Category: Articles

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.

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?

As published in the Immigration Daily on June 10, 2026

What do you do with $170 billion given to you for immigration enforcement under the Big Beautiful Bill in 2025? What do you do with the additional $70 billion on its way to completely fund ICE through Donald Trump’s second term in office after passing the critical Senate vote last week? The answer is to spend it on a mass deportation program not bounded by whether the deportees have criminal records nor restricted by the number of equities that they may have, e.g. long-term residence, steady jobs, contributions to the community, history of supporting family, familial ties to US citizens or permanent residents, etc. They will undoubtedly come after someone you know and like or a relative of that person.

What is holding up the process now? Possibly the backlash against ICE for its violent tactics lighting up the national media and killings of Americans Renée Good and Alex Pretti in Minnesota, but most probably concern and anxiety over the midterm elections and how scenes of chaos, mass arrests and deportations will affect the votes of Independents.

If the Supreme Court holds in favor of the Administration on the birthright citizenship issue, estimates are that 100 million persons could be deported. That would rip the roof right off of this country and weaken America immeasurably. Administration officials are contemplating deporting 100 million including almost 50 million US-born citizens. DHS posted an image of a sunny unpopulated beach with a vintage 1970s car in December with a caption that this would be the peace of a country no longer besieged by the Third World after 100 million deportations https://x.com/DHSgov/status/2006472108222853298 . Greg Bovino, the border patrol chief who retired after Minnesota, said that while leading border patrol’s interior operations, he had drafted a plan to deport 100 million people and when he reiterated his call for 100 million deportations at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in March 2026, GOP political candidates echoed his call. https://www.theunpopulist.net/p/trump-isnt-just-after-undocumented Although the Solicitor General told the Supreme Court that Trump’s order would only apply prospectively to children born after it was signed, Justice Sotomayor pointed out that by the logic of his position, this president or the next president or Congress or someone else could decide it shouldn’t be prospective and then there would be nothing limiting that, according to the Solicitor General’s theory.

The White House appears to be preparing Americans for the mass deportations by dehumanizing undocumented immigrants in a May 28, 2026, video opening up in green lettering against a black background akin to a science fiction movie involving aliens, “They Walk Among Us”, and quickly moving on that the aliens are illegal aliens who should not be here and should be deported. “Aliens have been walking among us, living in our neighborhoods, and interacting with us in our daily lives. They’ve shopped in the same stores, attended the same classes as our children, and lived seemingly normal human existences… Millions arrived under the cover of darkness and embedded themselves directly into our society… President Trump was the first to call out the real danger Aliens pose to every American family, every community, and the future of our nation.” https://www.whitehouse.gov/aliens/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email . The video concludes with a number counter for “Encounters” presently over 3 million and an alien arrest map of those caught in various parts of the country.

The Washington Post reported that White House officials and House Republican leaders advised Republican members to avoid emphasizing the phrase “mass deportations” and instead focus on deporting violent criminals and public-safety threats. The report stated that this advice was given specifically in the context of the upcoming midterm elections. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/03/10/trump-gop-deportations-midterms/?utm_source=chatgpt.com. In the March 2026 Republican congressional retreat in Doral, Florida, Deputy Chief of Staff James Blair and Republican Lisa McLain (R-Michigan), chair of the House Republican conference, instructed congressional members to avoid talking about sweeping deportations of undocumented and instead to focus only on deportations of violent criminals.

Republicans know that mass deportation scenes could lose them the midterms. A Reuters/Ipsos poll found that aggressive deportation policies could create political problems for Republicans in the midterms, particularly among independents. According to the poll, a majority of Americans—and an even larger share of independents—said they were less likely to support candidates associated with the administration’s deportation approach. Support for the administration’s handling of immigration reportedly declined compared to earlier in the term. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trumps-deportation-push-could-cost-republicans-midterm-elections-reutersipsos-2026-04-22/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

The watchword is that people should not be lulled into thinking that the increased rhetoric of immigration enforcement against criminals and public safety threats and not others will hold after the elections. There is too much at stake for the President and his MAGA movement to not strike sharply at the hearts of immigrants and even birthright Americans if given the support of the Supreme Court. $240 billion is a lot of money that has to go somewhere, and particular areas for spending include constructing many more mass detention/deportation camps, purchasing a fleet of deportation planes, paying other countries exorbitant amounts to accept deportees that cannot be returned to their home countries, improving logistics in detaining and transporting detainees, mass hiring of ICE personnel, purchasing weapons, riot gear, ground transportation, and obtaining the newest state-of-the-art invasive AI products which can and already have been used against Americans.

The future is being written now, and it appears increasingly grim for a large number of those that we call our family members, neighbors and friends.

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.

As published in the Immigration Daily on January 23, 2026

It is mid-January and the annual cap H-1B season and registration selection process of USCIS is upon us. If cap-subject organizations intend to participate, they should begin to identify candidates in this month if not yet started.

