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.
Richard T. Herman is the founder of Herman Legal Group, a nationally recognized immigration law firm representing immigrants, families, students, professionals, employers, asylum seekers, and permanent residents throughout the United States. For more than three decades, he has advised clients on immigration law, federal litigation, removal defense, business immigration, citizenship, family immigration, detention matters, and complex immigration policy developments.
To discuss your immigration case, schedule a consultation with Richard Herman or a Herman Legal Group attorney.
By Richard T. Herman, Esq.
Founder, Herman Legal Group
Many applicants are asking, Did USCIS walk back the I-485 memo? This question is crucial for understanding the current immigration landscape.
No, 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.
Did USCIS walk back the I-485 memo? If you only read one section of this article, read this:
Curious minds want to know—Did USCIS walk back the I-485 memo? It’s a pivotal question in immigration circles today.
USCIS Has Not Eliminated Adjustment of Status
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 Changed the Statute
Congress has not amended INA §245.
USCIS cannot rewrite the Immigration and Nationality Act through a memorandum.
USCIS May Be Applying Greater Discretionary Scrutiny
The biggest practical effect of PM-602-0199 may be increased emphasis on:
Attorneys Are Not Reporting Mass Denials
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.
Strong Cases Need Stronger Presentation
The future may belong to applicants who not only prove eligibility but also demonstrate why they deserve a favorable exercise of discretion.
On May 21, 2026, USCIS issued the USCIS policy memorandum, Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199:
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:
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:
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.
In the current debate, the question remains—Did USCIS walk back the I-485 memo? Understanding this will guide applicants in their journey.
For decades, adjustment of status has been one of the most important pathways to permanent residence.
It allows eligible individuals already inside the United States to obtain green cards without departing and risking:
The original USCIS announcement created the impression that adjustment had become a rare exception rather than a routine statutory pathway.
Many attorneys worried that:
Those concerns were amplified by media reports from Reuters, AP, the Washington Post, and others.
Reuters:
Associated Press:
https://apnews.com/article/8f64f9ada5c3f04e511a7b3cf43eaa13
Reflecting on recent events, we must consider—Did USCIS walk back the I-485 memo? An important discussion for future applicants.
The most important development may not have been the memo itself.
It may have been what happened afterward.
In reporting published by the New York Times on May 29, 2026, DHS officials reportedly clarified that the policy should not be interpreted as requiring every applicant to leave the United States and pursue consular processing.
Instead, officials emphasized that USCIS evaluates adjustment applications on a case by case basis, with individualized determinations and officer discretion.
The practical effect was significant.
The original public message sounded categorical.
The later explanation sounded discretionary.
Those are very different things.
If the policy is categorical:
If the policy is discretionary:
That distinction lies at the heart of the current controversy.
May 21–22, 2026.
USCIS issues PM-602-0199.
The agency announces adjustment will be granted only in extraordinary circumstances.
The immigration community reacts with alarm.
The days that follow.
AILA objects.
Employers object.
Universities object.
Immigration lawyers object.
Major media outlets report widespread concern.
Questions emerge about legality, implementation, and congressional intent.
AILA Resource Center:
By May 29, DHS appears to be signaling a more nuanced approach.
Media reporting suggests:
As we analyze these circumstances, one question persists: Did USCIS walk back the I-485 memo? It’s crucial for prospective applicants.
The practical implementation increasingly appears narrower than many initially feared.
This may be the most important section of this article.
Shortly after PM-602-0199 was issued, Richard Herman attended an adjustment interview.
During that interview, a USCIS officer acknowledged concerns generated by the memorandum.
The officer indicated that applicants should not automatically assume the most aggressive interpretation would govern every case.
One officer does not create agency policy.
But the comment is significant because it mirrors what attorneys around the country are reporting:
What lawyers are generally not seeing:
Instead, attorneys are seeing greater emphasis on discretionary review, with uscis officers appearing to weigh cases more individually during interviews and adjudications.
Based on practitioner discussions, webinars, attorney reports, and client experiences:
This is a very different reality from what many feared during the first days following the memo.
This remains one of the most fascinating questions.
After all:
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?
USCIS wanted to encourage more consular processing.
USCIS wanted officers to exercise discretion more aggressively.
The memo was intended as a deterrence signal.
Critics argue the practical effect was to create uncertainty and fear among immigrants, employers, students, and families across the immigration system, especially when deterrence messaging can influence whether applicants pursue adjustment or consular processing.
Whether that was the intended goal is ultimately a matter of interpretation.
What is not debatable is that the memo immediately changed behavior and generated widespread anxiety.
If discretion matters more, positive equities matter more.
Examples include:
Applicants should not assume USCIS will infer these positive factors supporting favorable discretion.
They should document them.
Well-documented positive discretionary factors can affect the discretionary balance.
Potential negative factors include:
A negative factor does not automatically result in denial.
But it should be addressed directly and strategically, because uscis officers apply discretion by weighing positive and negative factors when making the decision.
Marriage cases remain viable.
But documentation, consistency, and credibility are becoming increasingly important.
Relevant HLG Resources:
Marriage Green Card Guide:
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/marriage-green-card-2026-ohio-complete-guide/
Who Can File for a Marriage-Based Green Card?
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/who-can-file-for-a-marriage-based-green-card/
I-485 Marriage Adjustment Guide:
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/i-485-marriage-adjustment-steps-2026-guide/
Employment-based applicants often possess strong positive equities, including education, professional achievements, employer sponsorship, and economic benefit to the United States:
Maintaining lawful status or another valid nonimmigrant status can also strengthen the discretionary presentation in employment-based cases.
With all these developments, the query arises—Did USCIS walk back the I-485 memo? This remains a key concern for many.
But employment-based applicants should also be prepared to address:
International students remain anxious.
Many F-1 students are asking:
The answer depends on the facts, because a student’s underlying status and underlying nonimmigrant status can affect risk, travel strategy, and how a future adjustment case is viewed.
But there is currently no evidence that USCIS intends to categorically deny adjustment applications filed by students who are otherwise eligible.
Students in different status categories may need further guidance as USCIS clarifies how the memo applies in practice.
The memo is likely here to stay.
Practical application may become more moderate than the original announcement suggested. That softening may continue through public explanations, a policy memo reiterating existing law, or later updates rather than a formal withdrawal.
Expect more requests for evidence.
Applicants will need to prove more than eligibility by documenting positive discretionary factors such as immigration history, community involvement, and other favorable evidence.
Federal courts will likely become increasingly involved, alongside immigration court decisions and long standing immigration law that will shape the future debate over the memo.
The strongest cases will proactively demonstrate why discretion should be exercised favorably.
In conclusion, the central issue is: Did USCIS walk back the I-485 memo? This remains a pertinent topic for ongoing discussions.
No—USCIS has not retracted the policy memo.
Not formally, but many attorneys believe implementation is becoming more moderate than the initial announcement suggested. Questions like—Did USCIS walk back the I-485 memo?—are still common.
Yes—eligible applicants can still adjust status or file new cases, even though scrutiny is higher.
Yes.
Yes. Adjustment remains discretionary.
Generally no, but the question of whether Did USCIS walk back the I-485 memo? looms large amidst the changes.
No.
Family ties, employment, tax compliance, community contributions, education, rehabilitation, and hardship factors.
Criminal history, immigration violations, fraud, misrepresentation, credibility concerns, and public safety issues.
Continued interviews and approvals are happening; however, heightened scrutiny leaves many wondering, Did USCIS walk back the I-485 memo?
Continued interviews and approvals, but increased discretionary scrutiny.
Will USCIS Deny My I-485 Under the New Memo?
What Happens If Your Adjustment Is Denied?
