Year: 2026

IMMIGRATION NEWS THAT YOU CAN USE – 9/15/26 IS D/S RESTRICTIVE RULE DAY; 9/15/26 IS DAY 1 FOR D/S UNLAWFUL PRESENCE (THOSE NO LONGER IN STATUS); 9/18/26 IS PUBLIC CHARGE RESTRICTIVE RULE DAY; EXTRA CARE REQUIRED CHECKING OVER APPLICATIONS AND PETITIONS BEFORE SUBMISSION; DORCAS RULING ALLOWS 39 BANNED COUNTRY ADJUDICATIONS FOR NOW.

As published in the Immigration Daily on September 2, 2026

  1. 9/15/26 is D/S restrictive rule day.

September 15, 2026, is the implementation date of the F, J, and I regulation.  See the Federal Register notice. Looking specifically at F-1 students, the regulation will do away with duration of status (D/S) at the shorter date of either November 14, 2030, or the ending date of the I-20 in effect for the student on September 15, 2026. If obtaining a new I-20 before that date, the student and institution should ensure that SEVIS is aware of the new extension I-20. In addition, forms I-539 Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status and I-765 Application for Employment Authorization will change on that day and only the 9/15/26 edition of the forms will be accepted. As those are forms used by persons seeking different categories of benefits, such other individuals should note the changes of forms.

  1. 9/15/26 is day 1 for D/S unlawful presence (those no longer in status).

D/S designation has long been treasured as individuals including mostly students holding D/S do not accumulate “unlawful presence” even if they have long stopped the D/S activity and have no other status unless they have incurred an adverse adjudication by DHS or an immigration judge. Now those who are in expired D/S status will become subject to the 3 and 10 year bars which are imposed upon most persons in the country illegally for 180 days or one year respectively after April 1, 1997. The new rule is not retroactive, and so September 15, 2026, will count as the first day of illegality for purposes of the time bars. Once an individual leaves or is made to leave the US, he or she becomes subject to the time bars when attempting to reenter the country.

  1. 9/18/26 is public charge restrictive rule day.

September 18, 2026, is the implementation date of the new public charge regulation. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/07/20/2026-14539/public-charge-ground-of-inadmissibility . USCIS issued a policy memorandum, “USCIS Issues Guidance On Making Public Charge Inadmissibility Determination” on August 18, 2026, outlining the factors that officers will be looking at. 5 factors that they will consider are an alien’s age; health; family status; assets, resources, and financial status; and education and skills.

https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/alerts/uscis-issues-guidance-on-making-public-charge-inadmissibility-determination

For people who have received means tested benefits before 9/18/26, USCIS will only consider the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance and long-term institutionalization at government expense. For means tested public benefits received on or after 9/18/26, USCIS will consider any and all benefits.

Where a USCIS officer finds inadmissibility only on the public charge issue, he or she may invite the alien to post a public charge bond. This will be the decision of the officer. It would be done on a notice of intent to deny (NOID), and people would submit form I-945 cash bond or surety bond (posted through a surety company certified by the U.S. Treasury) by submitting the I-945.

In addition, Form I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status will change on that day and only the 9/18/26 edition of the form will be accepted on or after that day. In checking the new I-485 form, the applicable changes are on pages 19 and 20. The 1/20/25 version asks questions on specific benefits which would subject a person to the public charge requirement prior to 9/18/26 – SSI, temporary assistance for needy families (TANF), cash benefit programs for income maintenance, or long-term institutionalization at government expense. There are 2 boxes on page 20 – one asking to explain SSI, etc. and the second the details on long term institutionalization.

The new form eliminates all this and only asks on page 19, “Have you ever received any means tested public benefit?” and on page 20 provides a box for the applicant to explain the means tested benefit with columns for specifying “means tested public benefit received”, “start date”, “end date”, “dollar amount (if applicable)”, and “reason”.

  1. Extra care required checking over applications and petitions before submission.

There is now more than ever a premium for being careful on filing cases with USCIS stating in an August 5 policy email, “USCIS to Reduce Frivolous Immigration Benefits Request by Reinforcing Evidence Standards”, that it can deny immigration benefit requests without first issuing a RFE or NOID; that form instructions specify all required initial evidence for every benefit request; that USCIS has restored officers’ full discretion to deny benefit requests without first issuing an RFE or NOID in various situations; and the policy update amends the previous Biden era policy which encouraged officers to request evidence before denying a benefit request even if the benefit requester filed an incomplete application, failed to demonstrate eligibility for the benefit, or failed to provide the initial evidence that was clearly required at the time of filing. https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/policy-manual-updates/20260805-EvidentiaryStandards.pdf

This emphasis on completeness means that applicants now have to double check their petitions and applications to make sure that they have everything that is required for completeness – also if applicants or their legal representatives have petitions or applications with which they are not very familiar, they should go over the instructions page to ensure that they have all of the required initial evidence.