This H-1B season features two new pieces of law which organizations should consider – the Presidential Proclamation’s  $100,000 fee if the company is sponsoring new H-1B petitions from individuals who are overseas or for those in the US whose changes of status are denied https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/restriction-on-entry-of-certain-nonimmigrant-workers/, and the weighted wage rule which will favor organizations willing to pay a higher wage under the Department of Labor standard for wage levels. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2025-12-29/html/2025-23853.htm.  

It should be noted that although both new laws may still be blocked, it should be assumed that they will remain in place for this year’s selection, which will make the selection process more exacting for organizations and their legal representatives.

A reminder – that in the weighted wage rule, just as in a lottery, the highest wage levels get the most ping-pong balls and more chances to win, or in this case to be selected –four balls for level IV, three for level III, two for level II, and one for level I.

Another challenge will be the amount of information required in the process which will necessitate careful thought and preparation in the registration and, if selected, in the later H-1B petition. Information must be disclosed in the registration on the wage to be paid, SOC code (meaning that the job must be defined) and area of employment. The registration process in the past has not required such data. Careful assessment of all registration information to be disclosed should be made to ensure that relevant factors are thoroughly considered and that future applications and petitions are not jeopardized by DHS analysis of submitted information given its rapidly expanding use of AI to crosscheck current with past information.

Most organizations and candidates wonder about the odds of being picked in the weighted wage system. Besides the accepted fact that level III and level IV wages will give more opportunities to be picked, what is the severity of disadvantage if the position’s wage level is level I or level II? Do interested organizations throw up their hands and decide that the odds are not worth the time and expense of submitting H-1B registrations? USCIS itself came up with a methodology in the weighted wage rule using a modeling acceptance figure of 29% for past annual selections based on historical data and somehow extrapolating 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):

Are these figures approximately correct? It is difficult to say, but it appears that the figures are inaccurate if the $100,000 H-1B fee survives court challenges. The modeling never took into account the effect of the staggering fee in discouraging registrations from overseas in neither the proposed rulemaking nor the final rule. In the final rule’s analysis, DHS explained (page 60941 of the Federal Register final rule):

In this analysis, DHS uses historical data of both registrations and received petitions to estimate the future registration and petition population. DHS uses five-year averages to estimate the number of registrations and H-1B cap-subject petitions received annually. DHS does not adjust these estimates to account for the H-1B Proclamation because, as discussed earlier in this preamble, (1) that Proclamation applies to only a subset of H-1B petitions, (2) exceptions to the $100,000 payment may be granted by the Secretary …, and (3) the H-1B Proclamation will expire, absent extension, 12 months from its effective date. This rule, in contrast, will continue indefinitely.

The following is food for further thought. A USCIS report, “Characteristics of H1B Specialty Occupation Workers” www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/reports/ola_signed_h1b_characteristics_congressional_report_FY24.pdf? released in April 2025 gave information that of the 141,205 H-1B petitions approved for initial employment, 53.8% went to individuals for change of status, amendment, and/or extension of stay processed inside the US, and 46.2% for those consular processing outside the country. Although there are obvious problems correlating this type of data to number of anticipated received registrations and there may be a rush of individuals attempting to come into the US on other types of visas in the hope that they may be selected for H-1B registration and be able to change status successfully, the sheer thought that approximately half of initial H-1B petitions come from overseas shows the potential for a much lower number of registrations for FY 2027 than in FY 2026 (343,981 eligible registrations) https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary-workers/h-1b-specialty-occupations/h-1b-electronic-registration-process? The total count in FY 2026 is probably a better benchmark of likely registration numbers than five-year averages as it was the first year using both biocentric and modernization rules which heavily reduced the counts from four of the last five years. If so, wage levels that must be declared for applicants under the H-1B wage weighting regulation would be impacted so that more beneficiaries with wage level I and II offers could be selected than under the USCIS estimate.

Although the author makes no claim to be a statistician, it seems logical that a recalculation based upon a much lesser number of H-1B registrations along with the known fact that USCIS accepts 120,000+ H-1B registrations annually instead of the 85,000 annual allotted number to make up for anticipated shortfalls due to such factors as candidate withdrawals, job offers falling through, employers discovering ineligibility of the candidates, denials, rejections, withdrawals, and revocations, would improve the odds of selection for lower level wage earners.

Organizations may wish to concentrate efforts on H-1B candidates already here in the States with clear immigration histories more confident that USCIS projected acceptance statistics of level I and level II applicants are likely invalid if the $100,000 H-1B fee is upheld for this year’s registration. On the present status of the fee litigation, there appear to be three main cases. 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 presently on a fast-track in the DC Court of Appeals. The other two cases are in different stages in district courts in California and Massachusetts (State of California v. Noem, 1-25cv-13829 (D.Mass.) and Global Nurse Force v. Trump, 4:25-cv-08454 (N.D.Cal.)). As of the date of this writing, there do not appear to be any lawsuits filed against the weighted wage rule.