Marriage Green Card 2026 Guide
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/marriage-green-card-2026-ohio-complete-guide/
I-485 Marriage Adjustment Guide
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/i-485-marriage-adjustment-steps-2026-guide/
USCIS Vetting and AI Hub
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/exploring-uscis-vetting-center-atlanta-ai-hub-2026/
USCIS PM-602-0199
USCIS Press Release
USCIS Policy Manual
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-1-part-e-chapter-8
Reuters
Associated Press
https://apnews.com/article/8f64f9ada5c3f04e511a7b3cf43eaa13
WBUR / Here & Now
https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2026/05/26/trump-green-card-rules
AILA Resource Center
Morgan Lewis Analysis
https://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/2026/05/uscis-issues-new-policy-memorandum-on-adjustment-of-status
The memo has not been withdrawn.
The law has not changed.
But the government’s explanation of the memo appears to have changed.
The story today is not whether PM-602-0199 exists.
The story is whether USCIS is quietly implementing it far more narrowly than the original announcement suggested.
For many applicants, adjustment of status remains available as a path to becoming lawful permanent residents.
The question is no longer simply whether you qualify.
Increasingly, the question may be whether your case is prepared, documented, and presented in a way that shows humanitarian considerations, addresses parole status issues where relevant, and supports why USCIS should exercise favorable discretion.
In light of recent developments, many are asking: Did USCIS walk back the I-485 memo? This question is becoming increasingly relevant.
If you are asking:
You should seek individualized legal advice before making strategic decisions. If you are in H-1B and L-1 or another dual intent situation, evaluate your underlying status before travel or strategy changes.
Herman Legal Group has been analyzing PM-602-0199 since the day it was issued, commenting on the policy in national media, representing clients at adjustment interviews, responding to RFEs and NOIDs, litigating immigration cases in federal court, and helping immigrants navigate rapidly changing USCIS policies.
If you are concerned about how PM-602-0199 may affect your green card case, schedule a consultation with Richard Herman or an experienced HLG immigration attorney.
People are increasingly concerned: Did USCIS walk back the I-485 memo? Consulting experts is vital for navigating these changes.
Call 1-800-808-4013 or schedule a consultation online today.
Make sure to address the question: Did USCIS walk back the I-485 memo? This could impact your immigration process significantly.
The strongest cases are usually built before USCIS raises concerns—not after.
Ultimately, stay informed about the question: Did USCIS walk back the I-485 memo? Knowledge is power when navigating immigration issues.
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.
Updated November 17, 2025 by Richard T. Herman, Immigration Attorney (30 + years experience), Co-Author of Immigrant, Inc.
The Trump-Vance administration has launched the most sweeping overhaul of skilled immigration in modern U.S. history, known as the Trump 2026 H-1B crackdown. H-1B workers, H-4 spouses, F-1 STEM OPT students, and U.S. employers are facing rising scrutiny, massive new fees (including a proposed $100,000 H-1B filing fee), stricter wage and degree rules, increased FDNS site visits, heightened social media screening, and new restrictions on remote work and third-party placement due to the Trump 2026 H-1B crackdown. The Trump 2026 H-1B crackdown is redefining the immigration landscape, significantly affecting how businesses operate and comply with regulations.
Ohio—home to Intel’s semiconductor mega-project, Cleveland Clinic’s medical research infrastructure, GE Aerospace, OSU, Case Western, Nationwide, and major manufacturing hubs—is among the states most affected.
If your family or business depends on H-1B, you must act now.
Schedule a confidential consultation with Richard T. Herman:
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/book-consultation/
In light of the Trump 2026 H-1B crackdown, industries heavily reliant on H-1B talent are particularly at risk.
Understanding the implications of the Trump 2026 H-1B crackdown is critical for employers looking to navigate this new regulatory environment effectively.
As industries adapt to the Trump 2026 H-1B crackdown, they will need to find innovative solutions to maintain growth amid tightening regulations.
When this article was originally published, it became one of the most widely read H-1B crisis guides in the country, reaching more than 40,000 readers. But in 2026, the situation has escalated dramatically due to the Trump 2026 H-1B crackdown.
The ongoing Trump 2026 H-1B crackdown challenges the traditional approach to immigration in the U.S., pushing for a reevaluation of skilled labor sources.
The Trump 2026 H-1B crackdown has caused many businesses to rethink their immigration strategies.
As the Trump 2026 H-1B crackdown unfolds, it’s essential for businesses to reassess their immigration strategies and prepare for possible changes in their workforce composition.
The Trump-Vance administration is aggressively rewriting the rules for:
The Trump 2026 H-1B crackdown has the potential to alter employer recruitment practices and lead to increased reliance on domestic talent.
This guide integrates:
This is the new authoritative H-1B article for 2026.
The administration has floated a $100,000 mandatory filing fee for each H-1B petition type—new, transfer, amendment, extension. This is the most radical fee proposal in U.S. immigration history.
HLG Analysis:
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/h1b-100000-fee-november-2025-project-2025-war-on-h1b/
Early drafts in Federal Register indicate potential pivot to:
HLG Overview:
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/h1b-visa-requirements/
Since late 2025, FDNS has escalated:
DOL H-1B Program Overview:
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/immigration/h1b
USCIS and DOS now routinely analyze:
Project 2025 outlines:
Reference (general):
https://www.nafsa.org
Reuters, Bloomberg, and Forbes all report that Vice President JD Vance supports:
Example link (Reuters immigration):
https://www.reuters.com
USCIS adjudication standards have tightened dramatically.
Common RFE triggers:
HLG RFE Guide:
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/request-for-evidence-h1b/
Changing employers is now high-risk because:
Expect scrutiny of:
F-1 STEM OPT workers face:
HLG F-1 Guide:
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/f1-visa-denial/
H-4 EAD may face:
If the principal H-1B loses:
H-4 status and EAD collapse immediately.
Employers face:
HLG Employer Compliance Guide:
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/h-1b-visa-guide-for-employers/
H-1B stress develops in four slow-burning psychological stages:
A constant hum of anxiety.
Checking immigration news before bed.
Wondering if a small policy update will uproot your life.
Years of waiting:
For PERM.
For I-140.
For priority dates.
For H-1B lottery results.
For extensions.
It drains people.
“Do we belong here?”
“Are we safe?”
“Is America still our home?”
Richard T. Herman Quote
“I’ve spent 30 years watching brilliant immigrants slowly break under the weight of uncertainty. Policy debates miss the human cost — fear becomes the background noise of their lives.”
Ohio faces a unique threat:
Unlike coastal tech hubs, Ohio lacks an oversupply of STEM workers.
Universities lose researchers.
Hospitals lose specialists.
Startups lose engineers.
Manufacturers lose designers.
Richard T. Herman Quote
“If the administration shrinks H-1Bs, Ohio loses twice — we lose the talent, and we lose the innovation that talent creates.”
Many employers aren’t anti-immigrant.
They’re afraid of compliance.
Richard T. Herman Quote
“When companies stop sponsoring, it’s rarely because they don’t value their global talent. It’s because they’re terrified of punishment for unintentional mistakes.”
Ohio families quietly prepare for the worst:
Richard T. Herman Quote
“When families tell me they sleep with their documents next to the bed, that’s not immigration policy — that’s trauma.”
MIT/Harvard research confirms immigrant inventors play an outsize role in medical, AI, and engineering breakthroughs.
National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) study:
https://nfap.com/research/new-nfap-policy-brief-immigrant-entrepreneurs-and-u-s-billion-dollar-companies/
These include:
Google, Tesla, Nvidia, Uber, Zoom, Instacart, SpaceX (major immigrant workforce).
ITIF report confirms fewer H-1Bs → fewer patents.
https://itif.org/publications/2025/01/13/h1b-visa-workers-contribute-number-issued-patents-united-states/
According to the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER):
https://www.nber.org/be/20242/immigrant-entrepreneurship-us
Immigrant entrepreneurs start:
Richard T. Herman Quote
“A country that shuts out talent shuts down its own future. You don’t feel the loss right away — you feel it when the innovations never come.”
