Dear Clients and Colleagues,
We hope this newsletter finds you well. In this edition, we bring you important updates on various immigration matters. Please take a moment to review the following key highlights:
USCIS Restores Strict Evidence Standard: Incomplete Immigration Filings May Be Denied Without an RFE or NOID
In a significant policy change that will affect virtually every immigration filing, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has announced that it is restoring officers’ discretion to deny immigration benefit requests without first issuing a Request for Evidence (RFE) or Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) when applicants fail to establish eligibility or fail to submit all required initial evidence with their filing.
The policy became effective immediately on August 5, 2026, and applies to benefit requests that are pending or filed on or after that date, unless otherwise provided by statute, regulation, or specific USCIS policy.
What Has Changed?
USCIS has reaffirmed a long-standing principle of immigration law: the burden of proof rests with the applicant or petitioner at the time of filing.
In practical terms, this means that applicants should not expect USCIS to provide an opportunity to correct an incomplete filing. If the petition or application lacks required initial evidence or fails to establish eligibility when submitted, the officer may simply deny the case without requesting additional documents.
According to USCIS, the policy restores consistency with existing Department of Homeland Security regulations and strengthens the integrity of the immigration system by discouraging incomplete or frivolous filings.
Why Did USCIS Make This Change?
USCIS explained that the previous policy, adopted during the Biden Administration, encouraged adjudicating officers to issue RFEs or NOIDs even when applicants filed incomplete applications or failed to provide the evidence clearly required by the applicable forms and instructions.
According to the agency, that practice:
- Increased adjudication delays;
- Consumed valuable government resources;
- Allowed applicants to file “placeholder” applications without sufficient supporting evidence;
- In some cases enabled applicants to obtain interim immigration benefits, such as employment authorization, while waiting to supplement deficient filings.
What Does This Mean for Applicants?
This policy places far greater importance on submitting a complete, well-documented, and legally sufficient application from the outset.
Applicants and employers should assume that there may not be a second opportunity to provide missing evidence.
An avoidable denial may result in:
- Loss of filing fees;
- Loss of valuable immigration status or work authorization;
- Missed filing deadlines;
- Unlawful presence concerns in certain situations;
- Additional legal expenses and delays associated with refiling.
Common Examples of Cases That Could Be Denied Without an RFE:
The impact of this policy will be felt across nearly every immigration category.
Marriage-Based Green Card Cases:
If a marriage-based adjustment of status application is filed without critical required evidence, USCIS may deny the case without first requesting the missing documentation.
Examples include:
- Marriage certificate;
- Proof of termination of prior marriages;
- Birth certificates;
- Required Affidavit of Support (Form I-864);
- Medical examination when required;
- Evidence demonstrating the bona fide nature of the marriage where required.
H-1B Petitions:
H-1B petitions must establish that both the position and the beneficiary satisfy all statutory requirements.
A petition may face immediate denial if filed without essential evidence such as:
- The beneficiary’s qualifying bachelor’s degree or higher degree;
- A required foreign degree evaluation demonstrating U.S. equivalency;
- Required transcripts or diplomas;
- Evidence establishing that the position qualifies as a specialty occupation;
- Any other required initial documentation identified in the Form I-129 instructions.
L-1 Intracompany Transferee Petitions:
L-1 petitions frequently require extensive documentary evidence.
USCIS may deny an L-1 petition without an RFE if the filing fails to include evidence establishing:
- At least one continuous year of qualifying employment abroad;
- Managerial or executive duties (L-1A);
- Specialized knowledge (L-1B);
- The qualifying corporate relationship between the foreign and U.S. entities;
- Organizational charts, payroll records, employment verification, or other required supporting documentation.
Employment-Based Green Card Cases:
PERM, I-140, and other employment-based filings may also be denied without additional requests for evidence if they are missing required documentation supporting eligibility.
