in dire conditions.
Core Benefits:
Perpetual Uncertainty
TPS does not offer a pathway to permanent residency or citizenship unless pursued through other legal means. Most are stuck in limbo.
Registration and Re-Registration Hurdles
TPS applicants must: Apply during limited registration periods. Pay significant fees for initial registration, work permits and re-registration. Reapply every time the designation is extended, even after 20+ years of residency.
Barriers to Family Reunification
Legislative Gridlock
Advocates urge for legislative solutions to provide long term stability for TPS holders. Congressional action is needed to create a direct path to green cards for TPS holders but progress has been slow.
Vulnerability to Policy Changes
TPS is at the mercy of the administration in power, making the status precarious.
“It’s Amnesty.”
“Migrants Exploit TPS.”
Extended Voluntary Departure (EVD)
Expired TPS Designations
Humanitarian Need
US Leadership in Crisis Response
Criticism and Advocacy
Critics of TPS:
Advocates for TPS Holders:
As of this writing, the following 17 countries are designated for TPS:
Recent Growth of TPS:
Haiti, Venezuela and El Salvador make up the majority of the TPS population and the most likely Trump targets.
Haitians (200,005 TPS holders):
Venezuelans (472,000 TPS holders)
Salvadorans (198,000 TPS holders):
Migrant Stories: Lives in Limbo
Hidalgo’s Journey:
Neary 1.6 million people in the US are eligible for TPS. Of this number, 860,000 have TPS, 486,000 are pending and 320,000 are eligible but not yet applied.
Deeply Rooted in the US: Many TPS holders have been in the US for decades, have raised families and contributed to their communities.
Below is the breakdown of those who have TPS, by country and TPS designation date.
| Country | TPS Designation Date | Estimated Beneficiaries |
| Afghanistan | 2022 | 76,000 |
| Cameroon | 2022 | 39,000 |
| El Salvador | 2001 | 198,000 |
| Ethiopia | 2022 | 31,000 |
| Haiti | 2010, 2021 | 200,000 |
| Honduras | 1999 | 60,000 |
| Lebanon 2024 Myanmar | 2021 | 1,600 |
| Nepal | 2015 | 14,500 |
| Nicaragua | 1999 | 4,500 |
| Somalia | 1991, 2023 | 430 |
| Sudan | 1997, 2022 | 3,700 |
| South Sudan | 2011, 2023 | 370 |
| Syria | 2012, 2023 | 7,500 |
| Ukraine | 2022 | 60,000 |
| Venezuela | 2021 | 472,000 |
| Yemen | 2015 | 1,600 |
TPS for 13 of these countries will expire in 2025, Haiti, Somalia and Yemen’s will expire in 2026 unless extended.
TPS is often compared to Deferred Enforced Departure (DED):
Like TPS, those temporarily protected from deportation and granted temporary work authorization under the Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) program are also at risk of being cut or eliminated by Trump.
Like TPS, DED offers temporary protection from removal for individuals who meet specific eligibility criteria established by presidential directives. It does not grant lawful immigration status:
Trump used DED to protect 145,000 Venezuelans for 18 months towards the end of his presidency
Each directive outlines the eligibility criteria which may include:
Exceptions
Individuals may be excluded from DED protections for:
The population of DED Holders is much smaller than that of TPS:
Palestine and Hong Kong will expire in 2025. Liberia and Lebanon will expire in 2026.
Summary of Current DED Coverage
| Country | Effective Date | DED Valid Through | EAD Extended Through |
| Lebanon | July 26, 2024 | January 25, 2026 | N/A |
| Liberia | October 1, 2007 | June 30, 2026 | June 30, 2026 |
| Hong Kong | August 5, 2021 | February 5, 2025 | February 5, 2025 |
| Palestine | February 14, 2024 | August 13, 2025 | August 13, 2025 |
Springfield Impact:
Unanswered Questions:
JD Vance Support:
Local and National Pushback:
During his first term, former President Donald Trump ended TPS for Haiti, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Sudan, covering over 300,000 people, citing improved conditions in their home countries.
His administration said conditions in countries like Haiti had improved enough to end the designations—despite the crises.
Legal battles ensued and terminations were delayed. The Ninth Circuit upheld some rescissions and others were extended by the Biden administration.
The Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025” which has ties to Trump team leaders outlines a plan to end TPS, calling it a program that encourages illegal immigration.
The plan calls for a big rollback of TPS designations. It wants Congress to repeal existing TPS designations so people from countries like Afghanistan, El Salvador, Haiti and Venezuela have to go home no matter what’s happening back home.
And Project 2025 also wants to limit the discretion of the Department of Homeland Security on programs like TPS to stick to statutory limits and reduce the availability of these humanitarian protections.
Broader Hardline Policies:
Ending TPS is part of a bigger immigration crackdown:
Key Appointments:
Targeting Non-Criminals:
TPS Is Targeted
The second Trump term will focus on terminating newer TPS designations and not renewing older ones that will expire in 2025.
Legal Pathways to TPS Termination:
1. Humanitarian Impact
2. Economic Consequences of TPS Cancellation:
Terminating TPS protections, revoking work permits and deporting millions of long term workers would devastate the U.S. economy as follows:
Labor Shortages
Essential Workforce:
Reduced Consumer Spending
Decline in GDP
Job Loss for Americans:
Decline in Social Security and Medicare
Additional Costs to Government
Growth of the Undocumented Population
Harming Community
Destabilizing Countries of Origin:
For Immigration Policy:
Elena’s Request:
Legal and Logistical Challenges
Can Trump End TPS?
Federal regulations allow TPS designations to expire or be renewed but revoking them before expiration is legally complicated and unprecedented.
Legal Hurdles:
Logistical Challenges:
Political Opposition:
Losing TPS status can be scary and confusing but there are options for those who want to stay in the U.S. legally. Here’s a step by step guide to help you understand your options
1. Keep or Use an Existing Legal Status
If you have another legal status besides TPS you can stay in the U.S. as long as that status is valid or case is pending. TPS does not cancel or replace any other legal status you may have.
Examples of Dual or Pending Status:
What to Do:
2. Apply for Asylum if You Fear Going Back to Your Country
Asylum is protection given to individuals who face persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.
Asylum Key Points:
Important Notes:
How to Apply:
Green Card Through Asylum
Eligibility:
3. Change to a Nonimmigrant Visa
Many nonimmigrant visa categories are available for those who qualify, such as studying or working in the U.S.
Common Nonimmigrant Visas:
Challenges for TPS Holders:
Options if Ineligible for In-Country Change:
4. Permanent Residency (Green Card) Through Family
If you qualify you can apply for a green card through various ways including family sponsorship or employment.
Family-Based Sponsorship
If you have close family ties to a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident you may qualify for a green card through family-based immigration.
Marriage to a U.S. Citizen
Marriage to a U.S. citizen is one of the fastest ways to get a green card.
Key Points:
If Your Spouse Is a Green Card Holder
Supporting Documents for Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status
5. Permanent Residency (Green Card) Through Employment
Employers can sponsor TPS recipients for visas and green card if they qualify.
Eligibility
You must:
Key Steps
Supporting Documents
Challenges:
6. Special Victim-Based Visas
If you are a victim of certain crimes or trafficking you may be eligible for:
7. Defend in Immigration Court
If your TPS ends and you have no status the government may start deportation proceedings. In that case you can defend yourself in front of an immigration judge.
Common Defenses:
Risks:
8. Check for U.S. Citizenship or Eligibility for Naturalization
You might already be a U.S. citizen or have a path to citizenship and not even know it.
Check for Citizenship Through Family:
Military Service:
9. Plan for the Worst Case
If no other options are available you may also choose to leave the U.S. voluntarily. This is usually a last resort and should only be done with an experienced immigration attorney who can advise you if you may be able to file future immigration applications to seek re-entry.
Take Action Now
TPS expiration options are complicated and every case is different. Professional legal advice is key to understanding your options and avoiding mistakes.
If you have TPS, you should:
Immigration pathways can be tricky, especially for TPS recipients looking to move to lawful permanent resident (LPR) status. This guide breaks down the legal landscape, federal policies, court decisions and potential legislation affecting TPS holders.
Eligibility to Adjust Status from TPS to Green Card
You may qualify if:
Why Green Card?
