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:
Federal Court Temporarily Stays Order Vacating $100,000 H-1B Fee
In a significant development for employers and foreign workers, a federal district court has temporarily stayed its earlier order that had vacated the controversial $100,000 H-1B filing fee imposed by the federal government.The fee, which took effect on September 21, 2025, requires certain employers filing H-1B petitions to pay an additional $100,000 government filing fee under specific circumstances. The measure has been heavily criticized by employers, immigration attorneys, and business organizations as an excessive financial burden that threatens the ability of U.S. companies to hire highly skilled foreign professionals.
Background:
Earlier this month, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a decision in State of California et al. v. Mullin, holding that the government lacked authority to impose the fee in the manner it did. The court vacated the fee requirement, leading many employers and practitioners to believe that the surcharge would immediately cease to apply.
However, on June 12, 2026, the court temporarily stayed the effect of its vacatur order while additional proceedings continue. As a result, the legal status of the $100,000 fee remains uncertain.
What the stay means?
A stay does not mean that the court has reversed its earlier ruling. Instead, it temporarily pauses the implementation of that ruling while the government seeks further review and the litigation continues.
For now, employers should assume that USCIS may continue to enforce the fee requirement unless and until the court issues additional guidance or a higher court resolves the matter.
The stay creates uncertainty for employers planning H-1B filings, transfers, extensions, and consular processing cases. Companies considering new H-1B filings should closely monitor developments and consult immigration counsel regarding the potential financial impact of the fee.
Potential Impact on Employers:
The $100,000 fee has generated significant concern throughout the business community, particularly among technology companies, healthcare providers, consulting firms, startups, and other employers that rely on highly skilled foreign talent.
Critics argue that the fee:
- Dramatically increases the cost of hiring foreign professionals;
- Places U.S. employers at a competitive disadvantage;
- Creates barriers for startups and small businesses;
- Discourages investment and job creation in the United States; and
- Exceeds the government’s statutory authority.
What Happens Next?
The litigation is expected to continue, and the government may pursue appellate review of the district court’s underlying decision. Additional court rulings could determine whether the fee remains in effect, is modified, or is permanently invalidated.
Until the legal challenges are resolved, employers should be prepared for continued uncertainty regarding the applicability of the $100,000 H-1B fee and should evaluate filing strategies accordingly.
Our office will continue to monitor developments closely and provide updates as new information becomes available.
How to Successfully Obtain U.S. Citizenship in the Era of Enhanced Vetting and Lengthy Background Checks
Over the past several years, naturalization applicants have experienced increasing delays in the adjudication of Form N-400 applications as USCIS has expanded background screening, security vetting, fraud detection efforts, and interagency reviews. Many applicants who previously expected citizenship within six to twelve months are now facing significantly longer processing times.
While USCIS has not publicly disclosed every aspect of its security screening procedures, applicants and attorneys have reported increased scrutiny of travel history, prior immigration filings, social media activity, foreign affiliations, criminal records, and inconsistencies in prior applications. Additional reviews involving multiple government agencies can also contribute to delays in some cases.
The good news is that most delays can be avoided or minimized through careful preparation and proactive case management.
1. File Only When Fully Eligible:
One of the most common mistakes applicants make is filing immediately upon reaching the minimum residency period without fully evaluating eligibility.
Before filing, applicants should carefully review:
- Continuous residence requirements;
- Physical presence requirements;
- Selective Service registration issues;
- Tax compliance;
- Criminal history;
- Prior immigration violations;
- Prior misrepresentations to immigration officials;
- Outstanding child support obligations; and
- Any prior removal, deportation, exclusion, or immigration court proceedings.
USCIS frequently compares N-400 answers against information contained in:
- Visa applications;
- Labor certifications;
- H-1B petitions;
- Adjustment of status applications;
- Asylum applications;
- Family petitions;
- Consular records; and
- Prior naturalization filings.
Even minor inconsistencies can trigger additional review.
Applicants should obtain copies of prior filings whenever possible and ensure that information provided on the N-400 is accurate and consistent.
3. Disclose All Travel Carefully:
International travel has become one of the most heavily scrutinized areas of naturalization adjudications.
Applicants should prepare a complete and accurate travel history covering the statutory period and, when possible, several years beyond.
USCIS officers routinely compare:
- Passport stamps;
- CBP travel records;
- Visa records;
- Airline manifests; and
- Information contained in prior immigration filings.
Missing trips, incorrect dates, or unexplained absences can delay adjudication.
4. Address Criminal Issues Before Filing:
Even minor criminal issues can trigger extensive review.
Applicants should obtain certified court dispositions for:
- Arrests;
- Citations;
- Traffic offenses involving alcohol or drugs;
- Expungements;
- Dismissals; and
- Diversion programs.
Many applicants mistakenly assume that old or expunged cases no longer matter. USCIS often continues to review such incidents during the good moral character analysis.
5. Resolve Tax Problems Before Applying:
Failure to file taxes or outstanding tax liabilities can significantly delay or jeopardize a citizenship application.
