Alan Lee, Esq. Q&As published on the World Journal Weekly on May 24, 2026: 1. You recently changed jobs, and you may wish to push the company to begin your PERM application as soon as possible 2. I submitted my I-485 application recently and was laid off today. What should I do now?

1. You recently changed jobs, and you may wish to push the company to begin your PERM application as soon as possible

A reader asks:
I recently changed jobs, and my immigration application’s priority date (PD) is early January 2023, and Chart B is about one year from becoming current. Now, PERM seems hard to process at the company, and the default path is NIW. I only have a master’s degree and nothing else, just 5+ years of experience in AI (Artificial Intelligence) and ML(Machine Learning), and my current position is also in the MLE (Machine Learning Engineer) field. However, my lawyer said that the risk of expedited processing is significantly higher.   The company is likely to support both PERM & EB2 – NIW. I feel NIW-EB2 approval odds are already low. If my first NIW application is denied, should I immediately push to start PERM?

Alan Lee, Esq. answers,

I assume from your fact pattern that you already have an approved I-140 petition with 2023 priority date from your prior job. As you are acknowledging the difficulties of the NIW petition and your lawyer is telling you that the risk of expedited processing is significantly higher, that shows a lack of confidence in both of you in the merits of the NIW case. As such, unless there are factors of which I am not aware, you may wish to push the company to begin your PERM application as soon as possible and not wait until the NIW is denied.

2. I submitted my I-485 application recently and was laid off today. What should I do now?

A reader asks:
I was laid off today; at least the suspense is over. I submitted my I-485 application this January, and there are less than three months left before the 180-day mark. Our team just had a massive layoff, cutting half the headcount in half, and I was one of those let go. I have no news on the green card application, and haven’t even received my I-765 or EAD yet. I switched to this company and started a new PERM, filing the I-140 and I-485 concurrently, both have been pending for under 180 days. My 6-year H-1B period is used up and I can now renew only year by year.  I’ve heard that in this situation a new employer can’t keep extending the H-1b and can only wait for the green card or EAD to be approved.  What should I do now? Could I negotiate with the company to pay out the severance gradually through payroll each month, so that if USCIS interviews me, I can show pay stubs and pretend I’m still on the job?

Alan Lee, Esq. answers,
Unfortunately, where the I-140 petition has not even been approved and an individual loses the position with three months to go before the 180 day mark, we cannot state that the matter can be salvaged, as the employer clearly has no intent any longer to offer a permanent full-time position. You say in your fact pattern that you switched to this company and started a new PERM, and that raises a question as to whether you already have an I-140 approval from a prior employer. If so, you may be able to use that once with a new employer to gain a year with a new H-1B while contemplating your next steps.

Alan Lee, Esq. Q&As published on the World Journal Weekly on May 10, 2026: 1. If the NIW was company-sponsored, losing your position may have more serious consequences

1. If the NIW was company-sponsored, losing your position may have more serious consequences

A reader asks:
I recently filed my I-485 application, but my company’s business operations have become somewhat unstable. I am concerned that potential unemployment might negatively impact my I-485 case. My question is: if my I-485 application is based on a National Interest Waiver (NIW) petition, am I permitted to be unemployed while the application is pending?

Alan Lee, Esq. answers,
Assuming that the NIW is through self-petition, losing the job in the I-485 stage may not tremendously affect the application although you may still have to show that you remain committed to the type of work upon which the NIW petition is based. If the NIW was company-sponsored, losing your position may have more serious consequences although you may still be able to port your case to a same or similar position if the I-140 has been approved and the I-485 application pends for 180 days or more.

Alan Lee, Esq. Q&As published on the World Journal Weekly on May 3, 2026: 1. Under the current rules of the $100,000 H-1B payment rule applicable to persons applying for H1B visas overseas 2. You can only file I-485 straightaway if both the job location and the legal entity are unchanged

1. Under the current rules of the $100,000 H-1B payment rule applicable to persons applying for H1B visas overseas

A reader asks:
A friend’s I-485 is currently pending, but already received both EAD and I-131 (separate cards), and is just waiting for his priority date to become current. He is currently working on an O-1 visa (without a visa stamp due to change of status within the U.S.) and recently got selected for H-1B.  His lawyer said he must change to H-1B status in October and only then can he travel abroad for stamping.  If he leaves the U.S. before October while still on O-1, will USCIS consider that as abandoning the I-485? Even with advance parole? Also, they he cannot travel on O-1 before October, can he go out after October, get the H-1B visa and return using it?  Would that invalidate the I-485?