  1. Dorcas ruling allows 39 banned country adjudications for now.

Chief U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr. in Rhode Island who ruled in Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS that the government must begin to again process the cases of those subject to the travel ban, refused to pause his June 5, 2026, ruling vacating the indefinite hold on immigration processing finding that the government would not be harmed. On appeal to the First Circuit, the Court ruled on August 14 that a stay on McConnell’s order was appropriate for a government comprehensive re-review policy, but was not appropriate for the benefits hold policy which remains vacated. Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, No. 26-1703 (1st Cir.) https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/26-1703P-01A.pdf. The American Immigration Lawyers Association has reported member responses that cases subject to the pause are being adjudicated. It also reports that the treatment of premium processing refunds appears varied. Individuals from the 39 countries who are contemplating the filing of a petition or application to USCIS may give serious consideration to premium processing (Form I-907 Request for Premium Processing Service). The 39 country ban affects natives and nationals of Afghanistan, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burma (Myanmar), Burundi, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Gabon, The Gambia, Haiti, Iran, Laos, Libya, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Republic of the Congo, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Togo, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

 

Alan Lee, Esq. Q&As published on the World Journal Weekly on August 16, 2026: 1. Can a Ph.D. who went back to China without applying for OPT return to the U.S.?

1. Can a Ph.D. who went back to China without applying for OPT return to the U.S.?

A reader asks:
I graduated last December with a Ph.D. in Social Sciences from a university in North America. I had originally received a job offer in Australia; however, while I was back in my home country waiting for my visa to be issued, the job contract was rescinded due to visa processing delays. I did not apply for Optional Practical Training (OPT), and my funding from my U.S. university has been completely cut off. I would like to ask: Is there still a viable pathway for me to return to the United States?

Alan Lee, Esq. answers,
Your path back to the US could be through family-based immigration if you have US citizen or permanent resident relatives who can sponsor you through one of the preferences or immediate relative categories. If you have the necessary monies, you could possibly immigrate through the immigrant investor program. You can also attempt to contact potential US employers who may be interested in your services and are willing to sponsor you under a nonimmigrant or immigrant visa. If you believe that you can qualify for self-sponsorship employment-based immigration through your being an extraordinary alien (EB-1A) or your knowledge/skills being in the national interest (NIW), you can apply directly on form I-140 to USCIS. Good luck.

Article: A Preliminary Assessment of the New Regulation/FAQs Affecting F-1 Students by Arthur Lee, Esq.

As published in the Immigration Daily on August 10, 2026

DHS released its final regulation on F, J, and I visa categories on July 17, 2026, taking effect September 15, 2026. See the Federal Register notice.

This preliminary assessment focuses primarily on the effect on F-1 transition students holding duration of status (D/S) on 9/15/26. It also covers the questions that remain unclear, based on the text of the rule, comments from interested parties we’ve reviewed, and the DHS FAQs.

Key Points

  1. D/S continues for transition students. For F-1 transition students in the U.S. as of 9/15/26, D/S continues, including the standard 60-day grace period. D/S is capped at 11/14/30 (four years plus the 60-day grace period from 9/15/26) or the end date on the student’s I-20, whichever comes first. D/S can be lost if a student leaves the U.S. and re-enters — at that point, the student receives an AUD (Admit Until Date) I-94. For students who switch to AUD status, the post-graduation grace period is reduced from 60 to 30 days.
  2. The I-20 date controls. The I-20 that D/S students physically present in the U.S. hold on 9/15/26 governs the timeline described above. Students holding I-20s with short end dates who can extend them before 9/15/26 may want to work with their institutions to do so now.
  3. OPT/STEM OPT filing before 3/18/27. Students who have not left the U.S. on or after 9/15/26 can file for OPT or STEM OPT before 3/18/27 without needing to file Form I-539 (Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status) with USCIS. They can continue current practice and file only Form I-765 (Application for Employment Authorization). Note: the agency retains discretion to delay implementation of the I-539 requirement for transition students in six-month increments.
  4. I-539 required past the cap date. Once a transition student reaches the 11/14/30 cap date or their I-20 end date, they must file Form I-539 for any extension request beyond those dates — for example, to pursue more advanced schooling or a transfer requiring additional time.
  5. Extension I-20 choices. Transition students retain the choice to travel outside the U.S. and be readmitted by CBP, rather than filing an I-539 — though this may subject them to a consular interview instead.
  6. Unlawful presence is not retroactive. For D/S individuals, unlawful presence will only begin accruing from the rule’s implementation date of 9/15/26, not before.