Quality Control Is More Important Than Ever:
This policy serves as a reminder that immigration petitions should never be filed simply to meet a deadline unless all required initial evidence has been carefully assembled and reviewed.
Employers, applicants, and legal representatives should perform a comprehensive quality-control review before submission to ensure that every required document identified in the USCIS form instructions accompanies the filing.
The days of relying on an anticipated RFE to supply key eligibility documents may no longer be a safe strategy.
Our Recommendation:
At the Law Offices of Keshab Raj Seadie, P.C., we strongly recommend that every immigration filing undergo a thorough legal and documentary review before submission.
Submitting a complete petition with all required initial evidence not only improves the likelihood of approval but also reduces the risk of unnecessary denials, refiling costs, lengthy delays, and disruptions to employment or immigration status.
With USCIS now exercising broader discretion to deny incomplete filings without first issuing an RFE or NOID, careful preparation has never been more important.
The best strategy is simple: File it right the first time:
This policy represents one of the most important procedural changes in recent years. Employers, HR professionals, foreign nationals, and immigration practitioners should review their filing practices immediately to ensure every petition is complete and supported by all required initial evidence before submission.
USCIS Suspends Collection of $100,000 H-1B Fee While Appeal Continues
Employers sponsoring H-1B workers received further clarification this week as USCIS acknowledged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit’s decision denying the government’s request to stay a lower court order that invalidated the controversial $100,000 H-1B fee imposed on certain consular processing cases. As a result, USCIS has confirmed that it is currently complying with the court’s order and is not collecting the $100,000 fee while the litigation remains pending.
The underlying case, State of California v. Noem (also referenced in some filings as State of California v. Mullin following changes in government officials), remains on appeal before the First Circuit. Although the fee is not currently being assessed, USCIS has stated that it is evaluating its next steps and intends to collect the fee if a higher court later lifts the order vacating the policy.
The legal challenge stems from a June 2026 decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, which held that the $100,000 H-1B fee exceeded executive authority and violated the Administrative Procedure Act. The federal government appealed that ruling and sought to keep the fee in place during the appeal, but the First Circuit denied that request, allowing the district court’s decision to remain in effect for now.
The appeal itself is far from over. Briefing on the merits is expected to conclude on October 26, 2026, after which the First Circuit will consider whether the district court correctly invalidated the fee. Depending on the outcome, the case could ultimately be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
What Employers Should Do:
For now, employers filing H-1B petitions subject to the challenged fee should continue following current USCIS filing instructions, which do not require payment of the $100,000 fee. However, because the government has expressly stated that it intends to resume collection if the court’s order is reversed or stayed, employers should closely monitor further developments and remain prepared for additional changes in USCIS guidance.
The litigation remains one of the most significant H-1B cases of 2026, with potentially substantial financial implications for employers sponsoring foreign professionals through consular processing.
Writ of Mandamus Lawsuits for Unreasonably Delayed Immigration Cases:
Has Your Immigration Case Been Stuck for Months or Even Years?
Long and unexplained delays by USCIS or a U.S. consulate can leave families separated, careers on hold, and businesses unable to move forward. While some delays are normal, the government cannot delay adjudicating an application indefinitely without justification.
When all reasonable efforts to obtain a decision have failed, a Writ of Mandamus may be the solution.
What Is a Writ of Mandamus?
A Writ of Mandamus is a lawsuit filed in federal court asking a judge to order a U.S. government agency to perform its legal duty and make a decision on a pending application or petition.
A mandamus lawsuit does not ask the court to approve the case. Instead, it asks the court to require the government to act and issue a decision within a reasonable time.
Who Can Benefit from a Mandamus Lawsuit?
A mandamus action may be appropriate for applicants experiencing unreasonable delays involving:
- Naturalization (N-400)
- Adjustment of Status (I-485)
- Employment Authorization Documents (EAD)
- Advance Parole
- Family-based and employment-based immigrant petitions
- H-1B, L-1, O-1, and other nonimmigrant petitions
- I-751 Removal of Conditions
- I-130 Petitions
- I-601 and I-601A Waivers
- Consular immigrant and nonimmigrant visa processing
- Administrative Processing under INA Section 221(g)
- Security clearance or background check delays
Can Delays at a U.S. Consulate Be Challenged?