ITIF research confirms high-skill jobs create 4.3 supporting local jobs:
https://www.itic.org/news-events/techwonk-blog/new-study-reaffirms-the-job-creating-potential-of-h1b-expansion
Examples:
Restricting H-1Bs shrinks whole ecosystems, not just single roles.
Ohio’s STEM, medical, and manufacturing economy depends more on H-1B talent than almost any other Midwestern state. This section is optimized for Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Dayton, Toledo, Akron, and Youngstown search traffic.
Cleveland’s world-class institutions rely heavily on H-1B workers:
Amid the Trump 2026 H-1B crackdown, Cleveland’s healthcare and engineering sectors are feeling the pressure.
Local Page:
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/immigration-lawyer-cleveland-ohio/
A reduction in H-1Bs would immediately destabilize Cleveland’s:
The impact of the Trump 2026 H-1B crackdown could lead to a significant reshaping of Cleveland’s medical and engineering sectors, necessitating proactive measures by institutions to retain talent.
Columbus is now one of America’s fastest-growing tech hubs because of:
The ramifications of the Trump 2026 H-1B crackdown extend beyond immediate compliance challenges.
Local Page:
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/immigration-lawyer-columbus-ohio/
H-1Bs are central to:
The ramifications of the Trump 2026 H-1B crackdown extend to various industries, emphasizing the need for strategic planning among employers in the region.
If H-1Bs dry up, Intel and OSU’s workforce pipelines collapse.
Cincinnati depends heavily on:
As Cincinnati grapples with the Trump 2026 H-1B crackdown, it is crucial for local businesses to innovate in ways that mitigate potential disruptions.
The Trump 2026 H-1B crackdown influences how Cincinnati maintains its competitive edge.
Local Page:
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/immigration-lawyer-cincinnati-ohio/
H-1Bs keep Cincinnati globally competitive in:
Dayton houses:
Local Page:
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/immigration-lawyer-dayton-ohio/
Dayton’s industry landscape is under threat due to the Trump 2026 H-1B crackdown.
Dayton’s industry landscape is changing due to the Trump 2026 H-1B crackdown, pushing employers to adapt quickly or face consequences.
H-1Bs contribute to:
These cities rely on:
Local Pages:
Akron — https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/#
Toledo — https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/immigration-lawyer-toledo-ohio/
Youngstown — https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/immigration-lawyer-youngstown-ohio/
A reduction in H-1Bs here means:
As the Trump 2026 H-1B crackdown continues to evolve, so too must the strategies of companies operating in Ohio’s competitive environment.
The Trump 2026 H-1B crackdown has broader implications for the economy.
These firms are well-known, high-volume, corporate immigration leaders:
Website: https://www.fragomen.com
Headquarters: New York, with global offices
Strengths: Corporate H-1B volume, multinational employers, compliance systems.
Limitations: Less personalized service; very high volume.
Website: https://www.bal.com
Headquarters: Texas
Strengths: Fortune 500 immigration vendor; strong tech-sector focus.
Limitations: Limited individualized case strategy.
Website: https://www.seyfarth.com
Headquarters: Chicago
Strengths: Big corporate compliance and employment-law experience.
Limitations: May not prioritize individual H-1B families.
Website: https://www.murthy.com
Headquarters: Baltimore
Strengths: Trusted national brand; strong H-1B and green card practice.
Limitations: Large volume; less Ohio-specific insight.
Website: https://cyrusmehta.com/
Strengths: Prestigious academic and legal thought leadership.
Limitations: More litigation/appeals focused; not Ohio-specific.
These firms have deep knowledge of Ohio’s USCIS patterns, local employers, and state-specific economic needs.
Website: https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com
Headquarters: Cleveland; serving all of Ohio
Strengths:
Website: https://www.chandralaw.com
Strengths: Civil rights + federal litigation with some immigration cross-work.
Limitations: Not a full-spectrum immigration practice.
Website: https://www.immlaw.com
Strengths: Ohio-based immigration focus.
Limitations: Smaller research/writing capacity for large-scale H-1B analysis.
Website: https://www.brown-immigration.com
Strengths: Removal defense + family immigration.
Limitations: Less corporate H-1B specialization.
A combination of fee increases, stricter rules, more denials, and new compliance requirements affecting H-1B workers, H-4 spouses, and employers.
It is under active policy review. Multiple drafts indicate serious movement.
STEM OPT students, Level 1/Level 2 wage workers, employers who cannot afford the new fees.
Yes. Restrictions or elimination attempts are likely.
Semiconductors, healthcare, research, defense, aerospace, manufacturing, fintech.
With the Trump 2026 H-1B crackdown looming, companies in Ohio must prepare for new challenges.
Yes, but the lottery will become more selective and employer sponsorship may drop.
High risk. Travel may cancel pending applications and trigger re-interviews.
The Trump 2026 H-1B crackdown will likely result in more stringent checks and balances for employers, making compliance more critical than ever.
USCIS may interview staff, inspect workplaces, and verify job duties.
Possible, but risky—USCIS is reviewing “bridge filings” more aggressively.
Yes. Third-party placement companies face the highest denial rates.
Yes, but requires precise LCA postings and documentation.
Absolutely. Level 1 RFEs and denials are skyrocketing.
Yes. Inconsistencies, political posts, or job-title differences may cause issues.
Given the Trump 2026 H-1B crackdown, social media activity will play a critical role in application evaluations.
He strongly supports reducing skilled immigration and H-1B usage.
It calls for restricting H-1B numbers and raising wage requirements.
Studies show each H-1B generates 2–5 additional American jobs.
Increase. High-skill immigration boosts productivity, which raises wages.
Amid the Trump 2026 H-1B crackdown, the importance of understanding the legal landscape cannot be overstated for both employers and employees.
Yes—over 25%.
Yes—twice the rate of U.S.-born founders.
AI, semiconductors, biotech, aerospace, cybersecurity, medical research.
Yes. Employers face fewer incentives to retain them.
60 days, but this may shrink under new rules.
Yes. Many now maintain documents, savings, and contingency travel plans.
Likely, due to reduced processing and higher scrutiny.
Yes—especially for remote/hybrid positions.
Yes, but only under qualifying fear-of-persecution grounds.
Yes—especially if transitioning from OPT to H-1B.
Highly recommended. Errors carry high liability.
Yes—extensive experience with specialty occupation, wage level, and employer-employee issues.
Not directly, but related enforcement overlaps may apply.
Yes—higher audits, more scrutiny of business necessity.
Severely—J-1 waivers, H-1Bs, and residency positions are under increased pressure.
Yes—job mobility is most stable after I-140 approval.
Only in cases involving fraud, criminal issues, or removal orders.
Likely 3–4 years unless reversed by court or new administration.
Fraud Detection and National Security—now much more aggressive.
Processing delays, RFEs, and interviews may increase.
With the Trump 2026 H-1B crackdown, families must navigate an uncertain future, making preparation and proactive planning essential.
Only if they have a valid EAD.
H-4 spouses are also affected by the Trump 2026 H-1B crackdown, which may change their employment eligibility.
Yes—Cleveland and Columbus are seeing extended processing times.
Accidental noncompliance → fines, investigations, or liability.
Yes—but with professional legal guidance.
Absolutely—2026 is a high-risk adjudication environment.
Understanding the Trump 2026 H-1B crackdown is essential for H-1B workers navigating this turbulent landscape.
Yes—HLG has successfully reversed many denials.
Yes—status loss can trigger removal proceedings.
Prepare documentation, maintain savings, get legal review, and consider backup plans.
As the Trump 2026 H-1B crackdown changes the immigration environment, families need to stay informed and prepared for evolving policies.
H-1B & Employment-Based Immigration
F-1 / OPT / STEM OPT
Schedule a Consultation
Ohio Local Pages (GEO-Optimized)
Innovation, Patents & Entrepreneurship
Job Multiplier Effect & H-1B Impact
Policy Analysis
Your immigration status, your family’s stability, your career, and your future in the United States deserve protection—especially in a year of the most dramatic changes to skilled immigration in decades.