Green card allows you to:
Why Adjustment of Status Is Better than Embassy/Consular Processing
Adjustment of status (AOS) allows TPS holders to apply for green cards from within the US, avoiding the risks of consular processing such as:
But you can’t adjust status if you were never lawfully admitted into the US at any point, including initial entry or most recent re-entry.
Consular Processing Challenges
If you have to leave the US for consular processing, you may face:
Adjustment of Status (AOS): How It Works
In discussing adjustment of status, it is first important to udnerstand what TPS provides and what it does not.
Rights of TPS Recipients
Adjustment of Status (AOS) allows individuals physically present in the US to get a green card without traveling abroad. Here’s how it works:
Eligibility Criteria for AOS
Restrictions Under INA § 245(c)
Supreme Court Ruling: Sanchez v. Mayorkas (2021)
The Supreme Court held:
Federal Policy Shifts: USCIS Guidance
In 2022 USCIS reversed its Matter of Z-R-Z-C- decision. Under the new guidance:
Impact of Policy Change
This policy opens up more opportunities for TPS holders to adjust status but they still must meet other statutory requirements, such as family or employment-based eligibility.
Advance Parole and Reentry
TPS holders can apply for advance parole to travel abroad and reenter. Upon reentry, they are considered “inspected and admitted” and meet the INA § 245(a) requirement for adjustment of status.
Risks: Traveling with advance parole should be planned carefully with legal advice to avoid issues upon reentry
Consular Processing Challenges
If not eligible for adjustment of status, you may need to leave the US for visa processing. But departure may trigger re-entry ban and complicates the process. Consult an immigration lawyer.
Special Considerations for TPS Holders
If You Entered Without Inspection (EWI)
Unlawful Presence Before TPS
Employment or Visa Violations
Can You Adjust Status if Your TPS Has Expired?
If your TPS has expired, consider:
What If TPS Adjustment of Status Won’t Work?
If you can’t adjust status through TPS, try:
Key Considerations
The TPS Travel Permit (Form I-512T) allows TPS holders to travel and reenter the US legally. As of July 1, 2022 USCIS updated the policy, TPS holders who reenter the US with this travel permit will now be considered “inspected and admitted”. This is huge because now TPS holders can apply for a green card if they have a qualifying family, marriage or employment-based petition.
Who?
How TPS Holders Qualify for Residency
To apply for a green card, TPS holders need:
Steps for Family and Employment Sponsorship
Steps to Apply for Residency With TPS
1. File for a Travel Permit (Form I-512T)
2. File Green Card Petition
3. File Adjustment of Status (Form I-485)
4. Biometrics and Interview
Special Considerations for TPS Holders
Travel Risks With the TPS Permit
Prior Deportation or Removal Orders
USCIS released a memo on July 1, 2022 titled “Rescission of Matter of Z-R-Z-C as an Adopted Decision; agency interpretation of authorized travel by TPS beneficiaries.” This memo is a big change, TPS holders can now adjust status to permanent residency (green card).
By interpreting authorized travel by TPS holders as “inspected and admitted” the memo provides a clearer path for TPS beneficiaries to get green cards. It also creates a new travel authorization process for TPS holders.
Traveling Under TPS
TPS holders can apply for travel authorization, previously advanced parole. This allows them to leave and reenter the US for various reasons such as family emergencies or work.
Impact on Adjustment of Status Eligibility
Before the July 1 memo the issue of whether TPS holders returning under advanced parole met the “inspected and admitted” requirement for green card eligibility was a big question.
March 2022 Duarte v. Mayorkas: The 5th Circuit ruled TPS holders should not use advanced parole for reentry but can travel.
The Role of Immigration Attorneys
Adjusting green card status as a TPS holder can be tricky especially if you have:
Immigration attorneys can help you:
Get Started
If you are a TPS holder and want to transition to permanent residency, do:
The TPS application process is complex and requires attention to detail. Here’s a breakdown:
Gather Documents
You will need to provide:
Submit Required Forms
Pay Fees
You must pay the fees or file Form I-912 Fee Waiver Request if you cannot afford them.
Application Costs and Fee Waivers
Fee Waivers
If you cannot afford the fees you can:
Respond to USCIS Notices:
Wait for Decision:
Re-register for TPS
Re-registration steps:
Consequences of Late Filing:
Current Countries for TPS
Challenges and Concerns
While TPS is a good program, it has its drawbacks and legal challenges:
Work Authorization:
Travel Authorization:
Late Filing for TPS
Late Re-registration:
Late Initial Filing:
Travel Requirements for TPS Holders
To travel outside the U.S. on TPS:
Common Mistakes to Watch Out For
How to Avoid Scams
TPS applicants should beware of unauthorized practitioners. For legal advice:
What to Do if Your TPS Application is Denied
If your TPS application is denied, you can:
Select the country link for additional specific country information.
More Information
Forms
Tools
Non-USCIS Links
Since January 2021, President Biden has expanded Temporary Protected Status (TPS) to give time limited legal status to immigrants from countries in crisis. This allows individuals to live, work and not be deported in the US.
He’s been called the “TPS President” for this, and has brought stability to hundreds of thousands of families and relief to employers.
Biden’s TPS Policy
Renewals
Long standing TPS for El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua—some dating back over 20 years—have been renewed so immigrants from these countries can stay protected.
Efforts to Create Permanent Pathways
On his first day in office, President Biden called for legislation to allow TPS holders to apply for green cards and U.S. citizenship, citing their contributions to society and their long time residence in the U.S.
New Designations or Extensions:
In June 2023 the Biden administration announced they would rescind the Trump administration’s termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for over 300,000 individuals from El Salvador, Honduras, Nepal and Nicaragua. While this was a big win for TPS holders, it was not permanent and many are still in limbo. Here’s the breakdown of the announcement, what it means and the ongoing fight.
1. What Happened Under Trump?
Terminations of TPS:
Legal Challenges:
2. The Biden Administration’s Actions
Reversing Trump’s Terminations:
What’s Missing:
3. TPS Holders
A History of Uncertainty:
Voices of TPS Holders:
4. Why This Fight Isn’t Over
Ongoing Advocacy:
On February 26, 2024, TPS holders and their U.S. citizen children won a 6 year long legal battle that protected over 400,000 people from losing humanitarian protections under the Trump administration. While the Ramos v. Mayorkas case was a big win TPS holders and advocates say the fight for permanent residency and broader immigration justice is far from over.
1. Trump’s TPS Termination
Background:
Ramos et al v. Mayorkas
2. TPS Holders and Their Families
Stories:
Immigration Justice
Beyond TPS:
Power of Collective Action:
Takeaways:
3. Advocacy and Legal Action
Advocates’ Work:
Legal and Community Action:
In addition to Ramos, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has faced multiple legal challenges after terminating Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for several countries and Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) for Liberia.
These cases, brought by various organizations and individuals, argue the terminations are discriminatory, procedurally unfair or unconstitutional. This page summarizes the cases, the arguments and what it means for affected individuals.
Cases and Updates
Common Claims In Litigation
Equal Protection Violations:
APA Violations:
Due Process Violations:
Procedural Failures:
Affected Individuals
Litigation Implications
Immediate Impact on TPS Recipients
Outcomes
How TPS Holders Qualify for Residency
Now that Trump has promised to end TPS for Haitians, it’s worth looking at the history of this program for Haitians and the country’s current situation.
How Haitians Got TPS:
Misinformation and Fallout:
Local Leaders Speak Out:
Local Leaders Speak Out:
Community:
Ending TPS:
Ending Humanitarian Parole:
Limiting Future Designations:
Mass Deportations:
Legal Battles:
Advocacy and Resistance:
What Biden Can Do Before He Leaves:
Biden Administration’s Last Moves: Request New Designations
Advocacy:
Groups like National TPS Alliance and CASA are pushing for continued protections and for Congress to pass legislation.
Advocacy has blocked previous attempts to end TPS and can help defend the program under a new Trump administration
Congressional Action:
Why Now
Temporary Protected Status (TPS) allows individuals from designated countries to live and work in the United States when their home country is going through extreme conditions. While TPS protects recipients from deportation it does not inherently provide a path to lawful permanent resident (LPR) status (green card). This detailed explanation explains the current legal framework, past legislation and current proposals to address this gap.
No Automatic Path to LPR Status:
Eligibility for Adjustment of Status:
For many TPS holders especially those who entered the U.S. illegally this requirement is a major hurdle.