New Rules to Note

(Assume each of the following applies to all students unless DHS later issues guidance delaying implementation or stating otherwise.)

  • First-year undergraduates are prohibited from changing programs, majors, or education levels within their first year, unless SEVP grants an exception for extenuating circumstances.
  • F-1 graduate students are entirely prohibited from changing programs, majors, or education levels, though transfers may still be permitted for extenuating circumstances.
  • Students who have completed a U.S. degree program at a given level are prohibited from later enrolling in a program at the same or a lower level. They may only enroll in a higher-level program going forward.
  • English language training program students are restricted to a 24-month period of admission.
  • Public high school students — including those in charter schools or other taxpayer-funded schools — are limited to a combined total of 12 months to complete their course of study, including school breaks and annual vacation.

Open Questions and Observations

The DHS FAQ section addressing transition students could be clearer about whether the other provisions above apply only to students entering after 9/15/26, or to transition students as well.

It’s also worth noting that USCIS may delay or suspend, until 9/14/28, implementation of:

  • the restrictions on transferring or changing educational objectives (major and education level),
  • the requirement to maintain F-1 status while moving from one educational level to a higher one, and
  • the prohibition on completing a program at one level and then moving to a program at the same or a lower level.

Overall, the regulation at times reads as a work in progress that needed more refinement, and arguably should not have been released in its current form.

Alan Lee, Esq. Q&As published on the World Journal Weekly on August 2, 2026: 1. When can I consider a mandamus action?

1. When can I consider a mandamus action?

A reader asks:
It’s been a year since my EB-3 interview and there’s been no update. My priority date is July 2019. Since the interview last June, my case hasn’t moved at all; it’s still listed as “Interview Was Scheduled.” I contacted my senator, but responses were all templates. The officer at the interview was very young and said they couldn’t approve, only collect info for a colleague. I had a bad feeling then and now it seems my case is indeed stuck.  My company is alo going through layoffs. What should I do?

Alan Lee, Esq. answers,
I assume that the priority date has been current all along and that you or your attorney/representative have already attempted to contact USCIS to get your case moving without success. As the Ombudsman’s office of USCIS is no longer an effective alternative and you have gone through congressional inquiries, you and/or your attorney may consider a mandamus action in federal court to force the agency to make an adjudication in your case. Hopefully, the threat of federal court action will alone get the field office to look at your case and review it.

Article: CHASING AND KILLING UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS FOR NOT EVEN A CRIME?

As published in the Immigration Daily on June 31, 2026


What is a man or woman’s life worth? In the wake of the latest killings by ICE officers of undocumented immigrants with no criminal histories, Lorenzo Salgado Araujo and Johan Sebastian Guerrero, the enforcement of immigration laws apparently takes priority in the Administration’s eyes. Following DHS Sec. Markwayne Mullin’s ordering ICE to halt most vehicle stops while carrying out operations across the country, President Trump countermanded the order on July 15 saying “We CANNOT give up one of I.C.E.’s most important and effective Crime Fighting tools, THE TRAFFIC STOP!” Once we do, we are playing right into the criminal’s hands.” https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/15/us/politics/trump-ice-traffic-stops.html  

What criminals? Being in the US illegally is not even a crime, just an offense. Unlawful presence (such as overstaying a valid visa) is a civil violation under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), not a criminal offense. The Supreme Court reaffirmed this principle in Arizona v. United States, 567 US 387 (2012), noting that “as a general matter, it is not a crime for a removable noncitizen to remain present in the United States.” While an individual unlawfully present is subject to civil enforcement—including detention, deportation, and civil penalties—they cannot be charged with a federal crime solely for their ongoing presence. It should also be noted that illegal entry while a misdemeanor is not a continuing offense and while failure to leave after an order of removal may be a crime, it is nonviolent in nature and not a threat to public safety nor national security.