Yes. Many visa applicants become stuck in 221(g) Administrative Processing for months or even years after their visa interview.
When the delay becomes unreasonable and there is no legitimate explanation, a federal mandamus lawsuit may be an effective way to compel the Department of State to complete its review and make a final decision.
Although every case is different, many 221(g) administrative processing cases are resolved after a mandamus lawsuit is filed.
What Happens After a Mandamus Lawsuit Is Filed?
Once the lawsuit is filed:
- The U.S. Department of Justice represents the government.
- The government often contacts the responsible agency to determine why the case has been delayed.
- In many cases, the parties reach a resolution before extensive litigation.
- Frequently, the government agrees to adjudicate the case within a negotiated timeframe, making a lengthy court battle unnecessary.
While no attorney can guarantee a specific outcome, many mandamus cases are resolved through settlement or voluntary action by the government before the court issues a final ruling.
When Should You Consider a Mandamus Lawsuit?
You may want to consult an experienced immigration attorney if:
- Your case has been pending well beyond normal processing times.
- Multiple service requests and inquiries have produced no meaningful response.
- Congressional inquiries or Ombudsman requests have not resolved the delay.
- The delay is causing significant personal, family, educational, or financial hardship.
- There is no clear legal reason for the continued delay.
Why Choose the Law Offices of Keshab Raj Seadie, P.C.?
For more than 25 years, the Law Offices of Keshab Raj Seadie, P.C., has represented individuals, families, professionals, and employers in complex U.S. immigration matters. Our team carefully evaluates delayed cases to determine whether a Writ of Mandamus is the appropriate strategy and vigorously represents clients in federal court when necessary.
If your immigration case has been unreasonably delayed, you may have legal options.
Don’t let unnecessary government delays keep your life on hold.
Contact the Law Offices of Keshab Raj Seadie, P.C. today for a consultation to determine whether a Writ of Mandamus is the right solution for your case. Let us help you move your immigration journey forward.
This can also be adapted into a high-converting landing page for GreenCardMaker.com with FAQs, success stories, a consultation form, and strong SEO targeting keywords such as “USCIS delay lawyer,” “mandamus lawsuit,” “221(g) administrative processing attorney,” and “federal immigration delay lawsuit.”
DHS Final Rule Creates New Risks for F-1 Students from Travel-Ban and Pause-Listed Countries
International students from countries subject to U.S. travel restrictions or visa processing pauses face heightened immigration risks following the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) final rule eliminating the longstanding Duration of Status (D/S) framework for F, J, and I nonimmigrants. According to a new American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) practice pointer, these students should exercise increased caution when traveling internationally, applying for visas, or making changes to their immigration status.
Under the final rule, which is scheduled to take effect on September 15, 2026, F-1 students will no longer be admitted for “Duration of Status.” Instead, they will receive a fixed Admit Until Date (AUD) on their Form I-94. Students who require additional time to complete their academic program, OPT, STEM OPT, or other authorized activities may need to file an extension of stay with USCIS or depart and seek readmission, significantly changing the way student status is maintained.
AILA cautions that these changes are especially significant for students from travel-ban and pause-listed countries. International travel could expose them to visa appointment delays, administrative processing, or even an inability to return to the United States if new visas cannot be obtained. In many cases, remaining in the United States and avoiding unnecessary international travel may be the safest strategy while maintaining valid F-1 status.
The new rule also shortens the standard F-1 grace period from 60 days to 30 days for students admitted under the new framework and imposes additional restrictions on program changes, transfers, and extensions of stay. Students will need to carefully monitor their I-20 program end dates, I-94 expiration dates, and filing deadlines to avoid falling out of status.