As published in the Immigration Daily on December 10, 2025

Although not officially released, the Department of State’s November 6, 2025, public charge cable, “Visas: Properly Implementing the INA 212 (a)(4) Public Charge Ineligibility,” has made its way out to the public.

The following is a summary of its contents which, as with other Trump administration directives, places a number of obstacles in the path of those intending to come to the US on nonimmigrant or immigrant visas.

• The current DHS regulation on public charge is aimed at an alien” likely at any time to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance or long-term institutionalized care by government expense.” DOS is directing consular officers to aim at aliens “likely at any time to become a public charge” and conveniently eliminating the words “primarily dependent”.
• DOS instructions are for consular officers to consider all aspects of the case and determine whether the applicant’s circumstances assessed in the totality suggest that he is more likely than not to become a public charge at any time. [The pronoun “he” is being used in this article as the cable employs the pronoun throughout the cable].
• Factors for consular officers to focus on are age, health, family status, assets, resources and financial status, education and skills, and any current or past receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance or long-term institutionalization at government expense.
• Age – For an IV applicant who is nearing or past normal retirement age, what is the likelihood of securing a job in the US that will allow him to support himself and any dependents without the need for cash public assistance? If able to secure such a job, will he be able to work for enough time before retirement to accumulate savings or pension benefits sufficient to support himself and his dependents over his lifespan without the need to seek public cash assistance or long-term institutionalization at government expense? Will he be receiving retirement benefits from the home country while in the US?
• Health – Consider medical conditions including but not limited to cardiovascular diseases, respiratory diseases, cancer, diabetes, metabolic diseases, neurological diseases and mental health conditions. Does such an applicant have adequate financial resources or insurance coverage for such costs over his entire expected stay in the US without seeking public cash assistance or long-term institutionalization? For any class B condition, CDC directs the panel physicians to remark on the likely degree of disability or the need for extensive medical care or institutionalization, and the consular officer must consider the conditions in the physician’s remarks. Where the physician failed to include remarks, officers are to refuse the application under INA 221 (g) and return the medical exam results of the panel physician so that he can include the remarks. For applicants who expect to rely on employer-provided health insurance, what is the likelihood of his getting a job that provides such a benefit and how does he plan to maintain such insurance after retirement? Also consider aspects of the applicant’s health that are not necessarily class B medical conditions but could lead to a public charge determination when assessed in the totality of circumstances such as obesity leading to other more serious conditions.
• Family status – Do any of the dependent family members have disabilities, chronic medical conditions, or special needs and require care such that the applicant cannot maintain employment? Officers should consider whether any applicant’s assets, resources, and financial status will allow him and any dependents to withstand the likely trials of life without the need to resort at any point to public cash assistance or long time institutionalized care with examples that pertinent financial planning normally includes having some cash savings in case of interruption in income or significant unexpected expense or having appropriate insurance coverage – “What are the applicant’s plans to handle a medical emergency while in the United States (including during that two week trip to the Grand Canyon)?”
• Education and skills – Consider English language proficiency – even entry-level or lower skilled jobs require the applicant to be able to serve clients in English, get direction from supervisors in English, and read English language product instructions and warning. Officers can assess the applicant’s English language proficiency by conducting the interview in English, and if the applicant does not at least have basic English proficiency, he should have a realistic plan to acquire it and to support himself and his dependents without using public cash assistance during that time. For aliens in low skilled but demanding jobs like caregiving or agriculture or hazardous ones like meat processing or construction, officers should assess the applicant’s age, health, and family status and whether he will be able to work for enough time before retirement or in the event of disabling injury to accumulate savings or pension benefits sufficient to support him and his dependents over his expected lifespan. For an applicant who plans to work in a professional field, officers should determine whether he has the necessary qualifications and credentials and ask for diplomas and professional certificates and as appropriate, verify them with the issuing institutions. For professions that are subject to state-level licensing requirements, officers should determine how he will support himself and his dependents without seeking cash assistance during the time necessary to obtain necessary qualifications and credentials.
• Current or past receipt of public assistance – Current or past receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance or the need for long-term institutionalization is an indication that the applicant is or has been unable to provide for himself and his dependents and could become a public charge in the future. Officers should take into account any past receipt of such benefits in any country considering the totality of the applicant’s circumstances. They should also consider current or past use of any form of public assistance, social welfare, or private charity either in the US or elsewhere intended to help low income people including but not limited to housing assistance, food assistance (including the use of private food banks), and medical assistance.
• Affidavit of support – Officers are to determine if the applicant is likely at any time to become a public charge. In the first place, officers should determine whether the sponsor or joint sponsor meets the domiciled conditions. Officers should consider the credibility of the affiant and examine the nature of the relationship between the applicant and anyone involved in supporting him. They should also consider whether the sponsor or joint sponsor uses or has used any public assistance, including but not limited to public cash assistance. Use of such benefits by a sponsor could indicate that he is or has been unable to provide for himself fully, thus calling into question his ability to provide for the sponsored applicant.