For 30+ years, Richard T. Herman and the Herman Legal Group have helped tens of thousands of immigrants navigate:
Book a confidential consultation today:
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/book-consultation/
You are not alone.
Strong guidance now can protect everything you’ve built.
Lawsuit Against Trump H1B Fee $100000: Challenging the Increase
How Prepare For USCIS Site Visit — Whether You Are an Employee or Employer
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
Changing Jobs in Midstream: H-1B Portability
This ongoing situation, influenced by the Trump 2026 H-1B crackdown, requires vigilance and a robust understanding of immigration policies.
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. Core Agencies and Policy Hubs
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) — Central authority for H-1B petitions, policy updates, and case-status tools.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) — Oversees immigration enforcement and national policy frameworks under which USCIS operates.
Department of Labor (DOL) — Manages Labor Condition Applications (LCAs) and prevailing-wage determinations.
U.S. Department of State (DOS) — Handles H-1B visa issuance at U.S. embassies and consulates.
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) — Tracks regulatory agendas and pending immigration rulemakings.
White House – Presidential Actions — Official source for proclamations, including the September 2025 H-1B fee order.
Federal Register — Daily record of proposed and final rules affecting visa policy.
2. Key USCIS Pages for H-1B Practitioners
H-1B Specialty Occupations Overview
FY 2026 H-1B Cap Season Updates
H-1B Electronic Registration System
Forms I-129, I-539, I-765, and I-907 — Primary H-1B, H-4, EAD, and premium-processing forms.
USCIS Newsroom – Alerts & Updates — Press releases and emergency fee notices.
3. Department of Labor (DOL) Resources
Foreign Labor Application Gateway (FLAG) — Portal for filing LCAs and PERM applications.
Foreign Labor Certification Data Center — Source for prevailing-wage data and LCA statistics.
H-1B Program Compliance — Wage obligations, penalties, and public-access-file guidance.
Office of Foreign Labor Certification (OFLC) — Program policy, forms, and audit processes.
Wage and Hour Division (WHD) Enforcement Data — Audits and violations affecting H-1B employers.
4. Department of State (DOS) & Consular Affairs
Consular H-1B Visa Application Guidance
Visa Bulletin — Employment-based priority-date movement and backlog data.
Reciprocity and Fee Tables — Country-specific fee information.
5. Federal Data, Oversight, and Analysis Sources
U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) – Immigration Reports
Office of Inspector General (OIG) – DHS Audits — Oversight of USCIS adjudications and fraud prevention.
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) – Cost Analyses — Fee-rule cost-benefit analyses.
Professional Associations and Advocacy Groups
1. Legal and Practitioner Organizations
American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) — National professional body providing practice updates, litigation alerts, and advocacy.
Federal Bar Association Immigration Law Section — Continuing-education and legislative tracking.
American Bar Association – Immigration Commission — Policy and ethics resources.
2. Employer, Industry, and Tech Coalitions
ITServe Alliance — Represents IT staffing and consulting firms; active in litigation over third-party placement rules.
Compete America — Coalition advocating for high-skilled immigration reform.
TechNet — Policy network of technology executives monitoring H-1B and STEM-talent rules.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce – Global Migration Coalition — Engages in litigation and lobbying over visa restrictions.
National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) — Research organization publishing data-driven H-1B policy analyses.
3. Higher Education & Research Associations
NAFSA: Association of International Educators — Advises schools and international students on F-1 to H-1B transitions.
Association of American Universities (AAU) — Research-university advocacy on immigration and STEM workforce issues.
Council of Graduate Schools (CGS) — Reports on international enrollment and post-study work pathways.
Educause — Guidance on compliance for university-affiliated tech professionals and researchers.
4. Policy Think Tanks & Research Institutes
Migration Policy Institute (MPI) — Independent analysis of employment-based immigration reforms.
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) – Workforce & Technology
Litigation, Transparency, and Compliance Tools
PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) — Federal court filings for ongoing H-1B and APA litigation.
FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) Portal — File or track FOIA requests across USCIS, DOL, or DOS.
U.S. Courts Opinions Archive — Published immigration and employment-based visa decisions.
EEOC – National Origin Discrimination Guidance — Enforcement of anti-discrimination laws in recruitment of foreign workers.
Economic & Workforce Data Resources
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) — Wage data used for H-1B prevailing-wage calculations.
U.S. Census Bureau – ACS Data — Demographic and occupational data on immigrant professionals.
National Science Foundation (NSF) – Science & Engineering Indicators — STEM workforce trends and visa dependency metrics.
SelectUSA – Workforce Reports — Investment-and-talent mobility data relevant to visa-based hiring.
Monitoring 2025–2026 Rulemaking and Policy Developments
Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions — Track H-1B-related entries from DHS, DOL, and DOS.
Regulations.gov — Comment portal for proposed rules (e.g., H-1B wage-based selection or fee adjustments).
OIRA Regulatory Review Dashboard — Lists pending immigration rules under review.
Congress.gov – Immigration Bills Tracker — Legislative proposals related to H-1B and employment-based visas.
Federal Register – DHS/DOL Joint Notices — Proposed and final H-1B rules.
International and Comparative References
Government of Canada – Global Skills Strategy
President-elect Donald Trump has doubled down on one of his most outrageous campaign promises: deporting 15 million people, including some who are already naturalized U.S. citizens. While it may be virtually impossible to implement Trump’s grandiose ambitions due to the logistical and financial challenges of deporting millions, his administration will still devastate countless lives, including those who thought their citizenship was forever. This broadening of denaturalization efforts challenges the traditional understanding of citizenship’s permanence, raising concerns about the security of naturalized citizens and the extreme consequences for individuals and families who may suddenly face loss of citizenship and deportation.
Among the tools at their disposal is the obscure judicial process of denaturalization—revoking citizenship granted to immigrants—making naturalized Americans deportable. Historically, this process has been used sparingly, primarily in extreme cases involving national security threats or egregious fraud. One notable example is a denaturalization effort called Operation Second Look, launched under the Trump administration to investigate and potentially revoke citizenship from those suspected of obtaining it through fraud or misrepresentation.
Becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen is supposed to mean you get all the rights and protections of citizenship. But the Department of Justice (DOJ) can take that away if they can prove fraud or misrepresentation during the naturalization process. Historically, it was used sparingly and only in extreme cases, like targeting accused terrorists and individuals convicted of serious crimes such as terrorism, war crimes, or human rights violations—distinct from cases involving minor errors or bureaucratic issues.
Under the first Trump administration, this rarely used power is getting new attention, and what does it mean to be “truly American” and naturalized citizens are getting nervous.
This is a big expansion of immigration enforcement and has huge implications for immigrant communities and the entire legal system.
Most naturalized citizens will not be affected by Trump’s renewed efforts to denaturalize. However, critics warn that aggressive denaturalization policies create a chilling effect on naturalized citizens and may violate due process, leaving many feeling insecure about their status.
But those who naturalized by providing false material information (like not disclosing criminal history or obtaining citizenship under false identity) will be at greater risk.
An accused defendant in a denaturalization case is someone who has been formally charged with fraud or misrepresentation during the naturalization process.
Denaturalization is the legal process of taking away an individual’s U.S. citizenship. Established in 1906, this process allows the government to revoke citizenship if it was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, intentional omission, fraudulent omissions, or material omission that would have precluded naturalization.
This process allows authorities to strip citizenship from individuals who:
Denaturalization requires the government to prove an individual obtained citizenship by fraud or misrepresentation. Specifically:
Until the first Trump administration, naturalization was rare and historically targeted serious offenders like war crimes or terrorism.