Applicants should:
- File all required tax returns;
- Resolve any IRS issues;
- Maintain payment plans if taxes are owed; and
- Bring tax transcripts to the interview.
USCIS increasingly reviews tax compliance as part of the good moral character determination.
6. Prepare for Detailed Interview Questions:
Naturalization interviews today often involve more than civics and English testing.
Officers may ask questions regarding:
- Employment history;
- Residence history;
- Foreign travel;
- Family members abroad;
- Prior immigration filings;
- Social media activity;
- Organizational memberships; and
- Financial matters.
Applicants should review their entire immigration history before appearing for the interview.
7. Respond Quickly to Requests for Evidence:
If USCIS issues an RFE or NOID, prompt and thorough responses are essential.
Incomplete responses often result in additional delays or denials.
Supporting documentation should be organized, indexed, and submitted in a professional manner.
8. Monitor Delayed Cases Closely:
If an N-400 remains pending for an unusually long period after biometrics or interview completion, applicants should not simply wait indefinitely.
Potential options may include:
- USCIS service requests;
- Congressional inquiries;
- Ombudsman assistance;
- Administrative follow-up; and
- Federal litigation where appropriate.
Under federal law, applicants whose naturalization applications remain undecided for more than 120 days after the naturalization interview may, in certain circumstances, seek relief in federal district court.
9. Maintain Good Moral Character Until Oath Ceremony:
Many applicants believe the case is effectively approved once the interview is completed.
However, USCIS continues reviewing eligibility until the oath ceremony.
New arrests, tax issues, immigration violations, false statements, or other negative developments occurring after the interview may still result in denial.
10. Consider Professional Representation in Complex Cases:
Applicants with any of the following should strongly consider legal representation:
- Extensive international travel;
- Prior immigration violations;
- Criminal history;
- Tax compliance issues;
- Prior removal proceedings;
- Previous denials;
- National security concerns;
- Extended absences from the United States; or
- Long-pending naturalization cases.
The Bottom Line:
Although naturalization remains available to qualified permanent residents, the adjudication process has become increasingly complex and time-consuming. Enhanced vetting procedures, expanded background checks, and interagency security reviews mean that applicants must be prepared for greater scrutiny than in previous years.
Careful preparation, complete disclosure, consistency across all immigration filings, and prompt responses to government inquiries remain the best strategies for obtaining U.S. citizenship successfully and avoiding unnecessary delays.
For applicants facing lengthy delays or complex immigration histories, experienced legal counsel can often identify issues before they become obstacles and help navigate the increasingly challenging naturalization process.
The U.S. Department of State has released the July 2026 Visa Bulletin, and USCIS has confirmed which charts applicants must use for adjustment of status filings during the month of July.
USCIS announced that applicants in all family-sponsored preference categories may use the Dates for Filing chart, while applicants in all employment-based categories must continue using the Final Action Dates chart when determining eligibility to file Form I-485 adjustment of status applications.
Family-Based Immigration: Filing Chart Remains Available
Family-based applicants received favorable news as USCIS will continue allowing the use of the more generous Dates for Filing chart in July 2026. This means many applicants may file adjustment applications earlier than would otherwise be permitted under the Final Action Dates chart.
Among the notable family-based categories:
- F2A (Spouses and Children of Permanent Residents) remains Current under the Dates for Filing chart for all countries.
- F1 (Unmarried Adult Sons and Daughters of U.S. Citizens) advances to January 1, 2019 for most countries.
- F2B (Adult Unmarried Sons and Daughters of Permanent Residents) advances to June 8, 2018 worldwide.
- F3 (Married Sons and Daughters of U.S. Citizens) advances to December 8, 2012 worldwide.
- F4 (Brothers and Sisters of U.S. Citizens) advances to March 1, 2010 worldwide.
Employment-Based Immigration: Final Action Chart Required
Employment-based applicants must continue to rely on the Final Action Dates chart.
Key developments include:
EB-1 India Retrogresses Again:
The Employment-Based First Preference (EB-1) category for India retrogressed significantly to October 15, 2022 due to heavy demand and visa number usage. The Department of State warns that further retrogression or even unavailability may occur before the end of Fiscal Year 2026.
EB-2 India Remains Unavailable:
Perhaps the most significant development is that EB-2 India remains completely unavailable for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2026. The Department of State confirmed that India’s annual allocation has been exhausted.
The government indicated that visa numbers may become available again when Fiscal Year 2027 begins on October 1, 2026, and the category could potentially return to at least the May 2026 cutoff date, depending on future demand.
EB-3 India Remains Severely Backlogged:
The EB-3 India final action date remains at January 1, 2014, reflecting continuing heavy demand.
China Faces Potential EB-2 Retrogression
The Department of State warned that increasing demand in the EB-2 China category may require future retrogression or temporary unavailability in the coming months.
Philippines EB-3 May Retrogress
The government also cautioned that rising demand in the EB-3 Philippines category could force retrogression or unavailability before the end of the fiscal year.