It seems clear that the Department of State through this cable is preparing to crack down on “undesirables” – the tired, the poor, and the huddled masses yearning to breathe free. The new America is to be a land of the affluent and healthy. Fitness to work for a long time and making financial or insurance arrangements in the event of emergencies or accidental events is to be the standard. Lack of education or English language ability are negatives. Whether dependents are healthy will impact upon the public charge totality equation or whether all members of the family will immigrate. Asking about whether an applicant has ever taken any type of public assistance of any sort from any country and including from private charities and private food banks is wicked and designed to trip up an applicant’s ability to immigrate here. Indeed, many millions of Americans have taken or are taking public assistance and if intending to emigrate to another country, the application of such a standard would make them the “undesirables”. It should also be remembered that many other American relied on private food banks during the recent government shutdown and during bad economic times in past years.

On affidavits of support especially, readers should be aware that the old practices will not apply under the cable’s standard. The I-864 form and documents will be under heavy scrutiny for credibility. The cable invites intrusive quizzing by consular officers on the relationship of the cosponsor to the applicant to judge the credibility of the cosponsor fulfilling the support obligation, and scrutiny of the sponsor or cosponsor’s ever having taken public benefits in the past as a mark of future inability to support.

The focus on obesity being a precursor to “high blood pressure, Type II diabetes, breathing problems, such as asthma and sleep apnea; joint problems, such as osteoarthritis; gallstones and gallbladder disease; and mental illness, such as clinical depression and anxiety” is unwarranted as people’s eating habits are now more than ever subject to change, especially with current blockbuster medications such as Ozempic and Wegovy and other GLP-1 supplements.

And for what period of time? The cable proposes a forever standard in its language on IV applicants who are nearing or past normal retirement age (is 65 the standard when many people are now working through their 70s?); calling for the applicant’s ability to take care of dependent family members to withstand the “likely trials of life”; and the applicant being able to accumulate savings or pension benefits sufficient to support him and his dependents “over his expected lifespan.”  The Department of State seems to forget that immigrants are eligible for government means tested program assistance when they become US citizens – usually after three or five years.

Besides being short on logic, the cable all in all is mean-spirited, un-American, and should be withdrawn.

As published in the Immigration Daily on November 4, 2025

On October 30, 2025, USCIS announced through an interim final rule (IFR) in the Federal Register that as of that date, it would no longer allow the 540 day automatic extension of employment authorization renewal applications for any applications filed on or after October 30, 2025. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/10/30/2025-19702/removal-of-the-automatic-extension-of-employment-authorization-documents   Applications filed prior to October 30, 2025, will continue to receive the benefits of automatic extension. To avert breaks in employment, the agency recommends that applicants file renewal applications up to 180 days prior to the expiration date. https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/news-releases/dhs-ends-automatic-extension-of-employment-authorization. The rule affects those in the following classes who would normally be allowed the 540 days if they filed timely extension requests in the same employment authorization category:

• Aliens admitted as refugees (A03);
• Aliens granted asylum (A05);

• Aliens admitted as parents or dependent children of aliens granted permanent residence under section 101(a)(27)(I) of the INA,8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(27)(I) (A07); 

• Aliens admitted to the United States as citizens of the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, or the Republic of Palau pursuant to agreements between the United States and the former trust territories (A08); 

• Aliens granted withholding of deportation or removal (A10);

• Aliens granted TPS, if the employment authorization category on their current EAD is either A12 or C19 (A12);

• Alien spouses of E-1/2/3 nonimmigrants (Treaty Trader/Investor/Australian Specialty Worker) (A17);

• Alien spouses of L-1 nonimmigrants (Intracompany Transferees) (A18);
• Aliens who have filed applications for asylum and withholding of deportation or removal (C08);

• Aliens who have filed applications for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident under section 245 of the INA,8 U.S.C. 1255 (C09); 

• Aliens who have filed applications for suspension of deportation under section 244 of the INA (as it existed prior to April 1, 1997), cancellation of removal pursuant to section 240A of the INA, or special rule cancellation of removal under section 309(f)(1) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (C10); 

• Aliens who have filed applications for creation of record of lawful admission for permanent residence (C16);

• Aliens who have filed applications for TPS and who have been deemed prima facie eligible for TPS under 8 CFR 244.10(a) and have received an EAD as a “temporary treatment benefit” under 8 CFR 244.10(e) and 12(c)(19) (C19);

• Aliens who have filed legalization applications pursuant to section 210 of the INA,8 U.S.C. 1160 (C20);

• Aliens who have filed legalization applications pursuant to section 245A of the INA,8 U.S.C. 1255a (C22); 

• Aliens who have filed applications for adjustment of status pursuant to section 1104 of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act (C24);

• Certain alien spouses (H-4) of H-1B nonimmigrants with an unexpired Form I-94 showing H-4 nonimmigrant status (C26); and

• Aliens who are the principal beneficiaries or derivative children of approved Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) self-petitioners, under the employment authorization category “(c)(31)” in the form instructions to the EAD application (C31).