But someone like Elon Musk, whom many have speculated about his immigration journey, including allegations of working illegally on a student visa, could theoretically be at risk of denaturalization if he illegally worked in the U.S. while on an F-1 student visa, if he intentionally lied about that work, and if that unlawful employment would have made him ineligible for his green card and therefore citizenship.
While denaturalization cases are few, the denaturalization efforts may be part of a broader strategy to scare immigrant communities and deter naturalization. Critics have also argued that the Trump administration’s aggressive denaturalization policies could be used as a tool for political intimidation against opponents.
There is also a risk that an overzealous investigation could result in innocent citizens being wrongly targeted for denaturalization.
Experts say a second Trump administration will double down on policies to reduce both legal and illegal immigration.
Trump investigators are expected to play a key role in identifying and pursuing denaturalization cases.
Federal authorities review visa and citizenship applications for inconsistencies, inaccuracies, or omissions. Investigations often focus on purported fraud in naturalization applications, where suspicions or allegations may arise even if not all discrepancies indicate actual fraud.
“Material” misstatements—those that if known would have prevented the applicant from becoming a citizen—are grounds for denaturalization.
Denaturalization cases are filed in federal court where the government must prove its claims. Unlike criminal cases, defendants do not have the right to appointed counsel, raising concerns among legal experts about the lack of due process protections in these civil matters.
It is important to note that not every discrepancy in an application is evidence of fraud or grounds for denaturalization. Minor errors or inconsistencies can occur without malicious intent.
If successful, citizenship is revoked and the individual reverts to their prior immigration status. In most cases, this makes them deportable, and a deportation order may be issued if the individual has no other legal status after denaturalization.
Under Trump’s plan, naturalized citizens are not exempt from the administration’s broader deportation plans. Trump administration officials, particularly Stephen Miller, have been saying they will use denaturalization to expand enforcement beyond undocumented immigrants, idealizing past immigration policies from the 1920s to emphasize a cultural element in defining true membership in America.
The administration is particularly focused on immigrants suspected of fraud or misrepresentation, targeting those whose citizenship status may be questioned due to concerns about the legitimacy of their naturalization process.
There are now hundreds of active denaturalization cases under review, reflecting the scale of current government investigations.
Stephen Miller, the architect of Trump’s immigration policies, has called for a “supercharged” denaturalization process. He says every inconsistency, no matter how small or unintentional, should be scrutinized to see if citizenship was granted improperly. Miller’s obsessive denaturalization campaign was a targeted effort to revoke the naturalized citizenship of certain immigrants, especially those suspected of fraud or misrepresentation, shaping stricter immigration policies and increasing the risk of deportation for many. His phrase “America is for Americans only” is a deeply exclusionary approach to immigration. Critics argue that denaturalization actions can be politicized, potentially using citizenship revocation as a tool against political opponents.
The effects of denaturalization go far beyond the individual who loses citizenship. The ripples impact families, communities and the very fabric of U.S. immigration policy.
Invalidating naturalization can have far-reaching effects on individuals and their families, often resulting in loss of rights, separation, and long-term uncertainty.
Even if you successfully defend your citizenship or even successfully defeat a denaturalization case, the process causes lasting harm:
As journalist Masha Gessen has written, a mass denaturalization campaign will create a system where immigrants live under constant suspicion, undermining trust in the U.S. immigration process and the American dream.
In June 2025, the Department of Justice secured the revocation of U.S. citizenship from a Louisiana man known as Duke, a convicted distributor of child sexual abuse material. This was a successful denaturalization case under the Trump administration. Prosecutors alleged that Duke fraudulently obtained naturalization by concealing his preexisting criminal behavior during the application process.
The federal court order, entered on June 13, 2025, marked one of the first successful denaturalizations under the Trump administration’s expanded policy (see DOJ press release). The case underscores DOJ’s focus on sex crimes as a priority category in the 2025 Civil Division memo.
In July 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the denaturalization of a former Bosnian soldier who concealed his role in wartime atrocities during his immigration process.
Similar cases have involved situations where a Palestinian guerrilla gained U.S. citizenship by concealing their militant background, illustrating the types of individuals targeted in denaturalization efforts.
The DOJ alleged the individual misrepresented his past participation in human rights abuses, including attacks on civilians, when applying for refugee status and later for U.S. citizenship.
On appeal, the court affirmed the revocation, concluding that the omissions were material and intentional (see DOJ appellate ruling announcement).
This ruling reinforced DOJ’s authority to target war crimes and genocide cases under its expanded 2025 enforcement priorities.
In late 2025, DOJ filed a civil denaturalization complaint against Moio Bartolini, alleging that he lied under oath during his naturalization interview and was never lawfully admitted as a permanent resident.
According to the filing, Bartolini provided false testimony and concealed material facts, rendering his citizenship “illegally procured” (see DOJ filing summary).
This case demonstrates the administration’s willingness to pursue interview-based misrepresentation cases, even without accompanying criminal charges.
The DOJ also filed multiple denaturalization complaints in Florida, Connecticut, and New Jersey against individuals accused of using false identities and concealing prior deportation orders when applying for citizenship.
In these cases, prosecutors allege that defendants assumed alternate names to bypass removal records and then naturalized under fraudulent identities.
These coordinated actions show DOJ’s renewed emphasis on fraud-based revocations and use of cross-state enforcement to expand case volume (see policy tracker overview).
Deportation hardliners within the administration have prioritized pursuing these types of cases.
All four cases reflect the “priority categories” established by the June 2025 DOJ memo, including sex offenses, fraud and misrepresentation, and human rights violations.
The Duke case is widely cited as the first major test of the policy, while the Bosnian case illustrates judicial deference to revocations involving grave international crimes. Legal observers note that courts remain skeptical of minor or procedural denaturalization efforts, upholding only material, proven frauds (see Washington Post analysis).
This marks a new denaturalization effort, with expanded priorities and a renewed focus on aggressively pursuing cases under the current administration.
Attorney Richard Herman: “Recent DOJ actions — including United States v. Duke, United States v. Bartolini, and a Bosnian war crimes case — reveal Trump’s 2025 strategy to expand denaturalization in categories like sex offenses, fraud, and human rights abuses. Courts have upheld revocations only when material fraud is proven.”
Reality:
The President cannot unilaterally revoke citizenship. Denaturalization is strictly governed by federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1451) and must go through federal court proceedings.
Even in denaturalization cases, the government must prove fraud or material misrepresentation with clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence.
Courts have consistently ruled — including in Afroyim v. Rusk and Maslenjak v. United States — that citizenship cannot be taken away lightly or for political reasons.
Reality:
The 2025 Executive Order 14160 sought to redefine birthright citizenship, but it cannot retroactively revoke citizenship already granted under the 14th Amendment.
The order’s implementation is being challenged in court, and federal judges have blocked its application pending review.
Existing U.S. citizens — whether born here or naturalized — remain protected under the Constitution.
Reality:
Despite the June 2025 DOJ memo calling denaturalization a “top priority,” large-scale revocations are not legally or logistically possible.
Each case requires individual proof, judicial review, and due process.
Historically, fewer than a dozen denaturalization judgments occurred annually; even with expanded enforcement, most experts expect only a modest increase.
Civil liberties groups note the policy’s deterrent symbolism, not mass revocation capability.
Reality:
Under the Supreme Court’s Maslenjak decision, only material misrepresentations — those that would have changed the outcome of naturalization — can lead to denaturalization.
Minor errors, omissions, or misunderstandings do not qualify.
The government must prove that an intentional deception occurred and that citizenship would have been denied had the truth been known.
Reality:
Natural-born citizens (those born on U.S. soil) cannot be denaturalized because they were never “naturalized.” This distinction ensures that denaturalization does not apply to native-born citizens, who are protected under the 14th Amendment.
They are protected under the 14th Amendment, and no executive or congressional act can revoke that status without violating constitutional law.
Any attempt to do so would face immediate and certain invalidation by the courts.