So is it worth a man or woman’s life to chase their vehicles around with government cars and vans in situations that can and have resulted in deadly encounters? Without the seeming protection of this Administration, federal agents can be criminally prosecuted for excessive force against individuals fleeing after having allegedly committed an offense or violation or minor crime. Under 18 USC §242 Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law, federal agents can be prosecuted for using excessive force under federal civil rights laws with penalties of up to one year in prison for basic violations and where the excessive force results in bodily injury, the penalty can increase to up to 10 years, and if resulting in death, an ICE officer could face life imprisonment or the death penalty. Even where that statute is not used, the different states may use state counterparts or their own criminal codes.

It appears unfortunately clear that this Administration’s priority is to remove undocumented immigrants from the country by any means possible with deadly consequences confined to background noise. It does not appear to seek accountability for the actions of its ICE officers, regardless of how egregious their actions. The excuse mantra is getting old of individuals “weaponizing” their vehicles and trying to run over ICE officers – who have an aversion to wearing body cams. DHS now says that henceforth each ICE team will have at least one agent with a body cam. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ice-arrest-team-body-camera-dhs-says/ The NYPD and many other police departments demand that all uniformed officers in the field carry a body cam to record their encounters. The ICE limitation speaks to the continuing reluctance of the agency to provide any type of evidence that may lead to the indictment of officers or control of their actions. Border Czar Tom Homan blamed the lack of body cams on the two government shutdowns. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/EsiRPte9UvI  But that is a disingenuous answer in light of the fact that of the $170 billion in funding DHS received from the Big Beautiful Bill in 2025, approximately $75 billion-not million- was specifically allocated to ICE of which $45 billion was to expand detention facilities and $29.9 billion for enforcement and deportation operations. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1/text The BBB legislation was passed before the 2026 shutdowns which were partly occasioned by the fight over whether ICE officers should be required to wear body cams. The ICE $29.9 billion was a lump sum that could be used to purchase items reasonably necessary to carry out its authorized functions and standard law-enforcement equipment such as tactical gear, communication tools, and body worn cameras are recognized as authorized expenses – and there were very few restrictive guardrails or statutory cutouts in that Congress did not mandate body cameras, nor did it prohibit funds from being used to acquire them. Deciding whether to acquire body cams with the money was a purely discretionary decision. ICE was also specifically given $20 million in April 2026 for body cam purchases. Now the Secure America Act passed in June 2026 has added another $38 billion in direct funding to ICE, so there is no budgetary excuse for not immediately purchasing and distributing body cams to all agents. The low priority that the subject has had speaks more to the reluctance of the Administration to have ICE encounters recorded and to have accountability for excessive force. It should be noted that the President of Mexico, Claudia Scheinbaum, is seeking legal remedies after the deaths of so many of her countrymen in the US at the hands of ICE as she acknowledges that her diplomatic notes and other means to temper the harsh immigration enforcement against Mexicans in the US have failed. https://www.tpr.org/border-immigration/2026-07-14/mexico-begins-legal-action-in-u-s-over-deaths-of-nationals-in-ice-custody The ultimate question to ICE officers employing aggressive tactics is – when the music stops, will they be the ones without chairs if the Administration bails on them and they alone face the music? Will they be dependent upon a presidential pardon before President Trump leaves office?

Alan Lee, Esq. Q&As published on the World Journal Weekly on July 26, 2026: 1. If there is an open priority date for your I-485, your status would be frozen, and you would not accrue unlawful presence during the pendency of the timely filed I-140 application

1. If there is an open priority date for your I-485, your status would be frozen, and you would not accrue unlawful presence during the pendency of the timely filed I-140 application

A reader asks:
My H-1B is about to expire, I am thinking of submitting NIW during the grace period, but I’m worried it might not be allowed. Someone told me that I could apply for immigration even from abroad – would that apply to me too?

Alan Lee, Esq. answers,
You can always submit a NIW petition, but an I-140 filing does not prevent you from accruing unlawful presence. That could be done with the timely filed I-140 coupled with I-485 adjustment of status application if there is an open priority date for filing the I-485. In such case, your status would in effect be frozen and you would not accrue unlawful presence during the pendency of the application. In such circumstance, a denial of the adjustment of status application would start the counting of unlawful presence at Day 1 as of the date of denial. Pertaining to your question of whether you can apply for immigration from overseas, you can indeed file for an I-140 petition when you are overseas.

