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:
DOL Releases April 2026 PERM and Prevailing Wage Processing Update
The U.S. Department of Labor has issued its latest update on PERM labor certification and prevailing wage determination (PWD) processing times, reflecting continued backlogs across key stages of the employment-based green card process. As of April 23, 2026, the agency is conducting analyst review for PERM applications filed in January 2025 or earlier, while audit reviews are being handled for cases filed in December 2025 or earlier. Reconsideration requests are also significantly delayed, with the DOL currently reviewing those filed in November 2025 or earlier. These timelines indicate that standard PERM adjudications are taking well over a year, with audited cases facing even longer delays. On the prevailing wage side, as of April 9, 2026, the DOL is issuing PWDs for both PERM and H-1B cases filed in January 2026, including requests based on OEWS and non-OEWS wage data. The agency is also processing PERM wage redeterminations from December 2025 and H-1B redeterminations from January 2026, along with Center Director Reviews filed in January 2026. These extended processing times continue to impact employers and foreign nationals navigating the green card process, particularly those from backlogged countries. The full report is available on the Foreign Labor Application Gateway portal.Trump Signs DHS Funding Bill, Ending Record Shutdown President Donald Trump has signed a bipartisan funding measure to restore operations at the Department of Homeland Security, bringing an end to the longest agency shutdown in U.S. history. The legislation, approved by Congress on April 30, 2026, funds most DHS functions but notably excludes immigration enforcement programs, which remain the subject of ongoing political negotiations. The shutdown, which began on February 14, had strained agency operations and placed financial pressure on federal workers, including those at the Transportation Security Administration. The White House had warned that temporary funding measures used to maintain essential services were nearing exhaustion, raising concerns about potential disruptions at airports and other critical security points. While the Senate had passed the funding bill unanimously weeks earlier, delays in the House—driven by disputes among Republican lawmakers over immigration spending—prolonged the standoff. A separate legislative track for immigration enforcement funding ultimately cleared the way for passage of the broader DHS funding package. The measure ensures that DHS employees will continue to receive pay and that core homeland security functions remain operational. However, the exclusion of immigration enforcement funding signals that broader debates over border security and immigration policy are far from resolved.
Rural EB-5 Strategy for India-Born Families: Avoiding Backlogs and Aging-Out Risks For many families from India stuck in long EB-2 and EB-3 backlogs, the risk of children aging out and losing green card eligibility has become a serious concern. In this environment, rural EB-5 investment has emerged as one of the most effective strategies to bypass delays and secure faster permanent residence. Rural EB-5 projects benefit from set-aside visas and priority processing, often allowing investors to file I-526E and concurrent I-485 (if in the U.S.), thereby obtaining work permits, travel authorization, and—most importantly—locking in the child’s age under CSPA. For families with children nearing 21, timing is critical, and early filing can make the difference between success and permanent ineligibility. A key decision in this process is choosing between Direct EB-5 and Regional Center (RC) EB-5:
- Direct EB-5 is suitable for experienced entrepreneurs willing to actively manage a business and directly create 10 full-time jobs. While it offers control, it carries higher compliance risk and is not ideal for most immigration-focused investors.
- Regional Center EB-5, particularly rural RC projects, is the preferred route for most families. It allows passive investment, counts indirect jobs (reducing risk), and is structured for smoother adjudication.
Mandamus Actions in Immigration: A Strategic Tool to Break Long-Pending USCIS Delays
In today’s immigration landscape, prolonged delays by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Department of Homeland Security have become increasingly common—particularly where cases are held for extended “security checks” with no clear timeline for adjudication. For applicants facing years of uncertainty, a writ of mandamus has emerged as one of the most effective legal tools to compel government action. What is a Writ of Mandamus? A mandamus action is a federal lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court seeking to compel a government agency to perform a non-discretionary duty—in this context, to adjudicate an immigration petition or application that has been unreasonably delayed. Importantly, mandamus does not ask the court to approve the case, but rather to force the agency to make a decision—approval or denial—within a reasonable time. When is a Mandamus Appropriate? Mandamus is typically appropriate where:- A case has been pending well beyond normal processing times;
- There is no meaningful response from USCIS despite multiple inquiries;
- The delay is causing significant harm (employment loss, family separation, aging-out children, etc.);
- The government cites vague or indefinite “security checks” without resolution.