Reality:
It is a civil proceeding, not a criminal one.
That means no jail sentence, but also no automatic right to a court-appointed attorney.
The government must file suit in federal court, and the individual can contest the allegations, appeal rulings, and raise constitutional defenses.
Reality:
While the DOJ memo lists national security and war crimes among top categories, it also includes broad and vague categories like “fraud,” “misrepresentation,” and “other important cases.”
That flexibility could open doors for selective or politically motivated enforcement.
Civil rights groups warn the categories are so wide they could capture ordinary citizens, not just extreme cases.
Reality:
Yes — citizenship revocation restores prior immigration status.
A denaturalized individual reverts to their last lawful permanent resident (LPR) or nonimmigrant status.
If that status no longer exists or was obtained fraudulently, the individual may become removable (deportable).
However, each outcome depends on case-specific facts and can be contested in immigration court.
Reality:
While the DHS and DOJ have experimented with AI-based screening, algorithms cannot replace legal proof.
Every denaturalization case must still go through a court process and meet evidentiary standards.
AI tools may flag anomalies, but false positives or biased data would not satisfy constitutional due process.
Reality:
Political speech is constitutionally protected, even for naturalized citizens.
There is no lawful basis for denaturalizing someone over speech, protest, or dissent.
However, civil liberties advocates worry about chilling effects — that broad discretionary powers could intimidate immigrant voices or lead to selective targeting. Legal watchdogs are monitoring enforcement to ensure First Amendment protections are upheld.
Reality:
No. A denaturalization case begins with a formal complaint in federal court, and the citizen must be served, allowed to respond, and present evidence.
Judges, not agencies, issue denaturalization orders.
The process can take months or years, and every decision is appealable.
Reality:
As of late 2025, no new statute has been enacted expanding grounds for denaturalization.
Only Congress can change those laws — not the President or DOJ.
All existing cases still rely on 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a), which limits denaturalization to fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment in obtaining citizenship.
Any broader attempt would require legislation and judicial approval.
Reality:
Not necessarily. The DOJ memo allows retroactive review of any naturalization record, no matter how old.
That means even citizens naturalized decades ago could, in theory, be investigated — though practical and legal limits (such as stale evidence and fairness doctrines) make that rare.
Legal scholars emphasize that longtime citizens remain highly protected under precedent.
Reality:
Denaturalized individuals retain the right to appeal to federal appellate courts.
They can challenge the decision on evidence, procedure, or constitutional grounds.
Many cases are overturned because of government errors, lack of materiality, or due process violations.
Legal advocacy organizations often step in to provide representation and media visibility.
Reality:
Denaturalization has been used before — during the World War II and Cold War eras — but never on a systemic scale.
Trump’s second term marks the most visible effort since 1945 to formalize and prioritize citizenship revocation as an enforcement tool.
However, constitutional limits remain unchanged — meaning mass revocations are still legally improbable.
Reality:
Congress holds oversight and funding power, and federal courts hold final review authority.
Judges can block, delay, or strike down unconstitutional policies.
If the administration overreaches, courts can issue injunctions, as they did against EO 14160 on birthright citizenship.
Checks and balances remain fully operative.
Reality:
The plan’s rhetoric is broad, but the legal reality is narrow.
Only those who lied or concealed material facts during naturalization are legally vulnerable.
Still, critics argue that vague language about “protecting citizenship integrity” can stoke fear and confusion among immigrant communities.
Reality:
Not always. Some denaturalized individuals may still have valid underlying visas or LPR status.
Others may qualify for asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under CAT.
Each case must be individually adjudicated in immigration court.
Reality:
Not per se — the Supreme Court has upheld denaturalization if based on proven fraud or material misrepresentation.
However, selective, arbitrary, or politically motivated denaturalization would violate equal protection and due process.
Courts scrutinize these cases heavily to prevent abuse.
Reality:
Citizens can:
Richard Herman, Immigration Attorney: “Trump’s 2025 denaturalization agenda cannot override constitutional protections. Only courts can revoke citizenship — and only when the government proves fraud or material misrepresentation beyond doubt.”
Denaturalization raises the question: what does it mean to be American and is citizenship really permanent?
Citizenship has always been seen as a barrier to deportation and a sign of full membership in American society. This effort blows that firewall apart.
The Trump administration’s rhetoric ties Americanness to culture or race, just like the restrictive immigration policies of the early 20th century. Critics say this undermines the idea of America as a nation of immigrants.
Masha Gessen, a journalist and critic, says the denaturalization task force is telling naturalized citizens they are “second class citizens” living under a cloud of conditional acceptance.
Denaturalization has a long and uneven history in the United States. Historically, serving in foreign armed forces has been grounds for denaturalization, reflecting concerns about loyalty and national security. Understanding its past helps us understand the current threat to naturalized citizens.
Post 1967 Restrictions
21st Century: New Focus
Trump’s First Term: Operation Second Look
Biden Administration’s Response
On February 2, 2021 President Joe Biden signed an executive order to review and potentially reverse denaturalization. The order directed the attorney general and secretaries of state and homeland security to:
Advocacy and Reform
During Trump’s first term denaturalization efforts expanded big time with resources shifted to review old naturalization cases for fraud. This included high profile initiatives like Operation Janus and Operation Second Look to find cases where individuals may have hidden information during the naturalization process.
At this time, Trump investigators appeared primed to expand denaturalization efforts through new task forces.
In June 2018 USCIS Director L. Francis Cissna announced the creation of a denaturalization task force to investigate naturalized citizens. This was an expansion of Operation Janus, a long running program to target individuals who obtained citizenship fraudulently.
Trump’s first administration diverted resources from new immigration applications to old cases:
One example of denaturalization under the Trump administration is Norma Borgono, a 63 year old Peruvian grandmother living in Miami. She became a U.S. citizen in 2007 but was later implicated in a mail fraud scheme through her work. Although she cooperated with authorities and did house arrest, the DOJ said she failed to disclose the criminal activity during the naturalization process. That omission, according to the government, was fraud and made her citizenship invalid.
This case shows how far the administration is willing to go, focusing on past crimes or omissions even if they weren’t intentional or material to the naturalization process.
Previous administrations focused on national security and human rights cases. Trump’s administration expanded denaturalization to include crimes that occurred before naturalization but weren’t disclosed during the application process. This has a chilling effect on naturalized citizens.
Immigrant advocacy groups, including the ACLU, said the increased scrutiny would deter eligible green card holders from applying for citizenship, fearing retroactive investigations.
While the number of denaturalization cases is small, the human impact is big:
The Denaturalization Section was one of several controversial initiatives under the Trump administration’s broader anti-immigration agenda which included:
Denaturalization fit into this pattern by targeting naturalized citizens, a group previously considered secure in their immigration status.
In addition to denaturalization, Trump has promised to end birthright citizenship, a constitutional right under the 14th Amendment. This would undermine the legal foundation of citizenship for children born in the U.S., further destabilizing immigrant families.
Consequences
Denaturalization is just one piece of the Trump administration’s overall plan to reduce immigration. Other likely actions:
A smaller labor force could worsen existing shortages in healthcare, agriculture and construction
Denaturalization itself will not have a big demographic impact, but broader legal immigration restrictions will harm the economy by reducing labor force growth and slowing GDP.
Economic Impact
“Limiting both legal and undocumented immigration will slow overall economic growth and disrupt sectors that rely on immigrant labor.” – Robert Lynch, economics professor at Washington College
“Denaturalization not only affects individuals, but also raises significant legal and economic concerns for the broader community,” notes Steven Lubet, Williams Memorial Professor Emeritus at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law.
Fighting denaturalization is hard. The system is stacked against you. The government has the upper hand.
Unlike criminal cases, denaturalization cases do not provide legal representation. Many defendants, unaware of the legal process, can’t mount a proper defense and will lose their citizenship.