Supreme Court Ruling:
Senate Supermajority Requirement:
In the past Congress has passed laws allowing certain TPS or Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) recipients to adjust to LPR status. Here are a few examples:
1. Chinese Nationals Post-Tiananmen Square (1992):
2. Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) (1997):
3. Liberian Refugee Immigration Fairness (LRIF) (2019):
The American Dream and Promise Act
In the 118th Congress many bills were introduced on TPS and DED covering a range of proposals. Some aim to expand benefits for TPS and DED recipients and others to limit eligibility and use. Below is a list of these bills, including new designations, increased access to federal benefits and LPR status.
Here are a few recent ones:
1. TPS Designations
Several bills would extend TPS eligibility to nationals of countries in crisis. These bills would prevent deportation and allow individuals to live and work in the U.S. temporarily. Examples:
2. Education for TPS and DED Beneficiaries
Some bills would provide federal financial aid for higher education to TPS and DED recipients recognizing education is key to economic contributions and social integration.
3. Congressional Jobs
A few bills would open up federal congressional jobs to TPS and DED recipients to address the limitations on their participation in certain government positions.
4. TPS Beneficiaries and Military Service
Bills have been introduced to allow TPS holders to enlist in the U.S. military, recognizing their contributions to national security.
5. Farm Workforce Modernization Act
Pathways to Lawful Permanent Residency (LPR)
Several bills would give TPS and DED recipients a clear path to permanent residency.
Restrictive Bills Targeting TPS Eligibility
While some bills expand benefits, others shrink TPS eligibility or add new restrictions.
1. Limiting Eligibility
Some bills would disqualify individuals based on criminal or political affiliations:
2. Congressional Oversight
One bill would introduce broad measures to limit and regulate TPS:
Broader Legislative Trends
More Rights
More Oversight and Restrictions
Challenges and Next Steps
Political Obstacles
Senate Supermajority Requirement:
Niche Legislation:
Judicial Decisions:
Complex Legislative Process
Advocacy and Public Awareness
No Adjustment Pathway Consequences
TPS recipients, individuals allowed to stay in the U.S. due to unsafe conditions in their home countries, are in all 50 states, D.C. and U.S. territories. As of March 2024 there are 863,880 TPS recipients. This article will look at the distribution of TPS recipients, key states, regional demographics and overall implications.
Florida: TPS Central
Texas
New York: Diverse TPS Population
California: Migrant Magnet
Besides the top 4 states, 12 others have over 10,000 TPS recipients:
While smaller in numbers, some states are seeing TPS growth due to local job markets and affordability:
While fewer TPS recipients live in these areas, they are still important pockets of diversity:
TPS holders are crucial to the U.S. economy in:
TPS holders have high labor force participation and many achieve financial stability and career advancement over decades in the U.S.
Key Facts (2021 data)
State Examples
TPS holders are good taxpayers, paying into public programs but not eligible for most federal benefits.
Federal Contributions
State and Local Contributions
Underutilization of Public Benefits
They pay more in taxes than they can access in benefits.
TPS holders are key consumers in the U.S. economy. Their spending supports small businesses, local economies and the service sector.
Key Facts (2021 data)
State Examples
TPS holders are high entrepreneurs, creating jobs and reviving local communities.
TPS holders buy homes and pay property taxes, strengthening housing markets.
Key Facts
State-Level Impact
Top States (2021 data)
Terminating TPS designations would have huge economic consequences:
Higher Prices
Based on 2017 survey:
General Information on TPS
2025 Policy Changes
What TPS Holders Can Do
Possible Scenarios
Other Questions and Scenarios
General TPS Information
Under a Trump Administration
What TPS Holders Should Do Now
Termination Scenarios
Misc
Long Term
As TPS uncertainty looms with a Trump administration in 2025, TPS holders are right to be fearful and anxious about their future. The road ahead requires proactive steps, planning and knowledge of legal rights and options.
At Herman Legal Group we know the weight of this moment for TPS holders and their families. With decades of experience, deep legal knowledge and a human touch we are here to provide clear guidance and customized solutions to protect your status and your future.
Navigating immigration law requires expertise but also empathy for the human being behind each case. We are here to be with you and fight for your rights. Don’t go through this alone—contact Herman Legal Group today to schedule a consultation and start feeling better.
MORE TPS RESOURCES
24/7 Support, Just A Call Away!
The H4 EAD has been a lifeline for thousands of H1B spouses, allowing them to work in the US while their family goes through the long green card process.
The H4 visa allows spouses and children of H1B visa holders to live in the US. Over time, the Employment Authorization Document (EAD) for H4 visa holders has allowed some H4 spouses to work, contribute to the economy and support their families. This policy is particularly significant for highly skilled workers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories, as it helps them navigate the lengthy green card process.
The H4 EAD program for spouses and children of H1B visa holders has tremendous untapped potential to address labor shortages, drive economic growth and attract global talent. Current US policies limit work eligibility for H4 spouses much more than countries like Canada. Expanding work authorization for all H4 visa holders would bring huge benefits to US economy, workforce and innovation ecosystem.
On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump will be back as US President. With Republican controlled Congress, Trump will likely repeat what he did in his first term and try to make significant changes and possibly eliminate the H4 EAD program launched by Obama in 2015.
Trump’s second term will be all about American workers and H4 work permits are on the chopping block again.
H1B holders and their H4 spouses are getting anxious again. The rollback of Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) for H4 visa holders will disrupt lives of H4 spouses of H1B workers who rely on this provision for employment, independence and social integration.
We will discuss and analyze Trump’s attempts to restrict and eliminate the H4 EAD in the article below, but here are the major points for now:
Here’s a detailed analysis of the program history, risks under Trump 2.0 and what H4 EAD holders and applicants can do to prepare.
For hundreds of thousands of H1B/H4 families who are waiting years (and even decades) for employer based green cards, the rollback of work permits is not just a policy change but a question of livelihood, independence and future stability.
Rolling back H4 EAD eligibility will shrink the US economy by at least $7.5 billion to $13 billion annually and more if families leave for more welcoming countries.
Keeping dual income families will lead to higher consumption, savings and investments and long term economic stability.
Boosting US Workforce
Talent Retention
Canada Is Moving In, Luring skilled migrants away from US.
For those who are not familiar with H4 EAD, first let’s understand H-1B and H-4 visas.
H1B is a non-immigrant worker visa for professionals.
H4 visa is a temporary nonimmigrant visa for spouses and minor children of H visa holders, mainly H1B workers.
H4 EAD was introduced in May 2015 under Obama administration. H4 EAD allows spouses of H1B visa holders to work in US, to help families maintain financial stability. This work authorization was a lifeline for many families facing green card backlogs, so spouses can:
The H4 EAD plays a significant role in legal immigration policies by providing employment opportunities to spouses of H1B visa holders.
Without EAD, H4 visa holders are stuck in dependent status with no way to work legally in US, restricting their financial stability and social integration.
Created Through Executive Action
Like DACA, H4 EAD program is vulnerable to elimination through new executive orders or legislation.
Pursuant to the 2015 DHS rule, H4 visa holders can apply for EAD if:
H4 EAD is not just about income; it’s about independence and inclusion. Losing this authorization means:
This has been a lifeline for many, especially in Indian diaspora, for H4 spouses not only to join the US workforce, but also create a dual income stream into the home, either through employment or entrepreneurship.
In short, EAD is not just about employment; it’s a lifeline for many families and a pathway for dependent H4 spouses to integrate into American society.
Educational Background of H-4 EAD Holders
H4 EAD Employment Statistics
H4 EAD Geographic Distribution
H4 ED Gender and Nationality
Number of Approved H4 EADs
Potential Impacts of H4 EAD Rescission
Job Loss:
Economic Costs:
Family Separation or Exodus From U.S.:
“You have to know the past to understand the present.”
Carl Sagan
To know the risks and shape of future, let’s first look back to the history and evolution of H4 EAD program.
The EAD rule was implemented to address the problems faced by immigrant families stuck in green card backlogs, especially those from India.