The immediacy of the rule is shocking and definitely disadvantages those applicants with little time left who have not yet filed for one reason or another, e.g. waiting to see if their I-485 adjustment of status filings will soon be closed out or scheduled for interview or considering change to another status. Now they will have to scramble to file their applications or risk a gap in ability to work. For others, they should file as close to the 180 day mark as possible and hope to receive an adjudication before their time runs out.

Interested persons can and should give comments to the IFR. For example, they may discuss other actions that USCIS could have taken to lessen stated concerns of public safety and national security such as paring back the automatically extended time to 180 days or even 120 days, especially in light of USCIS inconsistency in adjudicating EAD extensions on a timely basis within 180 days. As per USCIS projected processing times, EAD renewals for asylum applicants are currently running 6.5 months; and although there is no breakdown between initial and renewal applications, I-485 adjustment EADs are running 3.5 months at the National Benefit Center (NBC), but seven months at Service Center Operations (SCOPS), and “All Other Applications” are 5 months with NBC but 10.5 months with SCOPS. https://egov.uscis.gov/processing-times/. It should also be remembered that USCIS many times exceeds the projected processing times, and inquiries usually bring back less than helpful responses. DHS gave short shrift to the idea of returning the 180 day automatic extension period, saying that it suffered the same flaws as the 540 day automatic extension, but there is a huge difference between 540 days versus 180 or even 120 days, and acceptance of an alternative would balance the concerns of public safety and national security with the expectation of US employers and applicants to have uninterrupted work if timely requests for extension are made. Comments are due by December 1, 2025, identified by DHS Docket No. “USCIS-2025-0271”, through the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

 

As published in the Immigration Daily on October 3, 2025

The Trump administration proposed by regulation a new method of selecting cap H-1B registrants for next year’s selection process in its September 24, 2025, “Weighted Selection Process for Registrants and Petitioners Seeking to File Cap-Subject H-1B Petitions.” https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/09/24/2025-18473/weighted-selection-process-for-registrants-and-petitioners-seeking-to-file-cap-subject-h-1b.  Public comments are due by October 24, 2025. The gist of the rule is that selection will favor those organizations willing to pay selectees the highest wage level assuming that the H-1B cap is exceeded.

Prior to the Administration’s surprise Presidential Proclamation of September 19, 2025, placing an add-on fee of $100,000 for new H-1B petitions filed on or after September 21, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/restriction-on-entry-of-certain-nonimmigrant-workers/,  there was no doubt that the cap would be exceeded. Now there may be a modicum of doubt since many organizations will be reluctant to post up $100,000 to bring in an applicant from overseas.

Assuming that expected legal challenges fail, the Proclamation’s $100,000 fee remains, and the number of registrants exceed the cap, the rules read like a real lottery under which organizations that pay the most have more chances to win – like lottery balls, you get four balls for level IV, three for level III, two for level II, and one for level I. If there are multiple organizations sponsoring an individual, the number of balls the registrant receives depends upon the lowest wage level of any of the registrations.

USCIS is wary that there may be some trickery such that some petitioners or their related entities filing a H-1B petition after having the applicant selected with the highest amount of balls and then transferring or amending a petition later by themselves or a “related entity” which would then reduce the wage to an amount in a lower wage level. Another possible trick mentioned would be to have a new or amended petition which includes the same proffered wage but changes the work location so that the proffered wage now corresponds to a lower wage level in the desired location. “Related entity” is being read expansively in the proposed rule to include a parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate company, but would not be limited only to those companies legally related to the petitioner through corporate ownership and control – that some factors relevant to relatedness may include familial ties, proximity of locations, leadership structure, employment history, similar work assignments, and substantially similar supporting documentation. USCIS would consider the totality of the circumstances.

Situations that might not necessarily raise the ire of USCIS and be found permissible could be work location changes between the time of registration and the time of filing the petition, such as in the case of an employer with multiple offices putting the person at a different office at a wage that equals or exceeds the same equivalent wage level for the new location.

Procedurally, in filling out the selection information, organizations would have to select the box for the highest OEWS wage level for the registration and provide the appropriate SOC code and area of intended employment.

On the possibility that the H-1B quota may not be entirely filled next year, it should be remembered that Indians fill approximately 70% of the H-1B positions with most being selected from overseas. Organizations may not be willing to pay $100,000 each to bring them over. Additionally, the traditional selection process does not merely select 85,000 to fill the regular and Masters caps. USCIS in the past has selected over 120,000 as it anticipates that there will be many non-filings by organizations that do not follow through, denials, withdrawals, and rejections.