While the government must prove fraud, the complexity of immigration law leaves individuals vulnerable to accusations based on minor errors or omissions.
Legal fees to defend against denaturalization can be tens of thousands of dollars, out of reach for many.
The Supreme Court in 2017 in Maslenjak v. United States ruled that only lies or omissions that would have prevented naturalization at the time can justify denaturalization. This limits the government’s ability to strip immigrants of citizenship for minor mistakes. The Supreme Court limited the government’s ability to revoke citizenship by requiring proof of material fraud for denaturalization. Courts can be a check on overreach if they follow this standard.
Denaturalization, the process of revoking U.S. citizenship from naturalized citizens, has been rare. Between 1990 and 2017 an average of 11 cases were pursued annually. But under Trump, that number has skyrocketed with a big increase in government resources and the creation of new offices and initiatives. This guide explains the denaturalization process, the legal basis, recent developments and the implications for immigrants and the immigration system.
Denaturalization is the legal process of revoking a naturalized U.S. citizen’s citizenship. This can happen if the government proves the individual was not eligible for naturalization at the time it was granted or obtained citizenship through fraud or misrepresentation.
Denaturalization is governed by specific sections of U.S. law that outline when citizenship can be revoked:
Denaturalization—the revocation of U.S. citizenship—can be pursued in civil cases if the government proves the individual was not eligible for naturalization at the time it was granted. This page explains the legal grounds for civil denaturalization, the process and the key factors that can lead to citizenship revocation.
A. Illegal Procurement or Concealment and Willful Misrepresentation
A naturalized citizen can be denaturalized if:
These two often overlap as misrepresentation is often tied to illegally procured and invalid naturalization applications.
Example:
Joe immigrated as an unmarried child of a lawful permanent resident. But he was married before immigrating and didn’t disclose it. Since his marriage made him ineligible for his green card, Joe’s naturalization can be revoked.
B. Continuous Residence
Example:
An applicant lists their estranged spouse’s address as their own during the three-year marital period required for naturalization. If found out, this misrepresentation can be a ground for denaturalization.
C. Physical Presence
Example:
Lupe traveled to Mexico frequently but didn’t list absences that exceeded the allowed time. When these omissions were found out, her case was referred for denaturalization.
Example:
An individual committed a crime before obtaining naturalization, but wasn’t arrested until after becoming a citizen. Their failure to disclose this crime during the application process can lead to denaturalization.
E. Attachment to Constitutional Principles and Good Order
Example:
A naturalized citizen joins an organization hostile to the U.S. Constitution within five years of becoming a citizen. Unless there’s countervailing evidence, they can be denaturalized.
Legal Protections
Impacts on Immigrant Communities
Denaturalization, the process of revoking U.S. citizenship, has many legal grounds and processes. This guide covers concealment, willful misrepresentation, military service, Cold War-era provisions, and the denaturalization process, including defenses and court cases.
Grounds for Revocation
Naturalization can be revoked if:
The Supreme Court in U.S. v. Kungys said:
Four Requirements
To revoke citizenship for concealment or misrepresentation the government must:
Court Precedent: If a question during the naturalization process was ambiguous and the applicant’s answer was reasonable, it can’t be fraud or concealment.
Under INA § 329(a), non-citizens can naturalize through military service during wartime. But citizenship can be revoked if:
Constitutional Questions
Naturalization can be revoked if, within 10 years of naturalization, an individual:
This provision assumes the individual concealed material facts at the time of naturalization or didn’t have attachment to the Constitution. Though a relic of the Cold War, this provision is still on the books.
Constitutional Concerns
Step-by-Step Guide
Statutory Basis
18 U.S.C. § 1425 requires courts to revoke citizenship when an individual is convicted of:
Burden of Proof
Materiality Standard
A. Eligibility for Citizenship
B. Factual Challenges
C. Procedural Errors
Chilling Effect
Denaturalization could discourage eligible immigrants from applying for citizenship, fearing retroactive review of their applications.
Due Process
1. Causative Connection
The government must prove that the misrepresentation or concealment either:
Example: In Maslenjak v. United States, the Supreme Court held that the misrepresentation must have caused the individual to acquire citizenship. The Court said:
2. Burden of Proof
Important Cases
Rejected Defenses
1. Eligibility
2. Ambiguous Questions
3. Truthful Despite Misinterpretation
1. High Burden of Proof
2. Statute of Limitations
3. Procedural Errors
Equal Protection Claims
Important Cases
1. Consequences of Misrepresentation
2. Chilling Effect
3. Long-Term Consequences
This guide covers denaturalization, including limits of judicial discretion, administrative denaturalization, consequences of losing citizenship and derivatives such as children and spouses.
Courts Cannot Exercise Discretion to Refuse Denaturalization
Government Negligence Is Not a Defense
Limited Administrative Authority
Important Case: Xia v. Tillerson
Relation-Back Doctrine
Criminal Consequences
Derivatives Defined
Rules
Examples of Derivative Outcomes
Grounds for Revocation
|
Grounds for Revocation |
Living in the U.S.? |
Living Outside the U.S.? |
| Illegal Procurement | No loss of status | No loss of status |
| Concealment or Misrepresentation | Citizenship revoked | Citizenship revoked |
| Other Grounds (Military/Subversive Acts) | Retains citizenship | Citizenship revoked |
Protecting Citizenship
Impact on Family Members
Administrative Errors
The case of United States v. Abdulrahman Farhane is an important case related to denaturalization issue. This article breaks down the key events and implications of this big legal battle that affects naturalized citizens.
Background: Farhane’s Story
Legal Issues: Effective Counsel
Court Proceedings: Timeline
Initial Proceedings
What it means
For Naturalized Citizens
For Immigration Law
For Farhane and His Family
Denaturalization means the revocation of U.S. citizenship from a person who obtained it through naturalization — not birth. It can occur only when the government proves the person illegally or fraudulently procured citizenship, such as by willfully misrepresenting or concealing material facts. This differs from voluntary loss of citizenship (expatriation) or constitutional protections for those born in the United States, whose citizenship cannot be revoked by executive order.
In June 2025, the Department of Justice issued a memo from Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate directing that denaturalization become a top enforcement priority. The memo instructs prosecutors to “prioritize and maximally pursue” citizenship revocation wherever evidence supports it, adding new “priority categories” such as fraud, violent crime, human rights violations, and national security threats (see DOJ Civil Division memo). This directive significantly expanded the criteria for targeting naturalized citizens, marking a shift in enforcement priorities.
This expansion marks the broadest denaturalization initiative since World War II, reflecting a wider strategy to redefine “citizenship integrity” under Trump’s 2025 enforcement agenda.
The 2025 denaturalization policy was shaped by three deportation hardliners: Stephen Miller, Kristi Noem, and Tom Homan.
The 2025 DOJ memo lists several categories of cases for priority review, including:
Legal analysts note that this final category gives wide discretionary power to the administration (see Democracy Docket analysis).
Probably not. Although Trump’s DOJ has prioritized these cases, experts say mass denaturalization is not feasible. Each case requires individualized investigation, federal litigation, and clear, convincing evidence. Historically, the U.S. has averaged fewer than a dozen successful denaturalizations per year. Without major funding increases and expanded staff, this remains symbolic or deterrent rather than large-scale (see Washington Post report).
Denaturalization is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1451, which restricts revocations to cases involving fraud, concealment, or misrepresentation of a material fact. Courts also apply strict constitutional protections:
Legal scholars note these constitutional guardrails make widespread revocations highly unlikely (see legal overview).
Potentially — though such use would be unconstitutional. The memo’s vague “priority” language could enable selective enforcement, especially if prosecutors target politically active immigrants. Civil rights groups warn that the catch-all clause may be used to intimidate or punish critics of the administration (read Democracy Docket report).
However, First Amendment protections and judicial oversight mean citizenship cannot be revoked for political speech or protest. Any such attempt would almost certainly be blocked in federal court.