1. Jurisdiction and Legal Basis:
- Federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331
- Mandamus statute under 28 U.S.C. §1361
- APA claims under 5 U.S.C. §706(1) (agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed)
2. Factual Background:
- Filing history, receipt notices, biometrics completion
- Timeline of delays compared to normal processing
- Evidence of follow-ups (service requests, congressional inquiries)
3. Harm and Prejudice:
- Financial loss, inability to work, travel restrictions
- Family hardship or psychological stress
- Impact on legal status or future eligibility
4. Legal Argument:
- Agency has a duty to adjudicate
- Delay is unreasonable under APA standards (often guided by TRAC factors from case law)
- No adequate alternative remedy exists
5. Relief Requested
- Court order compelling adjudication within a specified timeframe (e.g., 30–60 days)
Practical Strategy Before Filing:
Before initiating litigation, attorneys often:
- Submit service requests and escalate through USCIS channels;
- Contact a congressional office for intervention;
- Send a pre-litigation demand letter to the agency (sometimes prompting action without filing).
However, in many cases, only the filing of a lawsuit triggers movement.
What Happens After Filing?
Once a mandamus action is filed:
- The U.S. Attorney’s Office represents the government;
- The agency often adjudicates the case within weeks or months to moot the lawsuit;
- In some cases, the government may defend the delay, but prolonged inaction is difficult to justify.
Risks and Considerations:
While mandamus is powerful, it must be used strategically:
- It may result in a quick denial if the case has underlying weaknesses;
- It involves litigation costs and federal court procedures;
- Timing is critical—filing too early may lead to dismissal.
Conclusion:
In an era where immigration cases are increasingly delayed under broad “security review” justifications, mandamus litigation serves as a critical accountability mechanism. When used appropriately, it can cut through bureaucratic inertia and restore momentum to long-stalled cases. For many applicants, it is not just a legal remedy—it is the only path forward.
USCIS Implements New Vetting Process, Causing Widespread Adjudication Delays
A new security vetting protocol at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is triggering delays across a broad range of immigration applications, with attorneys nationwide reporting that many cases are being placed on hold. According to updates circulated on April 30, 2026, the policy—effective April 27—requires the resubmission of fingerprints for most pending applications where prior biometrics were collected before that date. The delays appear to impact multiple case types, including adjustment of status, asylum, family-based petitions, and employment-based filings. Early reports from practitioners suggest the hold may extend to nearly all USCIS adjudications requiring background checks. While some exceptions may apply—such as certain naturalization cases nearing oath ceremonies—most applicants with pending cases should expect additional processing steps. The change is tied to enhanced background screening measures following increased data-sharing authority granted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation under Executive Order 12385. The order directs federal agencies to provide the Department of Homeland Security with expanded access to criminal history databases, enabling more comprehensive vetting of immigration applicants. As part of this initiative, USCIS officers have been instructed to initiate new fingerprint checks for eligible pending cases, though resubmission is not required where a denial is anticipated. While USCIS has confirmed that adjudications remain “ongoing,” the agency acknowledged that decision issuance may be temporarily delayed. Officials indicated that the disruptions “should be brief,” but have not provided a definitive timeline. Immigration attorneys warn that the scope of the new vetting process could result in significant backlogs, particularly given the volume of cases requiring updated biometrics. We are closely monitoring developments, as further guidance from USCIS is expected in the coming weeks regarding implementation procedures and anticipated processing times.New Immigration Fees Take Effect Under Federal Law
In a significant policy shift, the President signed One Big Beautiful Bill Act into law on July 4, introducing a sweeping set of new immigration-related fees. The legislation, enacted as part of a budget reconciliation package, imposes additional costs across a wide range of applications—including asylum, employment authorization, Temporary Protected Status (TPS), and immigration court filings. Notably, many of these fees are non-waivable and are imposed on top of existing filing fees, with provisions allowing for future increases tied to inflation. Federal agencies have begun rolling out implementation guidance. The Executive Office for Immigration Review confirmed that immigration court fees under the new law will supplement current charges without altering payment procedures. Meanwhile, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services issued notices requiring new fees for asylum, TPS, and employment authorization filings beginning July 2025, with stricter enforcement—including rejection of filings lacking proper fees—starting August 21, 2025. A subsequent rule published by the Department of Homeland Security in April 2026 further codifies these fee requirements, with full implementation effective May 29, 2026. One of the most controversial provisions is the introduction of an Annual Asylum Fee, requiring applicants with pending asylum cases to pay $100 each year their application remains unresolved. Failure to comply could lead to denial of related benefits, termination of work authorization, and even initiation of removal proceedings. Additional fees include $550 for initial work permits for asylum applicants, $500 for TPS applications, and up to $1,500 for certain immigration court filings.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.