Alan Lee, Esq. Q&As published on the World Journal Weekly on July 19, 2026: 1. It has now been seven months since my I-485 interview without any news; what should I do? 2. I submitted I-485, but I’m very likely to be laid off soon. How can I delay things enough to hit the 180-day mark?

1. It has now been seven months since my I-485 interview without any news; what should I do?

A reader asks:
In January 2025, I filed my I-485 application alongside my EB-1A petition. I attended my interview in October, and it went very smoothly. Immediately after the interview, my case status was updated to indicate: “The interview has been completed, and your case must be reviewed.” Since then—up to the present moment—there have been absolutely no further updates. I am not a member of the Communist Party; however, my undergraduate university is listed on the “Section 10043” restricted list. I am anxious and left wondering if this is the reason for the delay. I have already sent numerous letters to the White House and to my congressional representatives, but they haven’t been of much help. It has now been seven months since my I-485 interview without any news; what should I do?

Alan Lee, Esq. answers,
You are doing the type of tracing that may be helpful in having your case resolved. You have not mentioned whether you have attempted to contact USCIS, and you may wish to do so if you have not done it. When your case has exceeded one year from the date of interview without result, you may consider bringing a mandamus lawsuit in federal court to obtain some action on your pending case. Note that the suit would only be to quicken the time for adjudication and does not compel the agency to approve your case. A court could order USCIS to issue a decision quickly.

I note that a court may decide that not sufficient time has passed to file the suit or that USCIS has legitimate reason to hold onto your case.

2. I submitted I-485, but I’m very likely to be laid off soon. How can I delay things enough to hit the 180-day mark?

A reader asks:
I just submitted I-485, but I’m very likely to be laid off soon. How can I delay things enough to hit the 180-day mark without getting an interview or RFE, and then submit the I-485j with a new employer? If I delay the fingerprinting, does that mean the case won’t be transferred to a field office and thus won’t be adjudicated? How long after filing the I-485 do interviews usually happen? Some people say their case was transferred right after fingerprinting and they had an interview about four months after filing.

Alan Lee, Esq. answers:
Current processing times for 80% of employment based cases for adjustment of status show that the minimum period of time for adjudication is nine months with many cases going well beyond that time limit. In the Trump administration, the emphasis is on security and vetting, and so cases are slowing down, and it would appear that you will have your opportunity to submit the I-485 J for job porting at the 180 day mark. Please note that if you receive a RFE, you will normally be given 87 days to respond to the agency. You can delay the fingerprinting, but would have to request a rescheduling prior to the appointment date and give good reason for missing the biometrics appointment.

IMMIGRATION NEWS YOU CAN USE: UNDOCUMENTED FACING DOUBLE WHAMMY IN TEXAS; H-1B 60 DAY GRACE PERIOD CHANGE TO B VISA STATUS?; 4-2 CIRCUIT COURTS AGAINST MANDATORY DETENTION; MOSTLY IGNORED I-246 FORM FEE SET TO RISE OVER 200% AND NOW DEEMED REQUIRED BY BIA; DOL TRYING TO FINALIZE PROPOSED RULE DRAMATICALLY RAISING PREVAILING WAGES FOR PERM, H-1B, H-1B1 AND E-3 CASES.

As published in the Immigration Daily on July 15, 2026

1. Undocumented Facing Double Whammy In Texas.

If you’re undocumented and down in Texas, they have a double whammy for you now. Besides watching out for ICE and the feds, you have to watch out for state and local law enforcement officers who are conducting immigration enforcement and state judges who are issuing removal orders traditionally reserved for the federal government. Texas has begun enforcing SB 4, which gives state and local law enforcement new authority to arrest people suspected of unlawfully entering Texas, to bring charges for the newly created state crime of “illegal entry”, and authorizes Texas judges to issue removal orders under certain circumstances. It also creates a state felony offense for “illegal reentry”. In late May, the Fifth Circuit allowed the law to take effect while litigation continues.