Public Comments
Purpose of the Regulation
This regulation addresses several problems faced by H1B families:
DHS authority comes from:
While the rule has broad support, it faces opposition:
Critics argue that the H4 EAD rule takes jobs away from American workers and undermines the integrity of the immigration system. They also claim that it encourages more people to come to the U.S. illegally, hoping to benefit from similar programs in the future. Additionally, there are concerns about potential future restrictions on temporary protected status under a second Trump administration, which could impact many individuals and their employers who depend on TPS for extended work authorization.
Labor Market:
Fraud:
First Year Impact
For Families:
For Employers:
Retain skilled H1B workers and reduce turnover costs.
For the Economy:
Costs
To apply for H4 EAD you must meet both of the following:
You must be in H4 status, which is granted to dependents (spouses or children) of H1B visa holders.
Your H1B spouse must be one of the following:
Include the following with your application:
Proof of H4 Status:
Identity:
Proof of H1B Spouse:
Proof of H1B Spouse’s Status:
Eligibility: Depending on your spouse’s status:
Passport Style Photos:
Translations (if applicable):
Choose the correct filing address based on your application type:
Processing Time:
Decision:
Approval and Validity:
Renewing H4 EAD:
Automatic EAD Extensions:
Edakunni v. Mayorkas. Over 40 companies including Amazon, Google and Apple are part of a lawsuit to bundle H4 EAD applications with H1B extensions to speed up processing.
The settlement now permits bundling but a new administration can bring back similar hurdles.
Bundled Processing
Benefits: Faster approval for H4 and H4 EAD when bundled with premium processing H1B applications. Reduced waiting time for employment authorization.
Current Policy:
Incomplete Applications:
Incorrect Filing Fees:
Misfiling Forms:
Fraud or Scams:
Barriers to Entry and Delayed Access:
Complex Alternatives:
Instead of eliminating or restricting H4 EAD, the White House and Congress should work together to unleash the potential of H4 visa holders by:
Immediate Work Authorization for H4 Spouses:
Equity/Parity with Other Visa Categories:
Spouses of L1 (intra-company transferee), E1 (treaty trader) and E3 (Australian specialty worker) visa holders are automatically eligible to work. Granting similar rights to H4 spouses aligns US policy with these precedents
Retain Talent:
Dual income families are less likely to leave US for countries like Canada and will keep top talent in the American economy
Simplify Processing:
Increase Public Awareness:
During his previous presidency, Donald Trump issued the “Buy American, Hire American” executive order to protect US workers.
During his first presidency, Trump’s “Buy American, Hire American” executive order aimed to prioritize US workers for jobs.
In 2018, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposed a regulation titled “Removing H-4 Dependent Spouses from the Class of Aliens Eligible for Employment Authorization”.
Under this policy:
Although the proposal was not finalized, it created uncertainty for thousands of families.
Original Date Announced
December 14, 2017
DHS published a notice in the Unified Agenda of Regulatory Actions that it intends to rescind a rule making spouses of H1B visa holders who hold H4 visas eligible to work. [ID #492]
April 4, 2018 USCIS reports efforts to narrow eligibility for nonimmigrant worker programs
Subsequent Trump-Era and Court Action(s)
November 1, 2018
Removing H4 Dependent Spouses from the Class of Aliens Eligible for Employment Authorization
DHS once again published in the Unified Agenda its intention to rescind the rule providing for work authorization for certain H-4 nonimmigrants.
August 26, 2020
Removing H-4 Dependent Spouses From the Classes of Aliens Eligible for Employment Authorization
The Unified Agenda published on August 26, 2020, noted that DHS will publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in September 2020 modifying the final rule published by DHS in 2015 that extended eligibility for employment authorization to certain H– 4 dependent spouses of H–1B. The new proposed rule will rescind the earlier 2015 rule, making this class of aliens ineligible for employment authorization.
The proposal was widely panned for its economic and social impact, especially for skilled professionals in critical sectors like healthcare, IT and education
The Trump era proposal to rescind H4 EAD faced both procedural and moral challenges:
Expert Analysis
Advocates pointed out the H4 EAD promotes gender equality and financial independence for immigrant families
Biden reversed Trump’s move and kept H4 EAD. This decision:
Immigration experts said removing H4 work permits would disproportionately harm families already waiting for years in green card processing.
Biden issued a regulatory freeze memo on January 20, 2021 and all rulemaking was put on hold. As a result:
It was just Trump. Since its introduction, the EAD rule has been opposed by many, mainly those who claim it hurts American jobs.
From the beginning, the H4 EAD rule has been challenged in court. Save Jobs USA, an organization of U.S. born tech workers, has argued:
US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, Judge Justin R. Walker wrote the opinion. Key points:
Support from Major Organizations
Companies and business groups filed an amicus brief in support of H4 EAD during the lawsuit. They argued:
Court Decisions: The courts have upheld the EAD rule, the Department of Homeland Security has the authority to issue work permits to H4 visa holders.
Despite these decisions, advocacy groups are still challenging the policy, adding more uncertainty for affected families More importantly, the rule can still be rescinded or restricted by Trump’s incoming administration.
President Biden’s U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021, announced on January 20, 2021, attempted to create a more permanent H4 EAD. Key points:
The bill did not pass.
The Trump administration previously tried to rescind H4 EAD as part of the “Buy American, Hire American” agenda. Though it didn’t happen during the first term, a second term could bring it back. Key risks:
Proactive planning is key to minimize the risks. Here are the steps H4 EAD holders and applicants can take to protect their status and work authorization:
Even if H4 EAD program isn’t eliminated completely, other changes could affect work authorization:
H4 work permits are uncertain with Trump’s return and policy rollbacks. For many H1/H4 families, EAD is not just about jobs, it’s about independence, dignity and ability to contribute to American dream.
For those interested in the rationale of the 2015 H-4 EAD Rule should read the Rule published in the Federal Register. The summary of the Rule follows and will provide additional evidence and support for those looking to support the program in 2025 and beyond.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) created a rule to allow H-4 visa holders—spouses of H-1B visa holders—to work in the US to alleviate hardships and support US businesses by keeping highly skilled foreign workers. Here is a summary of the current framework, eligibility, public comments and the final rule.
H-4 Visa: Supporting H-1B Families
H-1B Families Challenges
Long Wait Times:
Economic and Emotional Strain:
Impact on US Employers
Legislative Relief:
Proposed Rule (2014)
May 12, 2014
DHS proposed to amend the regulations to allow certain H-4 dependent spouses to apply for employment authorization if the H-1B visa holder:
Key Changes in the Rule
During the 60 day comment period, DHS received almost 13,000 comments. Here are the comments:
Supportive Comments (85%)
Economic Benefits:
Social Impact:
Competitiveness:
Opposing Comments (10%)
Mixed Comments (3.5%)
Eligibility Scope:
After comments, DHS finalized the rule with minor tweaks to clarify and address filing issues.
H-4 spouses can file for employment authorization if:
Filing Process Changes
Projected Numbers
For Families
For Employers
For the Economy
1. H-4 Dependents of H-1B1, H-2, H-3 Nonimmigrants
Public Comments
DHS Response
Public Comments
DHS Response
Legal Barriers:
Public Comments
DHS Response
Administrative Barriers:
Public Comments
DHS Response
Approval-Based:
Public Comments
DHS Response
Key Points
Employment authorization is for H-4 dependent spouses of H-1B visa holders who:
Policy Reasoning
DHS will consider further expansion but wants to take it slow and administratively feasible.
1. Employment Authorization for H-1B Nonimmigrants
2. H-4 Dependents not selected in the H-1B lottery
3. Dependents of other nonimmigrant categories
1. Displacement of U.S. Workers
2. Not Necessary
3. Impact on other immigration categories
4. Impact on Universities
The net effect on university enrollment is unknown, some say increased family income will lead to more educational spending.
1. Limit eligibility by skills or sectors
2. Reciprocal employment policies
3. Limit eligibility to AC21 extensions
Comments on DHS’s estimates
DHS Response:
Final estimate:
Comments on economic calculations:
DHS’s position:
1. Simplified filing process
Comments:
Comments:
DHS Response:
Comments:
DHS Updates:
Integration and workforce concerns:
What was asked:
DHS Response:
Why Form I-765 can’t be filed with Form I-140:
Premium Processing
What was asked:
DHS Response:
What was asked:
DHS Response:
Key comments:
DHS Response:
Proposed restrictions:
DHS Response:
Issue:
DHS Response:
Key issues:
DHS Safeguards:
EAD validity:
EAD renewals:
Simplified filing process:
No changes to H-1B program:
Public Comments:
DHS Response:
Key points:
Comments:
DHS Analysis:
Public Comments:
DHS Response:
Public Comments:
DHS Decision:
Key Points:
Current Backlog:
DHS estimates:
New Eligibility per Year:
Methodology:
Key Assumptions:
Applicant Costs
Costs:
Long-term Cost Projections:
Broader Economic and Social Benefits
Benefits:
Retention of high-skilled talent for economic growth, innovation and competitiveness.