Immigration attorneys are advising F-1 students—particularly those from countries affected by travel restrictions—to consult experienced counsel before departing the United States, applying for a new visa, changing schools, extending their academic program, or beginning new educational programs. Advance planning has become increasingly important under the new fixed-period admission system.
Bottom Line: The elimination of the duration of status represents one of the most significant changes to the F-1 student immigration system in decades. For students from travel-ban and pause-listed countries, careful legal guidance, strategic travel planning, and strict compliance with immigration requirements will be essential to maintaining lawful status and avoiding disruptions to their education.
Navigating Travel and Entry in a Climate of Rapid Change
What H-1B, H-4, L-1, L-2, F-1 and other nonimmigrant visa holders should understand before booking a ticket:
International travel has become the single riskiest routine decision a nonimmigrant makes. Nothing about a trip abroad is legally simple anymore: consular appointment capacity has tightened, interview waivers have largely disappeared, security vetting has expanded, and policy changes are now announced with little or no lead time. A trip planned in good faith in June can become a three-month absence by September.
This article outlines what has changed, where the pressure points are by visa category, and how to travel with the least exposure.
Status and visa are two different things:
The distinction matters more than ever. Status is what USCIS grants you inside the United States, evidenced by your I-94 and approval notice. A visa is only a travel document — a consular officer’s permission to request admission at a port of entry. It can expire while you remain in lawful status, and it must be valid on the day you seek re-entry.
Departing the country therefore converts an internal immigration matter into a consular one, governed by different rules, different officers, and no meaningful right of appeal.
Consular stamping: the interview waiver is effectively gone:
The most consequential change of the last year is the near-elimination of the interview waiver, or “dropbox,” program. The Department of State narrowed eligibility from a 48-month window back to 12 months, and then removed most employment- and study-based categories entirely. H-1B, L-1, F-1, and most other nonimmigrant renewals now require an in-person interview, with limited remaining exceptions for certain diplomatic and official classifications and narrow B-1/B-2 renewals. Age-based exemptions for young children and elderly applicants have also been withdrawn.
The practical consequences are logistical rather than legal:
- Appointment capacity is the constraint. High-volume posts — particularly in India — cannot absorb the shift of every renewal applicant back into the interview queue. Book appointments before booking flights, not the other way around.
- Your passport stays with the consulate. During processing you cannot travel internationally, and you cannot use the passport for third-country travel or emergencies at home.
- Waiver eligibility can change while your application is pending. Applicants who submitted under one rule set have been called back for interviews under another.
Assume, when planning, that a visa appointment plus processing is a multi-week commitment at minimum.
221(g): a refusal, not a denial — and not a deadline:
A 221(g) letter is issued under INA § 221(g) and is technically a refusal, held open pending either additional documents or administrative processing. Two things follow from that.
First, if you are later asked on a DS-160, ESTA application, or other form whether you have ever been refused a U.S. visa, the answer is generally yes, and it should be disclosed with an explanation.
Second, there is no statutory clock. Administrative processing — which may include security advisory opinions, DS-5535 supplemental questionnaires, or interagency checks — has no published timeline and no reliable expedite path. Cases resolve in three weeks or in nine months.
What tends to trigger it: employment in sensitive technology, engineering, or research fields; third-party or end-client placement arrangements; prior overstays or status gaps; name similarities in databases; inconsistencies between the petition, the DS-160, and what you say at the window.
What actually helps:
- Respond to any document request completely and immediately. Partial responses restart the queue.
- Carry a current employment verification letter, recent pay records, the full approval notice with LCA or I-129S, and — for research or technical roles — a plainly worded description of your work that a non-specialist can follow.
- Track the case through CEAC and keep records of every submission.
- Do not resign a lease, sell a car, schedule surgery, or make any commitment that assumes a return date.