EB-5 Investors:
EB-5 Unreserved visas remain Current for most countries but India remains Unavailable due to exhaustion of its annual quota.
The Department of State stated that India is expected to receive additional EB-5 Unreserved numbers when the new fiscal year begins on October 1, 2026, subject to demand and visa availability.
Good news continues for investors pursuing EB-5 Rural, High Unemployment, and Infrastructure Set-Aside categories, which remain Current for all countries, including India and China.
Diversity Visa Lottery (DV-2026):
For July 2026, the Diversity Visa cut-off for Nepal advances to 13,000, while the Asia region advances to 35,000.
The Department of State has also announced that Nepal’s DV cut-off will advance further to 13,500 in August 2026.
Important Warning for Applicants:
The Department of State noted that immigrant visa issuance rates have fluctuated significantly due to recent administration policies, including restrictions affecting nationals of certain countries. As a result, visa bulletin dates that were advanced earlier in the fiscal year may retrogress if demand increases.
The government specifically warned that several categories could become unavailable before September 30, 2026 if annual visa limits are reached.
Bottom Line:
July 2026 brings mixed news for immigration applicants. Family-based applicants continue to benefit from the use of the Dates for Filing chart, while employment-based applicants—particularly those born in India—continue to face severe backlogs and visa number shortages. EB-2 India remains unavailable, EB-1 India has retrogressed substantially, and the government is warning that additional retrogressions may occur before the fiscal year ends.
Applicants should carefully review their priority dates and consult experienced immigration counsel to determine whether they may file adjustment applications or pursue alternative strategies such as consular processing.
BIA Issues Two Major Decisions Limiting Reopening of Removal Cases Based on Marriage to a U.S. Citizen
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has issued two important precedential decisions in 2026 that significantly restrict the ability of foreign nationals with final removal orders to reopen their immigration proceedings based on marriages to U.S. citizens acquired after their cases became final.
The decisions, Matter of Yadav, 29 I&N Dec. 438 (BIA 2026), and Matter of Herrera-Nunez, 29 I&N Dec. 695 (BIA 2026), reinforce the principle that family ties and other positive equities acquired after a final order of removal generally do not constitute the exceptional circumstances required for the BIA to exercise its extraordinary sua sponte reopening authority.
Matter of Yadav:
In Matter of Yadav, the respondent married a U.S. citizen several years after receiving a final removal order and after he had already been removed from the United States. He requested that the BIA reopen his case so he could pursue immigration benefits based on the marriage.
The BIA denied the request, holding that a valid marriage to a U.S. citizen entered into after a final order of removal is not, by itself, an exceptional circumstance warranting sua sponte reopening. The Board emphasized that its reopening authority is reserved for truly extraordinary situations and that subsequent eligibility for immigration benefits does not automatically justify reopening long-closed cases.
Matter of Herrera-Nunez:
The BIA expanded on this principle in Matter of Herrera-Nunez. In that case, the respondent was ordered removed in 2015 but remained in the United States and later married a U.S. citizen in 2019. He sought reopening of his proceedings to pursue adjustment of status based on the marriage.
Again, the BIA declined to reopen the case. The Board explained that family ties, employment history, community involvement, and other favorable equities acquired while remaining in the United States after a final removal order generally do not amount to the exceptional circumstances necessary for sua sponte reopening.
The Board also rejected arguments that denial of reopening would result in manifest injustice or a violation of due process, noting that the respondent had conceded removability and failed to identify any procedural unfairness in the original proceedings.
Importantly, the BIA distinguished Herrera-Nunez from Yadav by noting that the respondent’s visa petition remained pending rather than approved, but ultimately found that neither case presented the extraordinary facts necessary to justify reopening.
Key Takeaways:
These two decisions send a strong message that the BIA will not ordinarily reopen removal proceedings simply because a respondent later marries a U.S. citizen or becomes eligible for family-based immigration benefits.
According to the Board:
- Marriage to a U.S. citizen after a final removal order is generally not an exceptional circumstance.
- Equities acquired after a removal order—including marriage, children, employment, property ownership, and community ties—typically carry limited weight when seeking sua sponte reopening.
- General claims of hardship, manifest injustice, or due process concerns will not succeed absent evidence of actual legal error or procedural unfairness.
- Sua sponte reopening remains an extraordinary remedy reserved for truly exceptional cases.
Practical Impact:
These decisions are particularly important for individuals who have final orders of removal and later become eligible for immigration benefits through marriage or other family relationships. While such individuals may still have immigration options available through consular processing, waivers, motions based on changed law, or other legal avenues, they should not assume that a subsequent marriage alone will allow a closed removal case to be reopened.
The BIA’s decisions in Matter of Yadav and Matter of Herrera-Nunez reflect a continuing trend toward preserving the finality of removal orders and limiting the use of discretionary reopening authority.
Individuals facing removal orders should seek experienced legal counsel to evaluate all available options before relying on a motion to reopen based solely on newly acquired family ties.
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.