Mr. Alan Lee, Esq. answers,
Under the current rules of the $100,000 H-1B payment rule applicable to persons applying for H1B visas overseas, an applicant must change status in the US prior to going outside the US to escape paying the fee. That is why your lawyer is insisting that you remain in the US until October because that is when the change of status becomes effective. If afterwards you leave the US, such would not be considered an abandonment of the I485 since H1B holders can leave and return to the US during the pendency of I485 applications. Your friend could also leave under advance parole, and that would not invalidate the I485 application. If your friend leaves the US before October while still on O-1, USCIS would consider that as abandoning the I485 if attempting to come back in on the O-1 petition.

2. You can only file I-485 straightaway if both the job location and the legal entity are unchanged

A reader asks:
Because the PERM labor certification for my new company has been significantly delayed, yet my Priority Date (PD) is currently “current” (available), I recently reached out to my previous employer and received a job offer. However, the work location has changed (moving from San Francisco to New York). May I ask: under these circumstances, can I use my original I-140 petition to directly file my I-485 application? I understand that the prerequisite for directly filing an I-485 based on a previous petition is typically that both the work location and the legal entity (employer) remain the same. Is it possible to directly file an I-485 if the work location has changed, but the legal entity remains the same?

Alan Lee, Esq. answers,
Unfortunately, what most people say is correct – that you can only file straightaway if both the job location and the legal entity are unchanged. Perhaps your former employer is still able to offer you a position in San Francisco. If so, it would declare on form I-485 J supplement, “Confirmation of Valid Job Offer or Request for Job Portability under INA Section 204 (J)” that it has an existing valid job offer for you in San Francisco. If you work for the company in San Francisco for a period of time after obtaining permanent residence and the company at a later point decides to transfer you to New York, that is another story.

Alan Lee, Esq. Q&As published on the World Journal Weekly on April 26, 2026: 1. Paying the premium processing fee does not guarantee that USCIS will actually reach the case within 15 business days 2. How can one successfully apply for an EB-1A visa?

1. Paying the premium processing fee does not guarantee that USCIS will actually reach the case within 15 business days

A reader asks:
My company helped me file an EB-1A petition under Premium Processing (PP), but we subsequently received a Request for Evidence (RFE)—the deadline for our response is in May. Since the company is the petitioner, the preparation process for much of the documentation has been opaque to me. I feel that the law firm collaborating with the company is particularly unreliable and that the application they prepared is of very poor quality. However, they are unwilling to withdraw the petition and insist on preparing the RFE response themselves. I simply cannot bring myself to trust them. My question is: can I now file a new petition on my own (DIY)? In this new filing, I would act as the petitioner; I would personally draft the petition letter and compile the exhibits, which would presumably differ from the materials prepared by the company. I intend to use Premium Processing for this new filing as well. Consequently, the timelines for the two cases would overlap—essentially, one case would be pending an RFE response, while the other would be a brand-new submission. The company has refused to show me the actual application package they prepared; from start to finish, I merely provided them with certain supporting documents and recommendation letters. Therefore, I am confident that if I handle the filing myself, my petition letter and exhibits will definitely differ from the ones they wrote. Since the petitioner would be different, there would be distinct differences between the two cases. Would this be considered a “duplicate filing”? (Note: I already have a pending NIW petition, as I anticipated that the EB-1A petition filed by the company would likely be denied.)

Alan Lee, Esq. answers,
It appears that you have two balls in the air and you want to put up a third. This could prove confusing, but I cannot say that putting up a personal EB-1A petition for yourself under premium processing would not work if you are truly qualified for the category. Please note that paying the premium processing fee does not guarantee that USCIS will actually reach the case within 15 business days. Where a case is complicated, USCIS may well hold onto the case and begin adjudicating it in its good time. Afterwards, you would likely have to request back the premium processing fee as the agency has a history of not automatically refunding it if it does not reach the case within the time limit. Also that USCIS may reach a case within 15 business days, and that it would fulfill its obligation under premium processing by issuing a request for evidence or notice of intent to deny or approval or denial.