 

As published in the Immigration Daily on August 21, 2025

On July 17, 2025, DHS submitted a proposed rule, “Weighted Selection Process for Registrants and Petitioners Seeking To File Cap‑Subject H‑1B Petitions” (RIN 1615‑AD01)—to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review,  OMB completed its review on August 8, 2025, and the rule has now moved back to USCIS. https://www.nafsa.org/regulatory-information/uscis-proposal-weighted-selection-h-1b-cap-subject-registrants-and?utm_source=chatgpt.com The next step is publishing the proposed rule in the Federal Register, triggering a formal public comment period. At this point of time early in the second Trump Administration, it is doubtful whether it can be halted if the Administration presses for its passage.

What will the proposed rule look like? We likely do not have to guess much as it will most probably mirror the proposed rule that was finalized in the last days of the first Trump Administration, but never enacted.

Three paragraphs from the summary, comments, and regulation sections of the earlier rule, “Modification of Registration Requirement for Petitioners Seeking to File Cap‑Subject H‑1B Petitions” 1/8/21, 86 FR 1676, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/08/2021-00183/modification-of-registration-requirement-for-petitioners-seeking-to-file-cap-subject-h-1b-petitions?utm_source=chatgpt.com give apt description of what we can expect in the upcoming proposed rule:

DHS is amending its regulations governing the selection of registrations submitted by prospective petitioners seeking to file H-1B cap-subject petitions (or the selection of petitions, if the registration process is suspended), which includes petitions subject to the regular cap and those asserting eligibility for the advanced degree exemption, to allow for ranking and selection based on wage levels. When applicable, USCIS will rank and select the registrations received generally on the basis of the highest OES wage level that the proffered wage equals or exceeds for the relevant SOC code in the area of intended employment, beginning with OES wage level IV and proceeding in descending order with OES wage levels III, II, and I. The proffered wage is the wage that the employer intends to pay the beneficiary. This ranking process will not alter the prevailing wage levels associated with a given position for U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) purposes, which are informed by a comparison of the requirements for the proffered position to the normal requirements for the occupational classification. This final rule will not affect the order of selection as between the regular cap and the advanced degree exemption. The wage level ranking will occur first for the regular cap selection and then for the advanced degree exemption….

… DHS recognizes that, under this final rule, it is less probable that USCIS will select registrations (or, if applicable, petitions) that reflect a wage level that is lower than the prevailing wage level II. DHS agrees with the comment that registrations (or, if applicable, petitions) reflecting prevailing wage levels II, III, and IV will have greater chances of being selected compared to the status quo. To the extent that recent foreign graduates, STEM-track or otherwise, in Optional Practical Training (OPT) can gain the necessary skills and experience to warrant prevailing wage levels II or above, the final rule may result in greater chances of selection of registrations (or, if applicable, petitions) for those beneficiaries. Further, recent graduates with master’s or higher degrees from U.S. institutions of higher education already benefit from the advanced degree exemption and cap selection order, as eligibility for that exemption increases their chance of selection. A registration or petition, as applicable, submitted on behalf of an alien eligible for the advanced degree exemption is first included in the submissions that may be selected toward the regular cap projection. If not selected toward the regular cap projection, submissions eligible for the advanced degree exemption may be selected toward the advanced degree exemption projection. This existing selection order increases the chance of selection for registrations or petitions submitted on behalf of aliens who have earned a master’s or higher degree from a U.S. institution of higher education….

If USCIS has received more registrations on the final registration date than necessary to meet the H-1B regular cap under Section 214(g)(1)(A) of the Act, USCIS will rank and select from among all registrations properly submitted on the final registration date on the basis of the highest OES wage level that the proffered wage equals or exceeds for the relevant SOC code and area of intended employment, beginning with OES wage level IV and proceeding in descending order with OES wage levels III, II, and I. Where there is no current OES prevailing wage information for the proffered position, USCIS will rank and select petitions based on the appropriate wage level that corresponds to the requirements of the proffered position. If USCIS receives and ranks more registrations at a particular wage level than the projected number needed to meet the numerical limitation, USCIS will randomly select from all registrations within that particular wage level a sufficient number of registrations needed to reach the numerical limitation.

With the total emphasis on higher wage/SOC level in the old rule which can be expected to be in the upcoming proposed rule, the question turns to how it will play out in March in the next H-1B selection if a new rule is implemented by then. The selection rate for this past March’s cap H-1B registration rose to 35.7% under the H-1B Modernization Rule which put many restrictions in place and raised the registration filing fee per applicant from $10 to $215. There were 336,153 eligible unique beneficiaries and 120,141 selections, leaving 216,012 unselected applicants. https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary-workers/h-1b-specialty-occupations/h-1b-electronic-registration-process  Approximately 85,000 cap H-1B visas are awarded every year. There is as yet no discernible information on the split between those applicants who registered under the regular as opposed to the Masters cap nor the salary levels under which they registered. But given the percentages and the number of the non-selected, it would stand to reason that most if not all level I applicants would not be selected under a proposed new rule. Having to pay $215 for an almost certain “no” will severely depress the number of organizations willing to pay the fee for level I positions.