1. Applicant Costs
H-4 dependent spouses applying for employment authorization will incur the following costs:
2. Total Costs
3. Renewals
1. U.S. Labor Market
2. Wider Impacts
1. Economic Benefits
2. Social Benefits
1. Alternatives Considered
DHS considered several options before finalizing the H-4 EAD program:
2. Final Eligibility Criteria
3. Regulatory Changes
1. Public Comments
2. DHS Response
Projected Outcomes and Long-Term Impact
Accordingly, DHS amends chapter I of title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 214—NONIMMIGRANT CLASSES
1. The authority citation for part 214 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1102, 1103, 1182, 1184, 1186a, 1187, 1221, 1281, 1282, 1301-1305 and 1372; sec. 643, Public Law 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009-708; Public Law 106-386, 114 Stat. 1477-1480; section 141 of the Compacts of Free Association with the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and with the Government of Palau, 48 U.S.C. 1901 note and 1931 note, respectively; 48 U.S.C. 1806; 8 CFR part 2.
2. Section 214.2 is amended by revising paragraph (h)(9)(iv) to read as follows:
Special requirements for admission, extension, and maintenance of status.
(iv) H-4 dependents. The spouse and children of an H nonimmigrant, if they are accompanying or following to join such H nonimmigrant in the United States, may be admitted, if otherwise admissible, as H-4 nonimmigrants for the same period of admission or extension as the principal spouse or parent.
H-4 nonimmigrant status does not confer eligibility for employment authorization incident to status. An H-4 nonimmigrant spouse of an H-1B nonimmigrant may be eligible for employment authorization only if the H-1B nonimmigrant is the beneficiary of an approved Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, or successor form, or the H-1B nonimmigrant’s period of stay in H-1B status is authorized in the United States under sections 106(a) and (b) of the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000 (AC21), Public Law 106-313, as amended by the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, Public Law 107-273 (2002).
To request employment authorization, an eligible H-4 nonimmigrant spouse must file an Application for Employment Authorization, or a successor form, in accordance with 8 CFR 274a.13 and the form instructions. If such Application for Employment Authorization is filed concurrently with another related benefit request(s), in accordance with and as permitted by form instructions, the 90-day period described in 8 CFR 274.13(d) will commence on the latest date that a concurrently filed related benefit request is approved.
An Application for Employment Authorization must be accompanied by documentary evidence establishing eligibility, including evidence of the spousal relationship and that the principal H-1B is the beneficiary of an approved Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker or has been provided H-1B status under sections 106(a) and (b) of AC21, as amended by the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, the H-1B beneficiary is currently in H-1B status, and the H-4 nonimmigrant spouse is currently in H-4 status.
PART 274a—CONTROL OF EMPLOYMENT OF ALIENS
3. The authority citation for part 274a continues to read as follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1324a; Title VII of Public Law 110-229; 48 U.S.C. 1806; 8 CFR part 2.
4. Section 274a.12 is amended by adding a new paragraph (c)(26), to read as follows:
Classes of aliens authorized to accept employment.
*
(c) *
(26) An H-4 nonimmigrant spouse of an H-1B nonimmigrant described as eligible for employment authorization in 8 CFR 214.2(h)(9)(iv).
*
5. Section 274a.13 is amended by revising the first sentence of paragraph (d), to read as follows:
Application for employment authorization.
*
(d) Interim employment authorization. USCIS will adjudicate the application within 90 days from the date of receipt of the application, except as described in 8 CFR 214.2(h)(9)(iv), and except in the case of an initial application for employment authorization under 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(8), which is governed by paragraph (a)(2) of this section, and 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(9) in so far as it is governed by 8 CFR 245.13(j) and 245.15(n). *
*
Jeh Charles Johnson, Secretary.
Regardless of what Trump does in 2025 on the H-4 EAD, there will likely be extensive litigation in federal courts. Becoming familiar with the history of the litigation will be helpful in understanding how future litigation may play out.
8/2/24 AILA Doc. No. 15052675. Business Immigration, H-1B & H-1B1 Specialty Occupation
August 2, 2024
The D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision awarding summary judgment to DHS, holding that Save Jobs USA had not meaningfully distinguished the case from binding precedent in Washington Alliance of Technology Workers v. DHS, in which the court held that the 2016 STEM Optional Practical Training (OPT) regulations were within DHS’s statutory authority to set the time and conditions of F-1 admission. The court reasoned that its recent decision in WashTech interpreted the INA to authorize immigration-related employment rules like the H-4 EAD rule, and that Save Jobs USA had made little effort to dispute that reading of WashTech. (Save Jobs USA v. DHS, et al., 8/2/24)
February 8, 2024
After SCOTUS denied cert. in Save Jobs USA v. DHS, et al., the plaintiffs appealed to the DC circuit court. AILA and AIC filed an amicus brief urging the circuit court to affirm the district court decision granting summary judgment.
The amici brief counters appellant’s argument that DHS does not have the authority to permit certain H-4 spouses to work by providing a detailed explanation of the shared congressional and executive responsibility in the INA that the executive followed for almost 35 years in authorizing work for certain categories of noncitizens and its subsequent ratification in 1986 when Congress explained that a noncitizen was “unauthorized” for purposes of the new employment verification provisions if not “authorized to be so employed by this Act or by the Attorney General.” 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(h)(3)(B).
October 30, 2023
The U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment, leaving in place the March 2023 ruling from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granting summary judgment in favor of DHS. Justice Kavanaugh took no part in the consideration or decision of the petition. (Save Jobs USA v. DHS, et al., 10/30/23)
March 28, 2023
Judge Tanya S. Chutkan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted DHS’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that DHS possessed the requisite statutory authority to issue the H-4 EAD rule, and that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that the H-4 EAD rule was arbitrary and capricious. (Save Jobs USA v. DHS, et al., 3/28/23)
April 2, 2021
On April 2, 2021, Save Jobs USA filed its second renewed motion for summary judgment in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The updated court schedule is provided below:
May 3 – Defendant’s combined opposition and cross-motion
May 17 – Intervenor’s combined opposition and cross-motion
May 31 – Plaintiff’s combined oppositions and replies
June 14 – Defendant’s reply
June 28 – Intervenor’s reply
February 2, 2021
In light of recent executive and administrative actions, on February 2, 2021, Judge Chutkan ordered a joint status report due by March 5, 2021, advising the court: 1) whether the current dispute has been mooted or the parties anticipate that it will be mooted; 2) whether the parties wish to stay this action for any reason, including the parties’ negotiations over resolving this dispute; or 3) whether the parties agree that this litigation should continue as anticipated pursuant to the federal rules, local rules or a scheduling order.
October 5, 2020
On October 5, 2020, the parties provided a joint status report to the court. In the joint status report, DHS stated “[A]lthough DHS formally submitted the proposed rule, titled Removing H-4 Dependent Spouses from the Class of Aliens Eligible for Employment Authorization (“H-4 EAD proposed rule”) to both the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) and Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (“OIRA”) for review under Executive Order 12866 on February 20, 2019, this proposed rule is still in the same stage due to urgent competing priorities that have arisen during the COVID-19 pandemic.”
Save Jobs asked to move promptly for summary judgment. Immigration Voice (Intervenors) asked for a stay until after the Presidential election.
November 8, 2019
The court reversed the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia’s 2016 grant of summary judgment in favor of DHS, concluding that Save Jobs USA had demonstrated that DHS’s H-4 EAD rule would subject its members to an actual or imminent increase in competition, and that it therefore has standing to pursue its challenge. (Save Jobs USA v. DHS, 11/8/19)
September 16, 2019
In a letter to the court, DHS states that,
“The proposed rule is currently undergoing the interagency process as required by Executive Order 12866. As previously indicated, DHS’s intention to proceed with publication of the H-4 EAD proposed rule remains unchanged. At this point, DHS has informed counsel that it believes the earliest possible publication date for that rule would be in spring 2020. Although that timeframe is aspirational, DHS believes that the September 27, 2019 oral argument should be removed from the calendar and postponed and DHS ordered to provide status updates in accordance with a schedule the Court deems appropriate.” (emphasis added)
In a response to order to show cause, Save Jobs USA argued that the appeal should move forward and that the court should hold oral argument as scheduled.