2. How can one successfully apply for an EB-1A visa?

A reader asks:
I hold both a bachelor’s degree and a Ph.D. from one of China’s top two universities, with a brief master’s degree program in continental Europe sandwiched in between. I currently work in the investment banking division of a securities firm, focusing on IPOs and M&A transactions; however, I have not published any academic papers or engaged in other similar scholarly activities. I am considering applying for an EB-1A (Extraordinary Ability) visa. Given my current profile and circumstances, do I have a realistic chance of success?

Alan Lee, Esq. answers,
Generally speaking, a person with your bare-bones fact pattern would not seem to be a great candidate for the EB-1A extraordinary alien category, and as you are aware, the current climate is not encouraging. We suggest that you look through all 10 criteria of the EB-1A category, and pick out at least three that you can say that you qualify under. Then you may wish to make an appointment with an immigration lawyer familiar with EB-1A filings and consult him or her with your portfolio or a detailed resume. Just from your facts, one cannot say definitively whether you could or could not qualify.

Alan Lee, Esq. Q&As published on the World Journal Weekly on April 12, 2026: Someone would rarely ask for another EAD when he/she has one valid until 2030

Someone would rarely ask for another EAD when he/she has one valid until 2030

Reader asks:
My H-4 extension has been approved, but I received an RFE from USCIS for my H-4 EAD application. It says I already have an EAD valid until 2030 (this is the I-485 EAD I received a few weeks ago). They are asking why I am applying for another EAD (under the C29 H-4 category). I’m confused because the notice only gives me three options to choose from:

  1. The EAD card was lost or damaged.
  2. The information on the EAD card is incorrect and needs to be corrected;
  3. I want to withdraw this current application because I already have a valid EAD.

So, does having an I-485 EAD mean I can no longer apply for an H-4 EAD extension? Or did USCIS make a mistake by not recognizing that these are two different types of EADs? I want to write a letter to explain that this application is for the H-4 EAD because I don’t intend to use the I-485 EAD for now, and I don’t want to choose any of the three listed options. Is it okay to respond like this?

Mr. Alan Lee, Esq. answers,
We have seen situations in which individuals have held 2 EADs, but it is rare that someone would ask for another EAD when he or she has one valid until 2030. USCIS may be concerned about security (whether someone other than you could somehow use one of the cards) or if there is any problem with your I-485 application. Your explanation is probably as good a reason as any at the present and it will be up to USCIS whether it will issue the H-4 EAD.

IMMIGRATION NEWS THAT YOU CAN USE – PREDICTION ON SECOND ROUND OF H-1B SELECTIONS; PREVAILING WAGES LEVEL I-LEVEL IV SET TO LEAP UNDER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING; HABEAS CORPUS AND THE RIGHT TO BRING UP CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES TO AN IMMIGRATION JUDGE.

As published in the Immigration Daily on April 10, 2026

As published in the World Journal Weekly on May 10, 2026, in Chinese

  1. Prediction on Second Round of H-1B Selections.

With the FY-2027 cap H-1B March selection completed, it appears from anecdotal evidence that the selection percentages as set out by USCIS in the weighted wage rule giving more opportunities (more lottery balls) to those organizations willing to pay beneficiaries on a higher wage level were incorrect. It had estimated odds for this year of level I – 15.29%, level II – 30.58%, level III – 45.87%, and level IV – 61.16%. (page 60948 of the Federal Register final rule, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2025-12-29/html/2025-23853.htm.) We believe that the final statistics will show higher percentages of approval. On the possibility of a second round of selections in July, we believe that there is a very distinct chance of this occurring. This depends upon whether many organizations actually go through with submitting H-1B petitions by June 30, 2026. On the one hand, there would appear to be more incentive for employers to file since they have already paid a $215 registration fee. On the other hand, some employers may have boxed themselves in with wages and SOC codes that they cannot realistically support. Also, it may well be that many organizations submitted H-1B registrations without fully taking into account or hoping that the $100,000 H-1B fee attached to those beneficiaries who are overseas or fail to successfully obtain a change of status to H-1B will be overturned by the courts. They may reconsider their commitment to file if there is no rule change. On the present status of the fee litigation, the District Court in Chamber of Commerce of the USA v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, No. 1:25-cv-03675 (D.D.C. Dec. 23, 2025), upheld the fee and an appeal is currently in the DC Court of Appeals. The other two major cases, State of California v. Noem, 1-25cv-13829 (D.Mass.) and Global Nurse Force v. Trump, 4:25-cv-08454 (N.D.Cal.) remain pending.

