Alan Lee, Esq. Q&As published on the World Journal Weekly on October 4, 2026: 1. Problems with dependent applicant can affect the principal applicant 2. Holding a valid F-1 visa increases the chances of returning to the U.S.

1. Problems with dependent applicant can affect the principal applicant

A reader asks:
My spouse’s Chart A is current, so they can file an I-485 with their company. If I file my I-485 alongside with them, will my pending NIW I-140 affect either my spouse’s or my case? I’ve heard that if either the principal or the derivative has a pending I-140, there’s a high chance the case will go into a “black hole.” I am very worried. In this situation, what’s the best approach? Should I file my I-485 with my spouse while also applying for NIW premium processing? But I feel my case is weak, and will likely receive an RFE. I have two options:

  1. File my I-485 with my spouse and withdraw my NIW I-140.
  2. Apply for NIW premium processing, and if I get an RFE, withdraw my NIW, then file I-485 with with my spouse.

Which method is better?

Alan Lee Esq. answers,
USCIS likes to adjudicate principal and dependent I-485 applications together, and if there are questions concerning a dependent, there is a chance that the principal’s application will be held up while USCIS does a file transfer for the dependent’s file and examines it for questions of inadmissibility or discrepancies with the I-485 filing. It is up to you as to whether to file and withdraw or withdraw after premium processing if there is an RFE and then file the I-485. If you believe that your case is weak, your first option may be the better one, but that of course is up to you.

2. Holding a valid F-1 visa increases the chances of returning to the U.S.

A reader asks:
I applied for OPT and during this period I also applied for a green card.  My current visa status is F-1. Before I get my I-140 approved can I return to my home country?

Alan Lee Esq. answers,
We give a general caution to nonimmigrants who wish to travel overseas that Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has been doing much heavier vetting of applicants for admission since Mr. Trump became president again. That being said, you have a fairly good chance of being able to return to the US if you have a valid F-1 visa in your passport. If you must see an American consular officer for a visa in order to return, there is a chance of it not being issued, especially if an I-140 petition has been filed even if not approved. It should also be noted that some consular officers are reluctant to issue F-1 visas for individuals on OPT.

Alan Lee, Esq. Q&As published on the World Journal Weekly on September 27, 2026: 1. The adjudication on NIW application has become stricter lately, if you have remained outside the country for a long period of time 2. Can I apply for PERM and NIW at the same time?

1. The adjudication on NIW application has become stricter lately, if you have remained outside the country for a long period of time

A reader asks:
I am an ordinary master’s level software engineer with no publications and no newsworthy contributions. I already have a PERM priority date, but there’s still a long way before I becomes current. I don’t want to keep waiting in the U.S. –  I plan to return to my home country and wait there until the visa number becomes current, and then apply for an NIW green card.  So, once my priority date becomes current, I would apply for NIW or EB-1 directly from abroad and obtain an immigrant visa.  Is this plan feasible? I’ve heard NIW has become stricter recently. If my goal is to apply for NIW four or five years from now, what can I start preparing or doing now?

Alan Lee Esq. answers,
You are correct in your observation that adjudications on NIW applications have become stricter lately. The scrutiny on EB-1A has also toughened. You should also understand that it is more difficult to convince USCIS that your presence would be in the national interest if you are not in the country, and especially if you have remained outside for a long period of time. If you are in a position in which the company that sponsored the PERM is willing to wait for you while you spend time overseas, that is probably a more possible route to immigration although you or the company may have to explain to the US consulate why it would want to keep up the application for a number of years even while you have been out of the US. In planning to apply for EB-1A or NIW, you can begin to build achievements in your field – publications, citations, awards, professional memberships, media coverage, significant projects, letters from recognized experts, etc.

2. Can I apply for PERM and NIW at the same time?

A reader asks:
My company has already filed a PERM application for me, but it will likely not be approved until next year.  If I now file a National Interest Waiver (NIW) application, will it affect the approval of my PERM? Or should I wait until my PERM based I-140 is approved before considering the NIW?

Alan Lee Esq. answers,
The difficulty with a PERM application coupled with NIW application is that the PERM application requests a specific job along with minimal qualifications while the NIW application asks how the job will benefit the country. Presenting inconsistent backgrounds in one application as opposed to the other may raise questions concerning credibility. If there are no large discrepancies between the PERM and NIW, the filing of the NIW should not affect the I-140 adjudication of the PERM based application.

Alan Lee, Esq. Q&As published on the World Journal Weekly on September 20, 2026: 1. F-1 application requires the applicant to have nonimmigrant intent 

1. F-1 application requires the applicant to have nonimmigrant intent 

A reader asks:

I hold H-1B status but have been laid off, and I am now in the grace period. I had already filed an I-130 before, so I have immigrant intent; but my I-485 priority date has not yet become current. If I cannot find another employer, one possible option is to change from H status to F visa.  However, F visas require no immigrant intent. What should I do?

Alan Lee Esq. answers,
Sometimes an applicant can only go with the choices which are available to him or her, and if a change of status from H to F is the best option, the applicant would go with the option.
You’re correct. F-1 applications require the applicant to have nonimmigrant intent. Therefore, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services may indeed require you to prove that your stay in the U.S. is only temporary.
At that time, you will need to bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that you maintain close ties and ties to your home country, such as family, employment, or assets, and explain that if your legal stay on the F-1 visa expires and you haven’t completed immigration proceedings, you are willing to return to your home country.

Alan Lee, Esq. Q&As published on the World Journal Weekly on September 6, 2026: 1. Working for the company on EAD while simultaneously applying for a new H-1B would not create any risks for green card application

1. Working for the company on EAD while simultaneously applying for a new H-1B would not create any risks for green card application

A reader asks:
I work for a non-profit organization that had a hiring freeze until the end of March this year, when they decided to keep me. Before that, my new H-1B (valid until 2028) was lost because of the hiring freeze. Now my current H-1B will expires at the end of August. My employer is concerned that using the I-485 EAD card  to work might create risks for them.  They are giving me only a three-month limit – if the new H-1B isn’t approved or the green card is denied within those three months, they will be terminated my employment. The company’s immigration management department was laid off, so no one there knows the risks. My question: Will working on the EAD while simultaneously applying for a new H-1B create any risk to my green card application?

Alan Lee Esq. answers,
Although you have presented a complicated fact situation, the quick answer is that working for the company on EAD while simultaneously applying for a new H-1B would not create any risks for your green card application. This is assuming that the organization has sponsored you for employment-based immigration and that the new H1B petition that is planned for filing is not inconsistent with the representations on the immigrant visa petition.

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.

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.