L-1 and L-2. Blanket L applicants are adjudicated entirely at the consulate on the I-129S, and posts have been applying specialized-knowledge standards strictly; a blanket refusal typically means starting over with an individual petition at USCIS. L-2 spouses are employment-authorized incident to status, but that only helps if the I-94 carries the correct annotation — check it after every entry.
F-1. Confirm SEVIS is active and that your I-20 carries a current travel signature — valid twelve months for students in academic status, six for those on post-completion OPT. Students on OPT should carry the EAD, the job offer or employment letter, and be ready to explain how the work relates to the degree; unemployment days continue to accrue while abroad. Student applicants have also faced expanded online vetting, including requirements to make social media accounts publicly viewable, and visa revocations have occurred based on records that were never raised at the original interview.
Automatic visa revalidation. Trips of thirty days or less to Canada, Mexico, or adjacent islands can allow re-entry on an expired visa with a valid I-94 and unexpired approval notice — but the benefit is lost if you apply for a new visa during the trip and it is refused or placed in 221(g), and it is unavailable to nationals of designated state sponsors of terrorism. Applying and being placed in administrative processing is the common way people get stranded.
Pending adjustment of status. If an I-485 is pending, do not depart without an approved advance parole document unless you hold valid H or L status and intend to re-enter in it. Departure without either is treated as abandonment.
At the port of entry:
Admission is a separate discretionary decision. A valid visa entitles you to apply for entry, not to receive it. Carry your approval notice, employment letter, and — for students — I-20 and enrollment proof in hand baggage, not checked luggage. Electronic device inspections at ports of entry are lawful and increasingly common; travelers should assume that what is on a phone or laptop may be reviewed, and that statements made in secondary inspection are recorded and consequential. Always check the I-94 record online after arrival and correct any error immediately.
The planning rule for this environment:
Verify the rules within 72 hours of departure, and again before re-entry. Guidance in this area has repeatedly changed between the day a ticket was purchased and the day the traveler reached the consulate. Where the trip is discretionary and the visa needs renewal, the safer answer is often to postpone.
If travel is unavoidable, plan for the outside case rather than the expected one: appointment availability, a possible 221(g), employer coverage of an extended absence, and a contingency for work, housing, school, and family obligations at home
Department of State Makes Visa Bond Program Permanent – B-1/B-2 Visitors from Certain Countries May Be Required to Post Bonds of Up to $20,000
Effective August 3, 2026, the U.S. Department of State (DOS) has issued a Final Rule permanently establishing the Visa Bond Program, transforming what began as a one-year pilot program into an ongoing immigration enforcement tool.
Under this rule, certain applicants seeking B-1 (Business Visitor), B-2 (Tourist), or combined B-1/B-2 visitor visas from designated countries may be required to post a cash bond of up to $20,000 before a visa can be issued. The bond is intended to ensure that visitors comply with the terms of their admission, maintain lawful status, and depart the United States on time.
Why Is DOS Making This Permanent?
According to the Department of State, the 2025 Visa Bond Pilot Program demonstrated that visa bonds significantly reduced visa overstays among covered applicants. The agency states that the pilot resulted in dramatically higher compliance with U.S. immigration laws and substantially fewer overstays, leading DOS to conclude that the program should become permanent.
The government also cites national security concerns, visa overstay data, and Executive Order 14159 as the basis for expanding this enforcement mechanism. The rule is intended to encourage foreign governments to improve screening, identity verification, information sharing, travel document security, and compliance with U.S. immigration laws.
Who May Be Subject to the Bond Requirement?
The visa bond requirement applies only to certain B-1/B-2 visa applicants who are nationals of countries designated by the Department of State. Countries may be selected based on factors such as:
- High B-1/B-2 visa overstay rates;
- Deficiencies in identity verification or criminal record information;
- Limited information sharing with the United States;
- Weak screening and vetting procedures; and
- Concerns regarding passport and civil document security.
The Department will publish the list of designated countries on travel.state.gov, with at least 15 days’ notice before adding new countries. Countries may also be removed from the list immediately.