  1. Prevailing Wages Level I-Level IV Set to Leap Under Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

The proposed regulation, “Improving Wage Protections for the Temporary and Permanent Employment of Certain Foreign Nationals in the United States”, Federal Register, vol. 91, No. 59 (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  will raise prevailing wage levels I-IV excessively. Level I 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%. Arguments against the proposal include DOL not sufficiently justifying why these specific percentile thresholds are appropriate; that the new wages based on the percentiles do not correspond to “prevailing wages” and in many cases exceed it; that it eliminates true entry-level wages; and promotes economic harms such as offshoring and reduced hiring by employers. Comments can be made electronically before May 26, 2026, to the Federal eRulemaking portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Commenters should identify the agency’s name and public docket number ETA-2026-0001, explain the reasons for any recommended changes, and reference the specific section and wording being addressed where possible.

  1. Habeas Corpus And The Right to Bring Up Constitutional Issues to an Immigration Judge.

Mahmoud Khalil, the permanent resident Columbia University protester who was seized and transported to Louisiana and later freed by the District Court in New Jersey through habeas corpus, had the habeas decision overturned in a Third Circuit panel decision on January 15, 2026 https://www.aclu.org/cases/khalil-v-trump?document=Order-Vacating-District-Court-Judgement. The decision is a huge blow against the use of habeas corpus petitions in immigration settings, the court saying that the INA does not allow immigrants to challenge by habeas corpus issues that can be reviewed in a petition for review at the circuit courts following disposition of the case by the immigration court and BIA. The exception is where the claims behind the habeas petition are “now or never” ones that would otherwise never come up for review. His legal team is now petitioning for en banc review and asking the new Third Circuit judge, Emil Bove, to recuse himself on grounds that that he was likely involved in decisions related to the case while at the Department of Justice. He was previously President Trump’s personal attorney handling matters including the hush money criminal case before Mr. Trump appointed him to the Department of Justice position and subsequently nominated him to the Third Circuit judgeship https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/01/nyregion/mahmoud-khalil-columbia-appeal.html . As a Trump loyalist, he will likely refuse to recuse himself.

A pivotal issue brought up by the dissent in the panel decision concerned the ability of the circuit court in Khalil’s case to meaningfully look at  the claimed violation of his First Amendment free speech rights since the immigration judge (IJ) held that she lacked jurisdiction to rule on constitutional challenges and so there was no opportunity to develop the record on that issue, particularly as the IJ repeatedly  denied his requests to do so. As disclosed in the dissent, the most interesting part of this discussion arose in oral argument before the panel when the government for the first time produced a September 2025 policy memorandum that immigration judges “may generally consider arguments arising out of constitutional law.” https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1413276/dl?inline  Prior to the agency memo, it had always been taken for granted by both DHS attorneys and respondents that neither immigration judges nor BIA would take up constitutional questions.

So it would appear that this could be used by lawyers to ask IJs to actually rule on constitutional issues although most immigration judges as members of the executive branch would likely decline to do so. It also seems a pity that the memorandum was apparently used here merely to give cover to the government attorney arguing before the court.

Alan Lee, Esq. Q&As published on the World Journal Weekly on April 5, 2026: If I am not selected in the H-1B lottery, can I apply for PERM?

If I am not selected in the H-1B lottery, can I apply for PERM?

Reader asks:
My husband found a job and the company helped apply for H-1B, but he hasn’t been selected in the lottery for three rounds. We are feeling hopeless.  I suddenly thought – can we skip the H-1B lottery and have the company file a PERM instead, while staying in the U.S.? My husband was born in South Korea, so there should be no backlog. Can someone on TN status directly file a PERM?

Mr. Alan Lee, Esq. answers,
Unfortunately, H-1B registration is not guaranteed, and it is not unusual that individuals can go multiple rounds and years in the H-1B lottery without being selected. It is best that individuals keep trying as we have seen persons who have failed multiple times finally be selected. If selected, H-1B holders can remain in the US for up to six years and perhaps even longer under such status. On your specific questions, the company can file a PERM application while you and your husband are staying in the US. Your husband would have to maintain legal non-immigrant status if he wishes to adjust status at the end of the process. A person on TN status can directly file for PERM, but that individual should be aware that travel outside the US even to Canada during the process may give him problems on entry  as as there is stricter vetting at the borders and TN unlike H1B requires non-immigrant intent.