On the fate of the earlier rule, it was blocked in September 2021 by District Court Judge Jeffrey S.White in Chamber of Commerce of the United State of America et al v. United States Department of Homeland Security et al, Case No. 4:20-cv-07331 (N.D.Ca. 9/15/21, https://www.pacermonitor.com/view/OPCZVAQ/Chamber_of_Commerce_of_the_United_v_United_States_Department_of_Homeland__candce-20-07331__0158.0.pdf, and withdrawn in December of that year https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/12/22/2021-27714/modification-of-registration-requirement-for-petitioners-seeking-to-file-cap-subject-h-1b-petitions. The timing of the earlier rule at the end of the first Trump Administration allowed the incoming Biden Administration to vacate the rule. Timing in the first year of the second Trump Administration will not be a factor.

However, it would be a tremendous shame to change to a wage-based selection process as geniuses are generally not identified by high wage levels coming out of colleges and universities, even on the Masters level, and to miss them and force them to leave the country would only weaken this nation’s ability to compete against the rest of the world, especially against our adversaries. Imagine personages like Albert Einstein, Bill Gates, or Elon Musk who did not astound with their academic genius in their universities, and what would happen if they were just graduating today (Bill Gates never graduated) and faced with the prospect of having to obtain a H-1B visa at the level III or level IV OES wage level to have the best shot of selection.

As published in the Immigration Daily on July 15, 2025

1. July 1, 2025, level I prevailing wage changes for various occupations

New prevailing wages by the Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational and Wage Statistics (OEWS) which are used in determining prevailing wages in PERM labor certification applications and H-1B labor condition applications (LCAs) came out on July 1, 2025, and valid until June 30, 2026, https://flag.dol.gov/wage-data/wage-search show many more category rises than falls in pay. The below compilation includes many of the categories in the New York area at level I, the lowest of four wage levels used by the Department of Labor in its O*Net system:

• General and operations managers – + 1K – $77,293
• Marketing managers – minus 3K – $114,379
• Sales managers – plus 3K – $129,896
• Public relations managers – plus 3K – $125,819
• Computer & info systems managers – + 2K – $148,450
• Purchasing managers – + 2K – $126,506
• Architectural/engineering managers –minus 3K – $135,928
• Lodging managers – minus 7K – $55,869
• Medical & health services managers – plus 4K – $103,293
• Managers, all others – minus 3K – $103,064
• Management analysts – minus 1K – $74,402
• Market research analysts – + 1K – $61,797
• Accountants and auditors – + 2K – $73,070
• Credit analysts – plus 8K – $84,677
• Financial and investment analysts – + 2K – $87,838
• Financial specialists, all other – plus 4K – $73,195
• Computer systems analyst –minus 1K – $80,600
• Information security analysts – minus 2K – $94,016
• Computer & information research scientists – +27K – $110,011
• Computer network architects – same – $103,938
• Database administrators – +12 K – $77,438
• Database architects – minus 8K – $93,226
• Network and computer systems administrators – + 6K – $79,331
• Computer programmers – minus 6K – $74,714
• Software developers – + 8K – $103,210
• Software quality assurance analysts and testers – minus 1K – $78,624
• Web developers – minus 7K – $40,893
• Computer occupations, all other – plus 4K – $62,525
• Actuaries – minus 2K – $90,750
• Operations research analysts – + 1K – $68,869
• Statisticians – + 3K – $81,557
• Data scientists – minus 3K – $79,456
• Architects except landscape and Naval – + 2K – $67,309
• Landscape architects – minus 8K – $69,326
• Bioengineers & biomedical engineers – plus 7K – $87,630
• Chemical engineers – plus 3K – $82,597
• Civil engineers – plus 4K – $78,811
• Computer software engineers – minus 8K – $90,605
• Electrical engineers – plus 6K – $84,490
• Electronic engineers, except computer – +11 K – $101,878
• Environmental engineers – plus 1K – $71,906
• Industrial engineers – plus 6K – $81,037
• Materials engineers – +13 K – $83,054
• Mechanical engineers – + 7K – $81,432
• Engineers, all other – +17 K – $83,346
• Biochemists & biophysicists – minus 1K – $74,963
• Microbiologist – plus 3K – $63,378
• Biological scientists, all other – minus 2K – $74,838
• Epidemiologists – minus 1K – $73,694
• Medical scientists, except epidemiologists – same – $71,282
• Life scientists, all others – minus 3K – $63,814
• Chemists – plus 1K – $64,230
• Environmental sciences & specialists, including health – same – $57,200
• Economists – plus 6K – $92,082
• Lawyers – plus 5K – $98,114
• Fashion designers – minus 6K – $62,691
• Graphic designers – + 2K – $53,955
• Interior designers – + 5K – $51,022
• News analysts, reporters and journalists – + 7K – $63,128/level 2 = $181,064
• Public relations specialists – + 2K – $54,995
• Editors – + 4K – $63,606/level 2 = $90,563
• Technical writers – minus 5K – $47,195
• Registered nurses – plus 6K – $88,941
• Nurse practitioners – same – $113,630
• Acupuncturists – plus 1K – $64,979
• Medical and clinical laboratory technologists – minus 1K – $49,483
• Medical and clinical laboratory technicians – $49,483
• Chefs and head cooks – plus 5K – $47,154
• Restaurant cooks – plus 1K – $34,611
• Sales engineers – plus 7K – $101,171