Bond Amounts:
Consular officers have discretion to require one of three bond amounts:
- $10,000
- $15,000 (the expected standard amount)
- $20,000
The amount depends on the applicant’s individual circumstances, including financial situation, travel purpose, employment, education, ties to the United States, and the officer’s assessment of the risk of an overstay. Beginning October 1, 2027, the maximum bond amount will be adjusted periodically for inflation.
Important Conditions:
Applicants who post a visa bond must comply with several conditions, including:
- Maintain lawful nonimmigrant status throughout their stay.
- Depart the United States before the expiration of their authorized stay.
- Generally enter and depart through commercial airports where compliance can be electronically verified.
- Comply with all terms of admission and any approved extension or change of status.
If the traveler fully complies with the bond conditions, the bond principal will generally be refunded after departure. No interest will be paid on the bond.
When Can the Bond Be Forfeited?
The rule provides that a visa bond may be breached and forfeited if the individual:
- Overstays the authorized period of admission;
- Violates the terms of nonimmigrant status;
- Files an untimely extension or change of status request;
- Fails to depart after a denied extension or change of status request; or
- Engages in other conduct constituting a substantial violation of the bond conditions as outlined in the rule.
Practical Impact:
For travelers from designated countries, obtaining a B-1/B-2 visa may become significantly more expensive and procedurally complex. Although the bond is refundable if all conditions are satisfied, many applicants may find it difficult to tie up $10,000 to $20,000 for the duration of their travel.
The rule may also discourage some applicants from applying for visitor visas, while increasing scrutiny of travelers from countries identified as presenting elevated overstay or screening concerns.
Our Firm’s Analysis:
This final rule represents one of the most significant changes to visitor visa processing in recent years. While the Department of State characterizes the Visa Bond Program as a compliance tool, it also reflects a broader trend toward increased immigration enforcement and enhanced screening of temporary visitors.
Individuals planning to apply for B-1 or B-2 visas should carefully monitor whether their country becomes subject to the program and should seek legal guidance if they are informed that a bond will be required.
The Law Offices of Keshab Raj Seadie, P.C. will continue to monitor implementation of this rule, including publication of the list of designated countries, guidance issued by the Department of State, and any future litigation challenging the program.
If you have questions regarding B-1/B-2 visas, visitor visa denials, visa bonds, extensions of stay, or other U.S. immigration matters, please contact the Law Offices of Keshab Raj Seadie, P.C., for experienced legal guidance.
USCIS Issues Major Asylum Rule to Reduce Backlog: Some Cases May Be Referred to Immigration Court Without an Interview
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has announced an Interim Final Rule (IFR) that significantly changes the processing of affirmative asylum applications. Effective immediately, USCIS asylum officers may refer certain asylum applications directly to an immigration judge without first conducting an asylum interview, a move the agency says is intended to reduce the growing asylum backlog and improve the efficiency of the immigration system.
The new policy represents one of the most significant procedural changes to the asylum process in recent years and may substantially affect how asylum applicants present and prepare their claims.
What Is Changing?
Under the previous process, most individuals who filed affirmative asylum applications with USCIS were scheduled for an interview with an asylum officer. If USCIS did not grant asylum, the case was generally referred to the Immigration Court, where the applicant could present the claim again before an Immigration Judge in removal proceedings.
Under the new Interim Final Rule, USCIS now has the authority to refer certain asylum applications directly to the Immigration Court without conducting an asylum interview.
As a result, some applicants may no longer receive an initial merits interview before USCIS and instead will present their asylum claim for the first time before an immigration judge.
Why Did USCIS Make This Change?
According to USCIS, the goal of the rule is to reduce delays and allow asylum officers to focus their resources on cases that can be adjudicated more efficiently.