Immigration Voice, Sudarshana Sengupta, and Anuj Dhamija, submitted a letter, arguing that “based on prudential considerations and in the interest of judicial economy the oral argument should be removed from the argument calendar and indefinitely postponed.”
March 13, 2019
On March 13, 2019, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals granted the appellee’s consent motion for a 14-day enlargement of all parties’ briefing deadlines. The following revised briefing schedule will now apply in this case:
(Save Jobs USA v. DHS, 3/13/19)
January 23 , 2019
On January 23, 2019, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals granted the appellee’s motion for an enlargement of all parties’ briefing deadlines. The following revised briefing schedule will now apply in this case:
(Save Jobs USA v. DHS, 1/23/19)
December 17 , 2018
On December 17, 2018, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals granted a motion to intervene that Immigration Voice, a non-profit organization, filed with the court in March 2017. The court also ordered the case to be removed from abeyance and directed the clerk to enter a briefing schedule. The following briefing schedule will apply in this case:
(Save Jobs USA v. DHS, 12/17/18)
September 21, 2018
DHS submitted a status report in the case, which is still being held in abeyance. The status report indicates that DHS’s intention to proceed with publication of an NPRM concerning the H-4 EAD Rule remains unchanged and that DHS continues to proceed in line with that intention. Since the filing of the status report on 8/20/18, DHS senior leadership has reviewed the proposed rule and returned it to USCIS this month for revisions. When the necessary revisions are incorporated, USCIS will return the proposed rule to DHS for final clearance and submission to OMB. DHS anticipates that the rule will be submitted to OMB within three months. (Save Jobs USA v. DHS, 9/21/18)
August 20, 2018
DHS submitted a status report in the case, which is still being held in abeyance. The status report indicated that final DHS clearance of the proposed rule to remove from regulations certain H-4 spouses of H-1B nonimmigrants as a class of noncitizens eligible for employment authorization is ongoing. Senior levels of DHS leadership are actively considering the terms of the proposed rule for approval. Once it is cleared through DHS, it will be sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. (Save Jobs USA v. DHS, 8/20/18)
May 22, 2018
DHS submitted a status report in the case, which is still being held in abeyance. The status report indicated that the proposed rule to remove from regulations certain H-4 spouses of H-1B nonimmigrants as a class of noncitizens eligible for employment authorization is currently in final DHS clearance. Once it is cleared through DHS, it will be sent to the Office of Management and Budget for review. (Save Jobs USA v. DHS, 5/22/18)
February 28, 2018
DHS submitted a status report in the case, which is still being held in abeyance. The status report indicated that DHS intends to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to remove from its regulations certain H-4 spouses of H-1B nonimmigrants as a class of noncitizens eligible for employment authorization by June 2018. (Save Jobs USA v. DHS, 2/28/18)
According to USCIS data, 104,750 H-4 spouses have received employment authorization under the current H-4 employment authorization rule, which was published at 80 FR 10284 on 2/25/15.
November 17, 2017
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals granted the government’s motion to hold proceedings in abeyance pending further order of the court and denied the motion to reschedule briefing and oral argument. Parties were directed to file motions to govern further proceedings by January 2, 2018.
September 27, 2017
DHS filed a motion to hold proceedings in abeyance through December 31, 2017. (Save Jobs USA v. DHS, 9/27/17)
September 20, 2017
Save Jobs USA filed a motion to reschedule briefing and oral argument.
June 23, 2017
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals granted the government’s motion to hold the proceedings in abeyance and denied the motion to reschedule briefing and oral argument. Parties were directed to file motions to govern further proceedings by September 27, 2017.
April 3, 2017
The government filed a motion with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals requesting that the court hold the proceedings in abeyance for 180 days, up to and including September 27, 2017, to permit DHS to reconsider the H-4 EAD rule and whether it should revise the rule through notice-and-comment rulemaking. (Save Jobs USA v. DHS, 4/3/17)
September 27, 2016
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment in favor of DHS, holding that Save Jobs USA lacked Article III standing to challenge DHS’s H-4 EAD rule.
May 24, 2015
Memorandum opinion denying Save Jobs motion, finding that Save Jobs failed to show it would suffer irreparable harm absent preliminary relief.
April 23, 2015
A group of tech workers formed by Americans who were employed at Southern California Edison, filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief and a motion for preliminary injunction staying the implementation of USCIS’s final rule on employment authorization for certain H-4 dependent spouses.
H-4 EAD General Questions
Legal and Preparatory Steps
Work and Employment Issues
Family and Personal Issues
Policy Questions
Long term Immigration Strategies
Special Cases
If you are on H-4, navigating work authorization and preparing for potential changes under a Trump administration requires expertise. Herman Legal Group has the experience and personal attention to help you understand your rights, H-4 EAD options and alternative paths to work authorization.
With a history of advocating for immigrants through changing regulations, their team will provide you with current and customized legal strategies for your situation. By working with Herman Legal Group you will feel at ease and have a plan for your professional and personal life in the US.
Related Resources
24/7 Support, Just A Call Away!
With President Trump’s return to office and inauguration scheduled for January 20, 2025, international students, recent graduates, and U.S. employers face the most sweeping immigration-policy shift since 2017. The incoming Trump administration, following the recent election, is set to implement these significant changes.
A new presidential proclamation imposing a $100,000 payment requirement for H-1B petitions, coupled with the revived proposal to end “duration of status” (D/S) for F-1 and J-1 students, signals a dramatic tightening of student and worker pathways as the administration enacts new immigration policies.
At the same time, visa-interview delays and administrative processing backlogs are worsening worldwide.
International students are increasingly worried, with fears and visa concerns about the implications of proposed visa durations that would limit their stay based on their course of study. Additionally, students from countries with visa overstay rates over 10 percent may also only receive two-year visas, reflecting potential changes under Trump’s proposals.
This comprehensive guide breaks down every major change—complete with embedded official sources—so you can navigate 2025 and beyond.
New H-1B $100,000 Payment Proclamation took effect September 21, 2025, requiring the payment for new petitions filed from outside the U.S. and directing USCIS and DHS to restrict adjudications for twelve months.
H-1B Modernization Rule (finalized December 2024, effective January 17, 2025) tightens selection integrity and adds RFE-triggering criteria under the Federal Register final rule.
Proposed Rule to End D/S (August 2025) would limit F-1 and J-1 stays to program length (max four years) with extensions via USCIS Form I-539.
Visa Appointment Backlogs persist across consulates according to the State Department wait-time tracker.
The State Department introduced a policy requiring visa applicants, including F1 students, to provide five years of social media usernames as part of their application.
On September 21, 2025, President Trump issued a Presidential Proclamation entitled “Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers.” It requires a $100,000 payment for each new H-1B petition filed on behalf of workers outside the United States.
Scope: Applies only to new H-1B petitions with beneficiaries physically outside the U.S. at the time of filing. In-country change-of-status petitions are currently exempt.
Effective date: 12:01 a.m. EDT on September 21, 2025.
Enforcement: The Department of Homeland Security is directed to restrict decisions on non-compliant petitions for 12 months.
Purpose: Framed as a “foreign worker revenue offset,” it purports to “protect American jobs” and is part of a broader strategy aimed at limiting entry of foreign workers and students.
Economic and legal experts warn that the payment is essentially a barrier fee, likely to push employers toward in-country hires, O-1 and EB-1A/NIW alternatives, and even offshoring arrangements. Advocacy groups, including academic associations and organizations supporting international students, have already filed lawsuits challenging the measure’s legality and the underlying laws and legal process. Additionally, international students from countries designated as state sponsors of terrorism would only be eligible for two-year visas under the proposed rule. International students contribute significantly to the financial sustainability of U.S. universities through tuition fees, making these policy changes a concern for higher education institutions.
The final rule titled “Modernizing H-1B Requirements, Providing Flexibility in the F-1 Program and Program Improvements” was published in the Federal Register on December 18, 2024, taking effect January 17, 2025. The rule:
Introduces beneficiary-centric selection to reduce multiple registrations.
