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Now it appears that the favorable guidance, “Options for Nonimmigrant Workers Following Termination of Employment” has been archived although not yet formally withdrawn https://www.uscis.gov/archive/options-for-nonimmigrant-workers-following-termination-of-employment-0 and USCIS is issuing RFEs, denials, and even NTAs where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.