The bottom lines appear to be that the pluses far exceed the minuses; premiums are on individuals with professional technical skills; managers do not to command the level of increases as persons with professional technical skills; and hiring in certain computer occupations may be adversely affected by the rise of generative artificial intelligence.

2. Checking to see whether the new medical form is being used

The new edition of the I-693 Instructions for Report of Medical Examination and Vaccination Record came into effect on July 2, 2025, and submitting a medical examination on the former edition may be cause for rejection of the I-485 adjustment of status application. The rule is that If the civil surgeon signs your form on or before July 2, 2025, you must use the 03/09/23 or the 01/20/25 edition. If the civil surgeon signs your form July 3, 2025 or later, USCIS will accept only the 01/20/25 edition. https://www.uscis.gov/i-693 This may be concerning to law firms as some designated physicians and clinics may still be issuing medical findings on the former edition in the first days of new edition use, and the law firm cannot open the medical (closed medical required). In case of doubt, the client can be asked what edition was used and date of signature as the client is usually given a copy of the medical by the physician/clinic. If not, the client could check with the doctor’s office to ensure that the correct edition was used.

3. Online H-1B cap filing reminder

This year saw an increase in the number of H1B selections https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary-workers/h-1b-specialty-occupations/h-1b-electronic-registration-process due to the reforms instituted by USCIS in the H-1B Modernization Rule which included enhanced registration payments per candidate from $10 to $215 and that, regardless of how many organizations submitted individual registration applications for one person, that person would only be counted once. Many law firms handling H-1B cap petitions worked until the last week to submit selected H-1B registration petitions by the deadline of June 30, 2025. Online filings were encouraged to reduce the possibilities of error. A reminder is that in the latter circumstance – especially when dealing with smaller sized companies, they should be given warning well ahead of time that they must have sufficient monies on their credit cards for online case filings, and they should perhaps even notify the credit card companies ahead of time that they will be putting heavy charges on their cards. USCIS charges are no longer a few hundred dollars, rather over $3000 and $4000 on many occasions and with premium processing over $6000 for most companies – serious money to the credit card companies, especially where organizations are sponsoring multiple beneficiaries. Even if the company credit card does not exceed the credit line, the charges may be rejected as abnormal by the credit card company necessitating last-minute communications between the designated person on the credit card and the credit card company. In one situation involving a last-minute online filing, the designated person could not be reached, and the petitioning organization had to reach out to its second bank after the first bank rejected its request for ACH transfer to pay for the filing.

4. Warning on what to look out for in nonimmigrant visa interviews – most likely applicable also to CBP at ports of entry

The State Department restarted FMJ visa interviews again on June 18, 2025, with heavy vetting on social media. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/state-dept-restarts-student-visa-interviews-with-tougher-social-media-rules/ar-AA1GYPGN  The Marco Rubio cable said for officers to examine student profiles “to identify applicants who bear hostile attitudes towards our citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles; who advocate for, aid, or support designated foreign terrorists and other threats to US national security; or who perpetrate unlawful antisemitic harassment or violence.”  Applicants must make public and accessible all portions of their social media accounts and should be penalized if they refuse. If portions of accounts remain set to private or are otherwise limited, officers should treat the case as any other where an applicant fails to provide certain information on request – “You must consider whether such failure reflects evasiveness or otherwise calls into question the applicant’s credibility.” The new guidelines affect new applicants; those whose cases are currently in progress –that includes applicants who have not yet been interviewed and those whose interviews have been waived; and those who have already been interviewed and are otherwise approvable but have not yet been finalized as approved.

It is clear that in this Administration, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) closely follows the lead of the Department of State. Thus, nonimmigrants who are traveling internationally should be aware that the above guidelines may apply to them even if they are not applying for visas at American consulates or embassies. They and even permanent residents and US citizens who fear intrusive searches at ports of entry may consider taking proactive steps. If you fear border searches of your phone, advice from a New York Times columnist [Sorry, cannot locate article] is to consider wiping your data or even buying a cheap backup device. If a US citizen, turn off biometrics such as fingerprint and facial recognition sensors and only rely on the passcode because it is legally more difficult for the government to compel you to share a passcode that it is for an officer to take your phone and hold it up to your face to unlock it.