Adds documentation requirements for third-party placements and off-site employment.
Tightens definitions of “specialty occupation.”
Creates limited flexibility for F-1 students to transition to H-1B status without gaps when registration is pending.
These changes to student visa rules may increase scrutiny and affect international students’ ability to transition from F-1 to H-1B status, reflecting a broader shift in the regulatory environment for visa eligibility and processing.
A subsequent [Notice of Proposed Rulemaking] on the Federal Register Public-Inspection desk signals further restrictions, including higher fees, re-tiered wage requirements, and possible caps on third-party placements. Industry observers expect finalization by mid-2026.
For context and analysis, see USCIS H-1B alert and Forbes reporting.
In August 2025, the Department of Homeland Security revived a controversial rule first floated in 2020 that would replace open-ended “duration of status” with a fixed stay system. The Department of Homeland Security proposed a rule in 2025 to eliminate D/S and impose a fixed stay of two or four years on F1 visas, depending on the country of origin or program, capping stays regardless of program length.
According to the official Federal Register notice and SEVP announcement, the proposal would:
Admit F-1 and J-1 nonimmigrants for the program end date plus a 30-day grace period.
Impose a maximum stay of two or four years (extendable for longer degrees or research).
Require students needing extra time to file an extension of stay with USCIS using Form I-539.
Expand reporting duties for Designated School Officials (DSOs).
These changes could significantly impact international students ability to complete their studies and remain in the U.S., especially for those in longer academic programs.
Critics say the rule would create unnecessary filings, fees, and gaps for doctoral students and researchers. Universities and advocates are preparing formal comments and potential litigation. The Department of Homeland Security has received significant public opposition to proposed changes affecting the duration of student visas, reflecting widespread concern over the potential impact on many international students and academic institutions.
Despite State Department efforts, wait times for student and work visa appointments remain significantly higher than pre-pandemic levels. The official Visa Wait-Time Tracker shows:
F-1 and J-1 appointments exceed 60 days in some high-volume posts.
H-1B interviews average 4–10 weeks depending on post and security clearances.
Applicants in STEM fields frequently face additional background checks under “Administrative Processing.”
The State Department’s Global Methodology page confirms these figures are updated monthly.
Practical tips:
Schedule early and check the portal daily for openings.
Bring research summaries and curricula vitae for STEM reviews.
Consult your DSO before traveling if your visa foil has expired.
Under current rules, F-1 students may apply for 12 months of OPT, with STEM graduates eligible for a 24-month extension. International scholars in STEM fields, including those pursuing science and technology, are vital to U.S. research and innovation. Policy changes may significantly impact students and scholars in science and technology areas, potentially affecting the nation’s ability to attract and retain global academic talent. Key resources: USCIS OPT page, Study in the States OPT overview, and Form I-983 training plan guide.
Trump’s “Buy American, Hire American” agenda is expected to revisit OPT limits and require employers to prove they aren’t displacing U.S. workers. Students should keep meticulous records of training plans and supervision.
The new $100,000 payment combined with stricter eligibility will likely drive denials and Requests for Evidence (RFEs) back to Trump 2017-era levels. Employers should review the USCIS H-1B hub for updated criteria and filing timelines.
Alternate routes—O-1, E-3, H-1B1, and EB-2 NIW—are increasingly valuable hedges for high-skill workers.
Replacing D/S with fixed stays means PhD students and long research projects will need to file extensions to remain lawfully in status. Universities should create advising protocols and reminders to avoid lapses.
Maintain Status: Enroll full-time; keep I-20 updated; report address changes to your DSO within 10 days. Use CBP I-94 tool to verify records.
File OPT Early: Apply up to 90 days before program completion. Track your EAD case on USCIS Case Status.
STEM Extension: Confirm E-Verify employer status and submit Form I-983 on time.
Travel Cautiously: Carry DSO travel signature, funding proof, and transcripts; check visa validity before departure.
Stay Informed: Monitor Federal Register, Study in the States, and DHS updates.
Audit job descriptions for clear degree requirements matching “specialty occupation.”
Budget for potential $100k cost if petitioning from abroad.
File cap registrations through the USCIS Electronic Registration Process.
Prepare RFE-ready documentation (employer-employee relationship, client letters, project details).
Consult immigration counsel to identify alternative visa strategies.
Establish a fixed-stay tracking system to flag students approaching four-year limits.
Provide OPT/H-1B workshops each semester.
Coordinate with attorneys for emergency travel letters and waivers.
Offer financial aid or housing flexibility for students delayed by visa processing.
Emphasize the importance of international students in maintaining cultural and intellectual diversity on campuses. Universities stress that international students play a vital role in fostering diverse perspectives and enriching the academic environment.
Will the $100,000 payment apply to all H-1B petitions?
No—only new petitions for beneficiaries outside the U.S. filed on or after Sept 21, 2025, per the White House Proclamation.
Is the D/S change final?
Not yet. It’s a proposed rule open for public comment as of October 2025. See the Federal Register docket.
Why are visa interview appointments so delayed?
Limited staffing and high demand. Monitor the Visa Wait-Time Tracker and apply for expedite if your program start date is near.
How will OPT and STEM OPT be affected?
Expect more employer verification and possible duration reductions under a “Hire American” policy. Follow USCIS OPT and Study in the States for updates.
What happens if my F-1 visa expires?
If you stay enrolled and in valid status, your visa can expire while you remain in the U.S., but you must renew it before reentry. Check State Department visa renewal guidance.
Trump’s second-term agenda—marked by a $100,000 H-1B payment, an attempt to end D/S, and a renewed focus on “security-based” vetting—will test the resilience of America’s international-education system. Students, employers, and universities must stay alert, organized, and legally supported. There is a growing concern that Trump’s proposed immigration policies might diminish the number of international students in U.S. universities. Universities like Harvard and MIT have historically opposed restrictive immigration policies that threaten international students’ status, highlighting the critical role these students play in academia.
Stay informed, act early, and never let policy turbulence derail your goals.
1. What is an F-1 visa and who needs it?
The F-1 visa is a nonimmigrant student visa issued to international students who want to pursue full-time academic studies at a SEVP-certified and accredited university or U.S. school (college, university, high school, or language institute). Anyone whose primary purpose is study—not work or exchange—is required to hold F-1 status. Enrollment at an accredited university is essential for eligibility and for maintaining compliance with U.S. immigration and visa requirements.
2. What are the basic eligibility requirements for an F-1 visa?
Applicants must have:
A Form I-20 issued by a SEVP-certified and accredited university or school.
Proof of sufficient financial resources to cover tuition and living expenses.
Evidence of strong ties to their home country and intent to return after studies.
A record of academic preparation suitable for the chosen program.
3. Can I bring my spouse or children?
Yes. Dependents enter on F-2 visas. They may study part-time but cannot work. Proof of additional financial support for dependents is required before the I-20 is issued. This process is part of family reunification, a legal pathway that allows families to stay together in the U.S. while the primary student completes their studies.
4. What are “high-risk countries” for student visas?
Applicants from countries with high visa-overstay rates or security concerns face stricter scrutiny and longer processing times. For example, students from China have sometimes faced additional scrutiny due to geopolitical factors, and the Muslim Ban previously targeted predominantly Muslim countries for extra restrictions. Proper documentation and early application are critical.
5. What are the biggest changes F-1 students should watch in 2025?
Potential replacement of D/S with fixed stays.
Enforcement of the $100,000 H-1B payment for overseas petitions.
Possible OPT and STEM OPT reforms under new DHS rules.
Persistent consular delays and security screenings for STEM fields.
Changes to student visa rules may occur depending on actions by the new administration or a return of the Trump administration, which could impact visa eligibility, processing times, and policy direction.
Many international students are worried about visa concerns, including possible changes to student visa rules, renewals, and their ability to stay and work in the U.S. after graduation. These worries are heightened by uncertainties under the Trump administration or a new administration. Fortunately, various groups—such as advocacy organizations, academic institutions, and professional associations—actively support international students, provide resources, and advocate for fair policies.
If you’re an international student, recent graduate, or professional facing uncertainty about your F-1 visa, F-1 status, OPT/STEM OPT, or the complex H-1B transition, don’t navigate this alone. The 2025 landscape of immigration law is shifting fast — from the proposed end of duration of status (D/S) to the $100,000 H-1B proclamation — and every decision you make today can determine your future opportunities in the United States.