Alan Lee, Esq. Q&As published on the World Journal Weekly on March 29, 2026 1. Labor certification applications can be restarted at any time. 2. The H-1B extension petition can only be filed within six months of its expiration date. 3. EB-1A and EB-1B can be submitted simultaneously if the contents of one do not contradict the other

1. Labor certification applications can be restarted at any time.

A reader asks:
I was just informed today that the labor market test failed, so the PERM process will need to restart. I’ll talk to the lawyer later for more details.  What are the common reasons for failing the labor market test? If I need to restart, do I have to wait 6 to 12 months? I’ve been at this company since graduating from university, and previously relocated to Canada for a year before returning to the U.S. this year, so the work experience used for the PERM comes from my time at the Canadian office.

Could the failed labor market test be related to that work experience? Or could it be related to the job location? For example, are there differences between the San Francisco Bay Area and New York in terms of passing the labor market test? I’m considering moving to New York next year.  If the PERM location is New York, would it be easier to get approved?

Alan Lee, Esq. answers,
I am sorry to hear that your labor certification market test failed. Common reasons are typographical errors (the PERM process is pretty strict on errors on the forms); the recruitment may not have been done correctly; there may have been able, willing, qualified, and available US workers that the employer was not able to screen out for valid job related reasons; the applicant’s qualifications may not have matched what was required on the labor certification application, etc. Generally speaking, a labor certification application can be begun again immediately and you generally do not have to wait 6 months or more to begin a new labor certification. If the labor certification requirements were only matched by you in the same company’s Canadian operation, such could be a reason for having a problem with the Department of Labor as experience gained in the same company should be in a position which is substantially different from the position being offered. On the question of San Francisco or New York, the question may be whether there are more qualified candidates who would be interested in a job like yours in San Francisco or New York. That goes to advertising the position and the company screening the candidates. If the position is remote, the test would be national rather than in Just the local market.

2. The H-1B extension petition can only be filed within six months of its expiration date.

A reader asks:
I checked the Department of Labor website, and the average PERM wait time is 17 months, so it’s unlikely I’ll get it within 12 months. I have two questions:

  1. Based on my situation, can I apply for a 1-year H-1B extension before it expires? If so, when is the earliest I can apply?
  2. Can recapture time be filed separately, or must it be submitted along with the H-1B extension?

Can I file a new H-1B extension before May 2026? I was outside the U.S. for almost two months during my H-1B six-year period, so those two months should push my H-1B expiry date further. My H-1B expires in May 2026, and my PERM was filed in May 2025 (PD). Although my PERM was filed within 365 days before my H-1B maxes out, it was only by one day. I thought I could apply for a one-year extension in May 2026 just because the PERM was filed 365 days before. But when I reread the AC21 rule, it seems I might not be eligible until 365 days after the PERM filing date, which would be May 2026.  If that’s true, I am worried I might fall out of status. What should I do?

Alan Lee, Esq. answers,
Based on your situation, you can apply for a one-year H-1B extension before it expires. The beginning of the requested time must be after the labor certification application has gone 365 days. The H-1B extension petition can only be filed within six months of its expiration date. You can also file to recapture time separately, but that would have to be in the form of an H-1B extension petition.

3. EB-1A and EB-1B can be submitted simultaneously if the contents of one do not contradict the other

A reader asks:
I have prepared all the materials and drafted my I-140 petition letter for EB-1A. I originally wanted to go through my employer’s EB-1B petition, as it seemed more stable.  However, my company’s law firm is moving too slowly. Should I file EB-1A on my own first? Can EB-1A and EB-1B be filed simultaneously?

Alan Lee, Esq. answers,
Both EB-1A and EB-1B can be filed simultaneously, but the contents of one cannot contradict the other. If you wish to file the EB-1A petition on your own, please ensure that it will be consistent with the claims made on the EB-1B petition.