2. H-1B 60 Day Grace Period Change To B Visa Status?

The 60 day discretionary grace period is given to a number of nonimmigrant work categories to allow individuals to find new work when they have been terminated or leave their authorized employment. It is especially used by H-1B holders. During the Biden years, USCIS had routinely adjudicated pending B-2 change of status applications concurrently when an H-1B petition was filed with the new employer and this effectively restored the person to H-1B status without any maintenance of status issues. Now it appears that the favorable guidance, “Options for Nonimmigrant Workers Following Termination of Employment” has been archived although not yet formally withdrawn https://www.uscis.gov/archive/options-for-nonimmigrant-workers-following-termination-of-employment-0 and USCIS is issuing RFEs, denials, and even NTAs where applicants in the 60 day period are filing for B changes of status as a bridge while they seek new employment. It appears that USCIS is going back to the regular rules of adjudicating B change of status applications and no longer giving special consideration to those in the 60 day grace period. Individuals who are contemplating such actions should document their temporary stay intent such as explaining the reasons for requesting the additional time and outlining their ties and bonds with the home country; enclosing proof of that and adequate funds to stay in the US during the requested period of time without having to work; and showing commitment to leaving such as a transportation ticket home.

3. 4-2 Circuit Courts Against Mandatory Detention.

The count is now still 4-2 in favor of detainees on the question of whether they can obtain bond while under ICE detention after a week of twisting and turning by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. A panel of the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans ruled on July 2 that people facing immigration detention must be afforded a bond hearing within 90 days, and that anything less would be a violation of their constitutional due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. The new ruling undercut the decision by a different Fifth Circuit panel in February that upheld the administration’s interpretation of the mandatory detention law. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver had just concluded that the Administration’s unprecedented expansion of mass detention without bond relies on an inaccurate reading of decades-old laws that had never been used for the breathtaking scope of the mass detention effort. Then on July 10, the Fifth Circuit voted to rehear the case en banc in September. In the meantime, the 90 day bond rule by the July 2 panel is stayed. The issue is now headed up to the Supreme Court with 10th Circuit, 11th Circuit in Atlanta, 2nd Circuit in New York, and 6th Circuit in Cincinnati on the side of the angels, and the 5th Circuit and 8th Circuit in St. Louis going the other way. The Trump administration is now pushing the Supreme Court to rule on the issue of whether noncitizens arrested in the US interior are entitled to bond hearings calling it a “critically important question of immigration law that has divided the courts of appeals.” It remains to be seen what the Fifth Circuit will wind up doing in September, but if it backs the ruling of the July 2 panel, and produces a 5-1 near unanimity of circuits in favor of bond, a Supreme Court ruling should be pro forma. But in this strangely politicized Supreme Court, nothing can be taken for granted.

4. Mostly Ignored I-246 Form Fee Set to Rise Over 200% and Now Deemed Required By BIA.

One of the more antiquated immigration forms (in our opinion) is the one for stay of removal with DHS, form I-246, because it is seldom approved, DHS officers can grant a stay without one, and most practitioners have just gone straight to the BIA when they want a stay of removal in conjunction with an appeal or motion. The Trump administration is trying to raise the fee from $155-$755 and comment on the proposed rule ended on July 6. Now the BIA on June 12 decided the case of Matter of Herrera-Nunez, 29 I&N Dec. 691 (BIA 2026) https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1445646/dl?inline  in which it said that a person subject to a final removal order should first request a stay from DHS prior to the Board considering a stay request filed in conjunction with the motion to reopen or reconsider a BIA or immigration court order. So now they have you coming and going and may soon be forcing you to give $755 for a piece of paper with high probability of denial. The Board only noted with regard to the fee in footnote 5 that “We recognize that DHS charges a fee for stay requests. 8 C.F.R. § 103.7(d)(6). However, DHS may waive such fees. Id.”

5. DOL Trying To Finalize Proposed Rule Dramatically Raising Prevailing Wages For PERM, H-1B, H-1B1 And E-3 Cases.

As part of the government’s just-released “2026 Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions”, https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain, DOL will try to finalize the March 27, 2026, proposed rule, “Improving Wage Protections for the Temporary and Permanent Employment of Certain Foreign Nationals in the United States”, Federal Register, Vol. 91, No. 59, 15454 (3/27/26),
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/03/27/2026-06017/improving-wage-protections-for-the-temporary-and-permanent-employment-of-certain-foreign-nationals  in which it has been proposing to raise prevailing wages for labor certification, H-1B, H-1B1, and E-3 programs. Entry-level wages would move from the 17th percentile to the 34th percentile, level II from 34th to 52nd, level III from the 50th to 70th, and level IV from the 67th to the 88th. In practice, level I would be the most impacted with an approximate 33% jump in wages redefining entry-level somewhere closer to experienced/junior mid-level; level II will see an approximate 24% increase, level III 21%, and level IV 22%.  Although there is no timeline for a final rule in the regulatory agenda, it may be prudent for practitioners in these categories to begin their cases as soon as possible if the escalation in wages is a concern in their particular cases.