This is where Attorney Richard T. Herman can make the difference.
For over 30 years, Richard T. Herman has helped thousands of students, professionals, and families secure their U.S. immigration status with precision, strategy, and heart. As the founder of Herman Legal Group, and co-author of Immigrant, Inc. — a celebrated book on how immigrants power America’s economy — Richard brings both legal mastery and moral conviction to every case. He’s not just an immigration lawyer; he’s an advocate for the transformative role immigrants play in revitalizing communities and innovation.
When you work with Herman Legal Group, you get:
Every student’s journey is different — but every success starts with clarity and preparation. Whether you’re applying for your first F-1 visa, renewing your status, or exploring your post-graduation work options, the right legal advice can protect your status, your career, and your future.
👉 Schedule your confidential consultation today to discuss your case directly with Richard T. Herman and his multilingual team. Let us help you build a roadmap to success — and keep your American dream alive.
📍 Herman Legal Group – The Law Firm for Immigrants
🌐 Book Your Consultation
📖 Read “Immigrant, Inc.” by Richard T. Herman and Robert L. Smith — available on Amazon
Don’t wait for policy changes to define your future. Define it yourself — with the right lawyer by your side.
Lawsuit Against Trump H1B Fee $100000: Challenging the Increase
How Prepare For USCIS Site Visit — Whether You Are an Employee or Employer
· Trump’s War on H-1B in 2025-2026: A Comprehensive Analysis
Trump’s H-1B Entry Ban & $100,000: President’s New Fee Requirement and What You Need to Know
Economic Impact of Trump H1B $100000 Filing Fee: Analyzing the New Policy
Trump Proposes New H1B Rule Favoring Highly Skilled, Highly Paid in 2026
Top Questions Trump $100,000 H1B Fee: 10 Answers (and Unanswered)
L1 Visa Good Alternative to H1B and $100,000 Filing Fee: Is the L-1A/B Intra-Company Transfer Visa the Best Choice?Form H-1B to Marriage Green Card
The H-1B to Green Card Transition Through PERM Labor CertificationEverything You Need To Know About H-1B Myths vs Facts
Our Clients Success Stories
1. Official U.S. Government Resources
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
The USCIS oversees F-1 visa employment benefits such as OPT, STEM OPT extensions, change of status, and H-1B transitions.
F-1 Student Visa Overview (USCIS) – Guidance on student status and eligibility.
OPT: Optional Practical Training for F-1 Students – Official instructions for filing Form I-765 for work authorization.
STEM OPT Extension Information – Full details on the 24-month STEM extension requirements.
Form I-539: Extend or Change Nonimmigrant Status – Used for status extensions or changes from F-1 to another category.
Form I-765 Application Guide – Step-by-step filing instructions and EAD card tracking.
H-1B Specialty Occupation Visa Portal – Overview of employment pathways after OPT.
U.S. Department of State (DOS)
The State Department handles visa issuance and consular interviews for international students abroad.
Student Visa Overview (State Department) – Core guide to F-1 and M-1 visas.
U.S. Embassy and Consulate Finder – Locate your nearest U.S. visa-issuing post.
Visa Appointment Wait Times – Real-time processing updates by consulate.
Administrative Processing FAQs – Understanding delays after interviews.
Nonimmigrant Visa Application (Form DS-160) – Official online application portal.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
The DHS oversees the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), which governs F-1 and J-1 compliance.
DHS Study in the States – Central hub for students and schools on maintaining lawful F-1 status.
F-1 Student Compliance Guide – How to remain in status during study.
Form I-901 SEVIS Fee Payment – Mandatory payment portal before visa interviews.
DHS SEVP Policy Guidance Library – Official updates for DSOs and schools.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
CBP manages student entry, inspection, and travel history.
CBP I-94 Arrival/Departure Record – Retrieve or correct your I-94 record after arrival.
U.S. Ports of Entry Directory – Find the designated port for your arrival and reentry.
CBP International Student Travel Guidance – Checklist for documents needed at the border.
U.S. Department of Education (ED)
Accredited Postsecondary Institutions Database – Verify that your school is accredited and SEVP-certified before applying for an F-1 visa.
Federal Student Aid for Noncitizens – Overview of limited aid opportunities for F-1 students.
2. SEVP and School-Level Resources
SEVP-Certified School Lists
SEVP School Certification List (ICE) – Verify that your intended school is authorized to host F-1 and M-1 students.
Designated School Official (DSO) Support
Your DSO is the key point of contact for maintaining SEVIS records, authorizing CPT, OPT, and issuing travel signatures.
Understanding the DSO Role (Study in the States) – Responsibilities and student support functions.
Maintaining F-1 Status (SEVP Help Hub) – Student requirements for full-time enrollment and reporting.
3. Work Authorization: OPT, STEM OPT, and CPT
Optional Practical Training (OPT)
OPT Overview (Study in the States) – Everything about pre- and post-completion OPT.
USCIS OPT Filing Guide – Instructions and required documentation for OPT application.
OPT Case Status Tracker (USCIS)–Monitor EAD processing and delivery.
STEM OPT Extension
Form I-983 Training Plan Overview – Employer and student reporting requirements.
STEM OPT Reporting Requirements – How to remain compliant during your extension.
Curricular Practical Training (CPT)
CPT Overview (SEVIS Help Hub) – Learn eligibility and authorization procedures.
F-1 Employment Categories Summary – Comparison of on-campus, CPT, OPT, and STEM OPT work options.
4. Transitioning Beyond F-1: H-1B and Other Visa Pathways
H-1B Specialty Occupation Visa Overview (USCIS) – For OPT graduates entering U.S. employment.
H-1B Electronic Registration Guide – Step-by-step registration process.
Cap-Gap Extension Rules – Extend F-1 status and work authorization until H-1B starts.
O-1 Visa for Individuals with Extraordinary Ability – Alternative pathway for high-achieving students and researchers.
EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW) – Self-sponsored green card option for advanced-degree professionals.
5. Immigration Law, Policy, and Regulations
Federal Register – Daily publication of proposed and final rules affecting immigration policy (including D/S changes).
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): 8 CFR 214.2(f) – Legal foundation for F-1 student rules.
DHS Immigration Rule Announcements – DHS updates on visa policy and security vetting.
White House Presidential Actions – Track executive orders and proclamations that affect student visas.
6. Professional and Academic Associations
NAFSA: Association of International Educators
The leading professional association for international-education policy, advocacy, and training.
NAFSA Homepage – Policy leadership on student and scholar mobility.
NAFSA International Student Economic Value Tool – Data on the economic impact of international students.
NAFSA Policy and Advocacy Hub – Updates and actions on DHS and State Department rules.
AAIE (American Association of International Educators)
AAIE Resources for International Programs – Support for education leaders managing international student programs.
AACRAO (American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers)
AACRAO International Education Services – Guidance for admissions, transcript evaluation, and SEVIS management.
IIE (Institute of International Education)
Open Doors Report – Official statistics on international student mobility.
IIE Scholar Rescue Fund – Support for students and academics at risk.
AIRC (American International Recruitment Council)
AIRC Certified Agency List – Verified recruitment agencies for overseas applicants.
7. Compliance and SEVIS Reporting Tools
SEVP Portal – Students on OPT/STEM OPT use this portal to report employment, address, and contact changes.
ICE SEVIS Help Hub – Technical and procedural updates for students and DSOs.
FMJfee.com Payment Portal – Secure site to pay the I-901 SEVIS fee.
8. Legal and Policy Advocacy Resources
American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) – The national bar association for U.S. immigration lawyers, providing F-1 and OPT practice guidance.
National Immigration Forum – Research and advocacy on pro-immigration policies.
Migration Policy Institute (MPI) – Nonpartisan think tank analyzing U.S. student and work visa trends.
American Council on Education (ACE) – Advocates for internationalization in U.S. higher education.
9. Additional Educational and Career Resources
U.S. Department of Labor: Foreign Labor Certification Data Center – Understand prevailing wages and labor requirements for H-1B roles.
CareerOneStop for International Students – U.S. government resource for workforce preparation.
EducationUSA – U.S. State Department network with advising centers in 175+ countries to assist prospective students.