USCIS Director Joseph Edlow stated that the asylum system has increasingly been used to delay removal proceedings or obtain employment authorization rather than to pursue legitimate claims of persecution. He explained that the new rule is intended to direct limited government resources toward individuals with genuine protection claims while reducing unnecessary procedural delays.
The Department of Homeland Security also stated that allowing certain cases to proceed directly to Immigration Court will eliminate duplicative adjudications and help reduce the overall asylum backlog.
How the Previous System Worked:
Previously:
- USCIS adjudicated affirmative asylum applications filed by individuals who were not already in removal proceedings.
- If asylum was not granted, USCIS generally referred the applicant to Immigration Court.
- The Immigration Judge then conducted a new and independent review of the asylum application.
This process often resulted in two separate adjudications of the same asylum claim.
What Happens Under the New Rule?
Under the Interim Final Rule:
- USCIS may determine that an asylum interview is unnecessary.
- The agency may refer the application directly to an immigration judge.
- The Immigration Judge will conduct the asylum hearing as part of the removal proceedings.
USCIS believes this approach will reduce duplication of effort and allow asylum officers to devote more time to cases that can be decided administratively.
:
Potential Impact on Asylum Applicants:
Although the rule is intended to improve efficiency, it may have important practical consequences for asylum seekers.
Applicants should understand that:
- Some individuals may no longer have an opportunity to explain their claim during a USCIS asylum interview.
- The first full presentation of the asylum case may occur before an immigration judge in formal removal proceedings.
- Immigration Court proceedings are generally more adversarial than USCIS asylum interviews and involve attorneys representing the Department of Homeland Security.
- Careful preparation of the written asylum application, supporting documentation, country-condition evidence, and witness testimony will become even more important.
Public Comments Still Being Accepted:
Because this rule was issued as an interim final rule, it became effective immediately. However, USCIS will continue accepting public comments before issuing a final regulation that may modify or clarify the new procedures.
What This Means for Applicants:
Individuals considering filing for asylum should expect increased scrutiny and should ensure that their applications are complete, well-documented, and supported by credible evidence from the outset.
Given the possibility that a case could proceed directly to Immigration Court without a USCIS interview, applicants should work closely with experienced immigration counsel to prepare a thorough legal and factual record before filing.
Our View:
The new rule reflects the federal government’s continued effort to reduce the asylum backlog and discourage procedural delays. While the policy may improve processing efficiency, it also raises important procedural and due process considerations for asylum applicants who may lose the opportunity for an initial USCIS interview.
Applicants should not assume they will receive multiple opportunities to present or supplement their case. Strong legal preparation from the beginning—including detailed declarations, corroborating evidence, and country-condition documentation—will be more important than ever under this new system.
The Law Offices of Keshab Raj Seadie, P.C., will continue to monitor developments as USCIS reviews public comments and issues a final rule. Individuals with pending or prospective asylum cases should seek legal guidance to understand how this significant procedural change may affect their case.
ICE Expands Airport Arrests During Domestic Travel: Attorneys Now Warning Many Noncitizens to Reconsider Flying Within the U.S.
The Trump Administration has significantly expanded immigration enforcement at U.S. airports, with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) increasingly arresting noncitizens during domestic air travel. According to recent reporting by The New York Times, immigration agents have conducted enforcement actions at numerous airports across the country, targeting individuals with expired visas, pending immigration applications, and other unresolved immigration matters.
The reported arrests represent a notable expansion of ICE’s airport enforcement efforts. Immigration attorneys have reported that some individuals taken into custody had pending applications for extensions of status, adjustment of status, asylum, or employment authorization, while others had no criminal history and believed they were lawfully pursuing immigration benefits. The reported enforcement activity has occurred at multiple airports, including San Francisco, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Denver, and others.
Immigration Lawyers Changing Longstanding Advice
The changing enforcement landscape has prompted many immigration attorneys to revise their advice regarding domestic air travel.
Shannon Shepherd, Vice Chair of the Chicago Chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), told The New York Times that attorneys are no longer giving the same guidance they have provided for years.