No. Only naturalized citizens can be denaturalized. The 14th Amendment protects those born on U.S. soil, and no president or agency can legally override that. While Executive Order 14160 sought to redefine birthright citizenship for future cases, it cannot retroactively apply to those already recognized as citizens (see EO summary).
Not unless the error was intentional and material. The Supreme Court ruled in Maslenjak that citizenship can’t be revoked for “innocent or immaterial” mistakes. For example, forgetting a middle name, misunderstanding a form question, or failing to recall a decades-old event does not qualify. The government must show that the true fact would have led USCIS to deny naturalization.
No. Because denaturalization is a civil proceeding, defendants are not guaranteed a free lawyer. They may hire private counsel or seek help from nonprofits or legal aid groups. This imbalance raises concerns about access to justice, since most defendants face the full power of DOJ without court-appointed counsel (see NACDL statement).
If a court revokes citizenship, the person reverts to their prior immigration status (such as permanent resident). If that status no longer exists — or was itself based on fraud — they may be placed in removal proceedings. Some may still qualify for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture depending on their situation.
Yes, though success is limited. There is no absolute statute of limitations on denaturalization, but courts often reject stale or unfairly delayed cases on equitable grounds. Evidence degradation, faded memories, or lack of notice can all make old cases legally vulnerable. Most analysts expect the DOJ to focus on recent or high-profile cases rather than distant ones.
Yes. In mid-2025, the DOJ successfully revoked the citizenship of a U.K.-born man convicted of pre-naturalization sex crimes, citing intentional concealment of a material fact. It was one of the first test cases under the expanded priority framework (see policy tracker summary).
Congress retains oversight and funding powers over DOJ. It could hold hearings, enact statutory clarifications, or attach budget riders limiting denaturalization initiatives. However, core citizenship protections stem from the Constitution, not statute — so congressional support is helpful but not strictly necessary to challenge unlawful actions.
Anyone facing denaturalization can:
Denaturalization orders are not final until all appeals are exhausted.
Yes. The Project 2025 policy blueprint, developed by conservative think tanks, proposes sweeping executive control over immigration and citizenship. Observers see the 2025 DOJ memo as an early implementation step of that broader agenda to tighten definitions of American identity and enforce “citizenship integrity” (read analysis by American Immigration Council).
Despite its rhetoric, Trump’s 2025 denaturalization push is likely to remain legally limited and symbolic. Courts, constitutional precedent, and practical barriers make mass revocations virtually impossible.
Still, advocates warn that even rare denaturalization cases can have a chilling effect on millions of naturalized Americans who fear their status could be questioned.
Trump’s 2025 denaturalization initiative directs DOJ to prioritize citizenship revocations in fraud and national security cases — but constitutional safeguards, high proof standards, and limited resources make mass revocations unlikely.
If you’ve begun to wonder whether something from your past — a forgotten form, an old arrest, a prior visa issue, or a mistake on your naturalization application — could now be used against you under Trump’s expanded denaturalization efforts, you are not alone. Thousands of naturalized citizens are quietly asking the same questions:
These are not hypothetical fears. The Department of Justice’s 2025 Civil Division memo has made denaturalization a top enforcement priority, directing attorneys to “maximize pursuit” of cases involving alleged fraud or concealment. But not every mistake is fraud — and only an experienced immigration lawyer can determine whether something in your file is truly “material” under the law.
That’s where Attorney Richard T. Herman can help.
With over 30 years of experience practicing U.S. immigration law nationwide, Richard Herman has defended countless immigrants, permanent residents, and naturalized citizens through every kind of legal challenge — from citizenship reviews and revocations to federal appeals and waivers. As co-author of Immigrant, Inc. and a nationally recognized advocate for immigrant rights, Herman has built his career around one principle: that America grows stronger when it welcomes, not worries, its new citizens.
When you schedule a consultation with Herman, you will receive:
No one should face uncertainty about their citizenship status alone. Denaturalization is complex, rare, and defensible — but only if you understand your risks and act early.
Contact Richard T. Herman today to schedule a personal consultation and secure the guidance you deserve.
👉 Book your consultation now: Schedule with Herman Legal Group or call 1-800-808-4013.
Richard Herman is more than an immigration lawyer — he’s a national voice for immigrant empowerment, a trusted media commentator, and an evangelist for the economic and community benefits of welcoming immigrants. If you value the life and identity you built in the United States, don’t leave your citizenship to chance.
Let Richard Herman help you understand your options, protect your status, and stand confidently as a U.S. citizen.
If you’re unsure whether Trump’s 2025 denaturalization policy could affect you, talk to Attorney Richard T. Herman — a 30-year immigration law veteran and co-author of Immigrant, Inc. — for a confidential, expert review of your case.
The Department of Justice Civil Division memo issued in June 2025 directed prosecutors to make denaturalization a top enforcement priority. It instructs attorneys to “maximize pursuit” of revocation cases based on fraud, misrepresentation, or criminal conduct — marking the broadest citizenship review program in decades.
A series of DOJ press releases in 2025 announced denaturalization filings involving terrorism, sex crimes, and fraud. These official case summaries reveal how the DOJ applies its expanded mandate under Trump’s second term.
The Office of Immigration Litigation (OIL) manages denaturalization lawsuits within DOJ’s Civil Division, coordinating litigation strategy and appellate defense.
Statutory authority comes from 8 U.S.C. § 1451, which permits citizenship revocation only if it was “illegally procured” or obtained by willful misrepresentation or concealment of material facts.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Maslenjak v. United States (2017) held that false statements must be material — meaning they would have changed the outcome of naturalization — before citizenship can be revoked.
For definitions of “material misrepresentation,” the USCIS Policy Manual provides the interpretive framework DOJ attorneys and adjudicators use when reviewing potential fraud or concealment.
Issued in January 2025, Executive Order 14160 — “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship” — sought to reinterpret birthright citizenship, underscoring the administration’s broader effort to tighten naturalization and citizenship eligibility.
The groundwork for this expansion traces back to the DOJ Denaturalization Section created in 2020, centralizing enforcement within DOJ’s Civil Division.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) curates a specialized hub covering denaturalization trends, litigation, and defense strategies for immigration attorneys nationwide.
AILA’s Policy Brief on Denaturalization (July 2025) examines Trump’s expanded enforcement powers and cautions against politically motivated revocations.
The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) criticized the 2025 DOJ directive, highlighting the denial of counsel to low-income defendants and erosion of due process in civil denaturalization cases.
The New York City Bar Association published a detailed analysis of early 2025 immigration changes, including the DOJ’s citizenship revocation strategy, offering practitioner insights and policy commentary.
The Federal Bar Association Immigration Law Section provides training and CLE webinars on responding to revocation proceedings and defending naturalization challenges.
The American Bar Association Commission on Immigration report, Reforming the Immigration System, reviews the legal and procedural safeguards relevant to denaturalization, framing it within broader due process reform proposals.
The Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC) offers community education and legal advisories explaining how denaturalization works, who is at risk, and how individuals can assert their rights under Trump’s 2025 policy.
The American Immigration Council (AIC) provides plain-language explainers on Maslenjak v. United States and ongoing denaturalization litigation, clarifying evidentiary and constitutional standards.
The Lawfare Institute examines the political and constitutional implications of the DOJ’s 2025 denaturalization push, warning of its potential chilling effect on naturalized citizens.
The Washington Post reported in July 2025 that Trump’s DOJ memo could “transform the symbolic weight of citizenship into a conditional privilege,” citing experts who doubt large-scale revocations are legally feasible.
The Guardian and New York Post provided early coverage of the June 2025 memo, documenting reactions from civil rights advocates and attorneys concerned about selective enforcement.
For analysis or citation in legal commentary:
.
CLEVELAND (HEADQUARTER)
© Copyright 2025, HLG, LLC. All Rights Reserved