Alan Lee, Esq. Q&As published on the World Journal Weekly on March 8, 2026 1. Under the new weighted wage rule, the chances of being selected are higher if you have a good wage offer 2. Received an RFE for the medical report  

1. Under the new weighted wage rule, the chances of being selected are higher if you have a good wage offer

A reader asks:
I have applied for the H-1B visa three times and haven’t been selected. This is my fourth attempt. I have been in the United States for 6 years and have renewed my TN visa several times. Currently, I am a graduate student in Canada, so I can only apply for the undergraduate H-1B. However, I am studying OMSCS on weekends, and I can apply for the Master’s Cap next year. Last month, I just renewed my TN visa, and the next renewal is due at the end of 2028. This gives me three more chances in the H-1B lottery. I’d like to ask, what are the chances of me getting selected in the next three years? It would be really frustrating if I don’t get selected after six attempts.

Alan Lee, Esq. answers,
Under the new weighted wage rule, the chances of being selected are higher if you have a good wage offer. Assuming that the weighted wage rule is in place for this year’s H-1B Cap Registration, the higher the level of wage according to the Department of Labor (DOL) OES system, the better the chances are of being selected. DOL divides wages into four levels, and USCIS has conveniently taken advantage of the system in postulating that wages in level I get one ping-pong ball in the lottery, level II gets two balls, level III three balls, and level IV four balls. As you have been in the US for six years and renewed your TN Visa several times, you more than likely have a wage that fits within level III or level IV and have a good possibility of being selected.

2. Received an RFE for the medical report  

A reader asks:
I received an RFE today asking for my medical examination report.  However, I had already included the sealed medical report when I initially submitted my I-485 application. I called USCIS to inquire, but I was unable to reach a live agent. If my medical report was lost, can I ask my doctor to issue a new one?

Alan Lee, Esq. answers,
We find that in such situations where one cannot obtain an answer from USCIS, the best thing to do is to give another medical. If the medical is still valid, you can possibly go back to the physician or clinic and ask for a new medical report. You should ensure that you read all the rules concerning the validity of medicals before you take this route. Submission of an incorrect medical in response to a request for evidence would lead to denial.

Article: PERSONS ADMITTED TO U.S. AS REFUGEES DO NOT DESERVE THIS TREATMENT

As published in the Immigration Daily on March 3, 2026

What is a refugee? A person fleeing persecution. If coming to the US, a person who has been vetted constantly over a long period of time and when finally admitted, welcomed to the country and sponsored by private organizations to become acclimated to be a productive member of society.

So it was shocking to read the horror story inflicted by ICE on a refugee who had done all the right things since being admitted to this country. As reported in the January 29, 2026, New York Times article, “They Had Done Everything Right. ICE Detained Them Anyway,” https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/26/us/politics/ice-minnesota-refugees.html, a refugee Eritrean single mother of three in St. Paul, Selamawit Mehari, was taken from her apartment by ICE in the presence of her 13-year-old son and an older daughter who produced papers proving their mother was in the US lawfully, but they took her away anyway. The next day, chained at the wrists, waist and ankles, the mother was hustled off on a plane to a detention center in Texas. She spent five days in custody. Before Texas, she was told by ICE in Minnesota that she would be transferred to Texas and deported and whether she wanted to take her kids with her. An officer explained that she had been detained because she had not adjusted her status and her case would be reassessed. In Texas, she was given prison garments, rubber slippers and locked in a frigid room with other women with mattresses on the floor and thin metallic sheets to huddle under. She lost track of time. At some point, she was questioned for three hours with an interpreter on the line. The questions were the same questions that she had answered when she was approved to come to the US as a refugee. At the end of five days, she was released along with other refugees without money or identification and had to make her way from Texas back to Minnesota. Later that day, the family learned that her green card had been approved. The day after release, she still did not have her documents or her favorite gold chain which had been confiscated (at the price of gold these days, one hopes that ICE returned the chain).

Further shocking in the article were assertions that more than 100 refugees with no criminal records from about a dozen countries had been arrested in Minnesota by immigration agents in recent weeks and flown to detention centers in Texas for interviews.

And yet all became clear in a February 18, 2026, submission by the government to Judge John R. Tunheim of US District Court in Minnesota in the case of UHA v. Bondi, 26-CV-417-J RT-DLM containing a same-day USCIS/ICE memo, “Detention of Refugees Who Have Failed to Adjust to Lawful Permanent Resident Status” Feb 18 USCIS ICE Chamorro Memo.pdf – Google Drive, outlining how any refugee who had lived in the US for at least one year and not yet acquired permanent resident status could be arrested and detained by DHS.