Previously, many attorneys advised clients that domestic travel was generally permissible with valid government-issued identification. However, in light of the recent ICE enforcement activity, attorneys are increasingly recommending that individuals with pending immigration matters carefully evaluate whether domestic travel is necessary and consult qualified immigration counsel before flying.
What Does This Mean for Immigrants?
While lawful permanent residents, U.S. citizens, and many individuals who are maintaining valid immigration status generally continue to travel domestically without incident, the recent reports suggest that individuals with unresolved immigration issues—including visa overstays, removal orders, or certain pending immigration cases—may face increased enforcement risks at airports.
Each person’s immigration history is unique. A pending application does not automatically protect an individual from enforcement, and immigration consequences can vary depending on the type of application filed, maintenance of status, prior immigration history, and whether the individual is in a period of authorized stay.
Practical Recommendations:
Given these developments, individuals who are not U.S. citizens should consider the following before traveling domestically:
- Consult with an experienced immigration attorney if you have any pending immigration application or unresolved immigration issue.
- Carry copies of your immigration documents, receipt notices, work authorization, or other evidence of lawful status or authorized stay, where applicable.
- Carefully evaluate whether domestic travel is necessary if your immigration status is uncertain.
- Seek immediate legal advice if you have ever received a removal order, overstayed a visa, or have concerns regarding your immigration history.
Our Firm’s Perspective:
The expansion of ICE enforcement at domestic airports reflects an evolving immigration enforcement strategy. Individuals with pending immigration matters should not assume that domestic travel is risk-free simply because they are remaining within the United States.
Before making travel plans, especially if you have a pending extension of status, change of status, adjustment of status, asylum application, or any prior immigration violation, it is prudent to obtain individualized legal advice to understand your potential risks.
If you have questions regarding domestic travel, pending immigration applications, visa status, or immigration enforcement, please contact the Law Offices of Keshab Raj Seadie, P.C., before making travel arrangements.
Trump Signs New Executive Orders Targeting Birthright Citizenship and “Birth Tourism”
President Donald Trump has signed two new executive orders aimed at further restricting birthright citizenship and cracking down on what the administration describes as “birth tourism,” marking the latest effort to reshape U.S. citizenship policy after the Supreme Court rejected the administration’s earlier attempt to broadly end birthright citizenship.
The first executive order directs federal agencies to prohibit the use of temporary visas for individuals whose primary purpose is to travel to the United States to give birth so their child may obtain U.S. citizenship. The administration argues that this practice, commonly referred to as “birth tourism,” exploits the nation’s immigration laws and places unnecessary burdens on government resources.
The second executive order seeks to narrow the categories of individuals whose U.S.-born children would automatically qualify for citizenship. According to the White House, the order focuses on specific situations that the administration believes fall outside the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment, including certain cases involving foreign government personnel and organized birth tourism. The administration has indicated that additional implementing guidance will be issued by the Departments of Homeland Security and State.
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller stated that the President is relying on authority under Section 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which authorizes the President to prescribe reasonable rules governing the entry and departure of noncitizens. The administration contends that this provision supports enhanced screening and enforcement measures designed to identify individuals entering the United States primarily for birth tourism.
The executive orders are expected to face immediate legal challenges. Immigration advocates and constitutional scholars argue that birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and longstanding Supreme Court precedent, while supporters of the administration maintain that the orders target limited categories of cases they believe fall outside those constitutional protections.
What This Means:
For now, these executive orders do not automatically change the citizenship status of children already born in the United States. Any changes to existing birthright citizenship practices will likely depend on future federal regulations and the outcome of anticipated court challenges. Immigration practitioners should closely monitor litigation and agency guidance before advising clients on the practical impact of these new policies.
Sincerely,
Keshab Raj Seadie, Esq. Law Offices of Keshab Raj Seadie, P.C.
Disclaimer: This newsletter is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always consult an attorney for personalized advice.