Alan Lee, Esq. Q&As published on the World Journal Weekly on July 12, 2026: 1. There is risk in redoing PERM as the US job market must be tested again 2. Will my job duties change affect my I-485 submission?

1. There is risk in redoing PERM as the US job market must be tested again

A reader asks:
I am struggling with whether to switch from an individual contributor (IC) to a manager. I am currently working as a Financial Analyst, and my immigration petition’s priority date (PD) is October 2022. Recently, I was offered a promotion, but if I take it, I will need to redo the PERM. What is the current PERM policy like? Is there any risk in redoing it? Would reapplying for PERM just potentially delay getting the green card? I heard that if the PD has been current for over one year, it might no longer be possible to renew the H-1B?

Alan Lee, Esq. answers:
I will assume for purposes of your question that you are from China since you otherwise would have resolved your situation already with an October 2022 priority date in either the EB2 or EB-3 categories. Moving to managerial level from being a financial analyst when the filing of the I-485 adjustment of status application and passage of 180 days have not yet been done (we assume that the I-140 petition is approved) most probably involves redoing the labor certification. The risk in redoing a PERM labor certification process is that the US job market must be tested again and if there are able, willing, qualified, and available US workers for the advertised position, the labor certification application may not be capable of approval. You are correct that when a priority date has been current for one year, the ability to continually extend H-1B status past the standard six years is no longer allowed if you have not filed for adjustment. In your situation, you may decide that the safer approach is to continue being a financial analyst and obtaining permanent residence under the tunnel. Even where the I-140 is approved, I-485 filed and 180 days elapsed since the time of filing, job porting would involve you and the company demonstrating to USCIS that the new position is in the same or similar occupation.

2. Will my job duties change affect my I-485 submission?

A reader asks:
I started in data-related work,  now I support SDEs and want to switch fully into SDE in my team. My I-140 has been approved, and my priority date (PD) is about a year away. The job location and entity remain the same, but job duties will change. My lawyer said it’s fine, HR said the overlap is 50%, so no need for new PERM or H-1B amendment. My boss thinks it is not a big issue. Will this affect my I-485 submission or lead to an RFE or issues at the interview?

Alan Lee, Esq. answers,
This is an area to be careful about. If the job title changes and duties are different from the duties as outlined in the labor certification, this could be a concern with USCIS as constituting an uncertified job position. You may wish to discuss with your lawyer and HR the changes and how they intend to present the changes to USCIS.

Alan Lee, Esq. Q&As published on the World Journal Weekly on June 28, 2026: 1. The premium processing is technically only for the I-140 petition

1. The premium processing is technically only for the I-140 petition

A reader asks:
Last February, I filed an I-140 petition to downgrade my EB category to EB-3 (non-premium processing), submitting it concurrently with my I-485, I-765, and I-131 applications. At the time, only the EB-3 “Dates for Filing” (Table B) had become current; however, the “Final Action Dates” (Table A) were not far behind, so I didn’t feel it was strictly necessary to pay for premium processing for the I-140. My attorney also advised against expediting the process right at the start; later, when I saw that the visa bulletin priority dates had retrogressed significantly, I decided against expediting it after all. About two months later, I received my Combo Card; however, it has now been 15 months since I filed the I-140, and it still hasn’t been approved—a timeframe far exceeding the normal processing standards. I have already submitted two inquiries via the USCIS website, but I haven’t received a response to either of them. Are they essentially trying to force me to pay the premium processing fee before they will actually process my case?

Alan Lee, Esq. answers,
You can continue making inquiries with USCIS, and hopefully you will soon receive a decision. You can also contact your US Congressman or Senator’s office for assistance. Otherwise, if you believe that you cannot wait much longer, you may wish to consider paying the premium processing fee which is presently $2965. As you may be aware, paying the premium processing fee does not mean that you will receive an approval within 15 business days. You can also receive a request for evidence, notice of intent to deny, or a denial. In addition, an approval of the I-140 petition under premium processing does not mean that you will receive a concurrent adjudication of the I-485. It may turn out that action on the I-485 will follow, but the premium processing is technically only for the I-140 petition.