The memo cites authority under the refugee adjustment statute, INA §209 (a) (1), that unadjusted refugees return or be returned to DHS custody for inspection and examination for admission to the US – that refugees may be considered to have voluntarily returned to custody by submitting an application to adjust status and appearing at scheduled interviews or appointments pertaining to their adjustment of status application – but if a refugee does not voluntarily return at the one-year mark, the statute provides that the alien shall be returned to DHS custody requiring DHS to locate, arrest, and take the alien into custody (page 3).

The statute clearly contemplates a process under which a refugee who has not acquired permanent resident status through other means and has been physically present in the US for at least one year should file for adjustment of status to permanent residence. The memo itself acknowledges filing to adjust status and appearing at scheduled interviews or appointments as compliance with the requirement of voluntarily returning to custody. The statute does not contemplate detention under such circumstances.

So the standard way in which refugees “return” is through applying for adjustment of status. However, they are not allowed to apply for adjustment of status until one year has passed since their admission as refugee. 8 CFR 209.1. On application, the average time for adjudication on adjustment of status is 12 months according to USCIS current processing times. https://egov.uscis.gov/processing-times/. Is an adjustment applicant protected from detention during the waiting period?  Apparently not, if the similar shanghaiings of Ms. Mehari and three other refugees mentioned in the New York Times article who had already applied to adjust status are examples.

How vetted are refugees before coming to the country? Heavily. The US Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) includes biometric and biographic checks occurring at multiple stages throughout the process, including at the time of the preliminary resettlement support center interview, before applicants’ departure to the US, and on arrival in the US at the port of entry. Among the various checks are the Department of State Consular Lookout and Support System (CLASS) during prescreening by the resettlement support center including name checks on the applicant’s primary names as well as on any variations. Interagency checks vet applicants through biographic data, including names, dates of birth, and other data points of all refugee applicants within designated age ranges. Before or at the time of USCIS interview, biometric checks are initiated which include FBI fingerprint check through next-generation identification, DHS automated biometric identification system (IDENT), and Department of Defense biometric record check. Applicants then go through a USCIS refugee interview in which highly trained USCIS officers conduct extensive in-person, overseas interviews with all refugee applicants crosschecking many lines of inquiry and developing lines of questioning. National security concerns are handled under the USCIS Controlled Application Review and Resolution Process (CARRP) and enhanced review on certain refugee cases is done by the USCIS Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate (FDNS). Prior to flying to the US, applicants are further subject to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) vetting and inspection before being admitted to the country. https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-and-asylum/refugees/refugee-processing-and-security-screening

So these are individuals who should be given the presumption of not being threats against the interests of the United States. If the memo was due to the actions of Rahmanullah Lakanwal, a 29-year-old Afghan national accused of shooting two National Guard members in Washington, D.C in November 2025, the memo should be withdrawn because the circumstances of his reported case do not indicate that Mr. Lakanwal’s entry into the country was based on anything but the truth or that he was a secret sympathizer with America’s enemies. The known facts are that he helped the CIA in Afghanistan in an elite counterterrorism Zero Unit; was airlifted to the US under humanitarian parole in “Operation Allies Welcome” the month after the US military withdrew from Afghanistan; applied for and was granted asylum under the Trump administration in April 2025; and was reported to be struggling with psychological and economic problems, frustration and depression. A caseworker said that she personally believed that he was suffering from both PTSD from his work with the US military and possibly manic-depressive, mostly depressive. National Guard shooter’s social posts, messages reveal turmoil – The Washington Post.

The memo states that refugees may voluntarily appear for inspection by showing up in an immigration office or complying with scheduled appointments, yet this writer has not read or heard of USCIS sending out appointments for refugees to appear directly after one year of their admissions – neither has he heard that refugees can just appear at a USCIS office without appointment. Security guards at federal buildings typically turn away those without appointments, and even if making it past security, immigration officers usually do not have time or the means to accommodate those without appointments.

The nation should not be stigmatizing, detaining, attempting to deport, and transporting refugees to distant states in wretched conditions as this is treatment not even meted out to the worst criminals or suspected foreign agents. The memo appears to have only been contrived to terrorize the refugee community and to discourage their further legal stay in this country. It should be immediately withdrawn.