State Department Considers $100,000 Bond Requirement for Certain Green Card Applicants
The U.S. Department of State is reportedly considering a new immigration policy that could require certain applicants seeking immigrant visas (green cards) through U.S. consulates abroad to post a refundable bond of up to $100,000 before receiving their visas. According to published reports, the proposal is still under review and has not yet been implemented.
The proposed bond would reportedly serve as a financial guarantee that the immigrant will remain self-sufficient and will not become a “public charge” by relying on government assistance after immigrating to the United States. If adopted, the bond may remain in place until the immigrant becomes a U.S. citizen or otherwise satisfies the government’s conditions for its return. Family members or sponsors may also be permitted to post the bond on behalf of the applicant.
The proposal appears to build upon the State Department’s existing visa bond pilot program for certain B-1/B-2 visitor visa applicants from designated countries with high visa overstay rates. However, this new proposal would represent a significant expansion by applying the bond concept to certain immigrant visa applicants seeking lawful permanent residence.
If implemented, the policy could have significant consequences for family-based and employment-based immigrants processing their green cards at U.S. consulates abroad. A $100,000 bond could present a substantial financial hurdle for many otherwise qualified applicants, particularly those from developing countries or those with limited financial resources. Critics argue that such a requirement could effectively create a wealth-based barrier to lawful immigration, while supporters contend it would encourage financial self-sufficiency and reduce the likelihood that new immigrants will depend on public benefits.
At this time, the proposal remains under consideration, and no final rule or official implementation guidance has been issued. Individuals pursuing immigrant visa processing abroad should continue monitoring developments closely and consult experienced immigration counsel before making travel or immigration planning decisions based on media reports.
Our Take:
If this proposal becomes law, it could represent one of the most significant financial eligibility changes to the U.S. immigrant visa process in decades. We will continue to monitor developments and provide updates as additional details become available.
DHS Issues Final Rule Ending “Duration of Status” for F-1, J-1, and I Visa Holders: Major Changes Take Effect September 15, 2026
In one of the most significant changes to U.S. nonimmigrant policy in decades, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has published a final rule eliminating the long-standing “Duration of Status” (D/S) admission for F-1 academic students, J-1 exchange visitors, I foreign media representatives, and their dependents. The rule was published in the Federal Register on July 17, 2026 (91 Fed. Reg. 44976) and is scheduled to become effective on September 15, 2026, subject to Congressional review.
What Is Changing?
For decades, most F-1 and J-1 nonimmigrants were admitted for “Duration of Status” (D/S), allowing them to remain in the United States for as long as they maintained their educational or exchange program without a fixed expiration date on their Form I-94.
Under the new rule:
- F-1 students and J-1 exchange visitors will generally be admitted only for the length of their approved program, not to exceed four years per admission.
- I visa holders (foreign media representatives) will generally receive admission for up to 240 days, with special shorter limits for certain Chinese journalists.
- Individuals needing additional time beyond their I-94 expiration date must generally file an Extension of Stay (Form I-539) with USCIS or depart and seek readmission.
- The traditional 60-day grace period following completion of an F-1 program is reduced to 30 days.
- Graduate students face new limitations on changing educational objectives or academic programs without authorization.
- School transfers and changes in educational pathways become subject to additional regulatory requirements.
- DHS will have more frequent opportunities to review whether students continue to qualify for their nonimmigrant status through extension filings.
DOL Signals Major Modernization of PERM Program Through New Proposed Rulemaking
The U.S. Department of Labor is preparing the first comprehensive overhaul of the PERM labor certification program since its rules took effect in 2004. The initiative appears in the Spring 2026 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, released on July 3, 2026 , under a proposed rule titled “Modernizing the Labor Market Test and Improving Protections for U.S. Workers in the PERM Immigrant Visa Program.” The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is currently scheduled for July 2026 , though no regulatory text has yet been published.
PERM labor certification is a critical first step for many employment-based green cards, requiring employers to test the U.S. labor market and show that no able, willing, qualified, and available U.S. worker exists for the offered position before sponsoring a foreign national.
According to the agenda, the DOL intends to modernize recruitment and certification procedures to reflect current hiring practices and technology while strengthening protections for U.S. workers. The agency has signaled it will revise the minimum standards for recruiting qualified U.S. workers, strengthen PERM rules related to U.S. worker layoffs, and enhance employer compliance with non-discrimination requirements.
Importantly, this is only the first step. The rule is still at the NPRM stage, meaning the government must publish the proposal, take public comments, review that feedback, and then decide whether to issue a final rule. Until then, existing PERM recruitment and filing requirements remain fully in effect. The cases most exposed to any eventual change are EB-2 and EB-3 filings that depend on PERM — including many H-1B workers being sponsored for permanent residence.
Our Take:
Modernizing PERM is long overdue. The current rules were built for a labor market driven by newspaper advertising. Recognizing digital recruiting could improve efficiency, but employers should also expect stricter compliance obligations and heightened scrutiny — particularly around recent layoffs. Businesses planning to sponsor foreign workers should monitor this rulemaking closely and be ready to adjust recruitment practices once the proposed text is released.
BIA Clarifies Hardship Standard in Cancellation of Removal Cases: Lack of Parental Care Alone Is Not Enough
In a significant precedential decision affecting cancellation of removal cases, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has ruled that a parent’s decision to leave a U.S. citizen child in the United States without parental care does not, by itself, establish the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” required for relief. The decision was issued in Matter of Lopez-Davila, 29 I&N Dec. 763 (BIA 2026).
Background:
Non-lawful permanent residents seeking Cancellation of Removal under section 240A(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) must demonstrate that their removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative, such as a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse, parent, or child.
The hardship standard is intentionally demanding and requires evidence that the qualifying relative would suffer hardship substantially beyond that ordinarily expected when a close family member is removed from the United States.
The BIA’s Holding:
In Matter of Lopez-Davila, the BIA rejected the argument that leaving a U.S. citizen child in the United States without the parent’s direct care automatically satisfies this heightened hardship standard.
The Board emphasized that:
- The absence of parental care does not automatically constitute exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.
- Parental care is not the only form of sufficient care available to a child.
- Immigration Judges must examine the totality of the circumstances, including whether other responsible caregivers—such as the child’s other parent, grandparents, adult siblings, relatives, or legal guardians—can adequately care for the child.
- Each case must be evaluated individually based on all relevant evidence rather than relying on a single factor.
Practical Impact:
This decision reinforces that applicants for cancellation of removal must present comprehensive evidence demonstrating how the qualifying relative would be uniquely affected by the applicant’s removal.
Attorneys representing clients in cancellation cases should continue developing evidence addressing:
- Medical conditions and special needs of qualifying relatives;
- Educational and psychological impacts;
- Financial dependency;
- Availability (or lack) of alternative caregivers;
- Country conditions in the country of removal;
- Any other cumulative hardships that exceed those ordinarily associated with family separation.
The BIA’s decision in Matter of Lopez-Davila underscores the increasingly rigorous approach taken in cancellation of removal cases. Applicants should not rely solely on evidence of family separation but should instead present a well-documented record demonstrating the cumulative and extraordinary hardships their qualifying relatives would face if removal were ordered.
This decision serves as an important reminder that successful cancellation of removal cases require detailed preparation, credible evidence, and a comprehensive legal strategy addressing every aspect of the statutory hardship standard.
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.
