Book a Consultation virtually or in-person. We help clients nationwide & globally.
Book a Consultation virtually or in-person. We help clients nationwide & globally.
This page tracks recent immigration law developments affecting employers, professionals, investors, physicians, researchers, families, green card holders, citizenship applicants, students, and people applying for visas abroad. Immigration law is changing quickly in 2026, and entries are updated as the law changes.
Kennedy Law focuses on strategic immigration planning, including employment-based immigration, family immigration, naturalization, citizenship claims, adjustment of status, consular processing, waivers, work visas, and green card filings. The page also includes selected updates on asylum, immigration court, detention, and enforcement where those developments affect clients’ rights, risks, or long-term immigration options.
Topics covered include employment-based immigration, family immigration, naturalization, citizenship, green cards, adjustment of status, consular processing, travel bans, visa restrictions, work permits, asylum, refugee processing, TPS, humanitarian protection, and selected enforcement developments.
For questions about how any of these updates affect your situation, contact Kennedy Law at 301.823.6670 or TK@KennedyVisas.com.
Updated June 2026 —❖— Multiple travel bans, visa restrictions, visa-bond rules, consular processing pauses, and USCIS adjudication policies now operate at the same time. Some countries are subject to full restrictions on immigrant and nonimmigrant visa issuance, while others face partial restrictions affecting immigrant visas, visitor visas, student visas, and exchange visitor visas. A person may also be affected by more than one policy at once.
These restrictions do NOT affect every person from a listed country in the same way. Lawful permanent residents, people with valid visas issued before the effective date of a restriction, certain dual nationals, some athletes, medical doctors, and government-related categories may fall within exceptions. The correct analysis depends on nationality, visa category, place of processing, prior visa issuance, immigration history, and whether the case is with USCIS, the State Department, CBP, or an immigration court.
See the Travel Bans & Visa Restrictions section below for the country lists, exceptions, visa-bond rules, immigrant-visa pause, and the federal court ruling vacating the related USCIS benefits freeze.
Updated June 2026 —❖— The government remains required to recognize U.S. citizenship for children born in the United States under existing law while litigation over the January 2025 birthright-citizenship executive order continues. The Supreme Court is expected to decide the case by late June or early July 2026. Until the Court rules on the merits, the executive order restricting birthright citizenship remains blocked.
Read our analysis:
https://kennedyvisas.com/blog-kl-insights/f/law360-a-core-weakness-in-the-challenge-to-birthright-citizenship
June 5, 2026 —❖— In Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS, the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island vacated USCIS policies that had frozen or delayed immigration benefit adjudications for nationals of 39 travel-ban or high-risk countries, as well as individuals with Palestinian Authority-issued or endorsed documents. The vacated policies affected green cards, work permits, asylum applications, naturalization applications, and other USCIS filings.
The ruling does NOT invalidate the underlying travel bans, State Department visa restrictions, consular visa pauses, or visa-bond requirements. It addresses USCIS processing of immigration benefits. USCIS must resume adjudicating affected benefit applications unless the government obtains a stay or a later ruling changes the result.
Read our analysis:
https://kennedyvisas.com/blog-kl-insights/f/fed-court-vacates-uscis-travel-ban-freeze-on-immigration-benefits
Updated June 2026 —❖— In Pacito v. Trump, the Ninth Circuit largely allowed the administration's suspension of refugee admissions and refugee processing to continue, relying on presidential authority under INA § 212(f). The court preserved protections requiring continued services for refugees already admitted to the United States and maintaining certain resettlement obligations. The litigation continues, with trial scheduled for September 8, 2026. Refugee applicants, approved refugees abroad, following-to-join relatives, and recently admitted refugees are affected differently, so the posture of the individual case matters.
Effective July 10, 2026 —❖— In an interim final rule titled “Signatures on Immigration Benefit Requests,” USCIS changed how signature defects may be handled after an immigration filing has already been accepted for processing. For filings submitted on or after July 10, 2026, USCIS may reject or deny an immigration benefit request if it later determines that the signature is missing, invalid, copied, pasted, stamped, electronically generated, placed in the wrong location, or signed by someone without proper authority.
The practical consequence is significant. A rejected filing is returned without adjudication, but a denied filing may result in loss of the filing fee and require a new filing if refiling is still available. USCIS also states that applicants and petitioners generally may not cure an invalid signature after filing. That means a signature problem discovered months later can affect filing deadlines, priority dates, cap filings, work authorization, adjustment of status, family petitions, business immigration filings, and other USCIS benefits.
Applicants, petitioners, employers, and attorneys should treat signature review as a filing requirement, not an administrative detail. Before filing, confirm that every required form has the correct signature, in the correct location, from the correct person, using a signature method accepted by USCIS for that filing type.
Read our analysis:
https://kennedyvisas.com/blog-kl-insights/f/new-rule-invalid-signatures-may-lead-to-denials-lost-fees
June 2026 —❖— Montgomery County Executive Marc Elrich issued a public statement sharply criticizing the Supreme Court’s June 25, 2026 TPS and port-of-entry asylum decisions. He emphasized that many TPS holders have lived, worked, paid taxes, raised U.S. citizen children, and built their lives in the United States legally and in good faith. He also noted the practical consequence of TPS termination: loss of work authorization, loss of protection from removal, and renewed exposure to detention and deportation unless another immigration option is available.
Elrich also criticized the Court’s asylum decision allowing the government to turn away people seeking protection before they are deemed to have arrived in the United States, stating that seeking asylum is not a crime and remains part of U.S. law. For TPS holders and asylum seekers, the practical point is immediate: do not panic, do not rely on rumors, confirm current status and deadlines, and speak with a trusted legal provider before making decisions about travel, employment, filings, or long-term immigration strategy.
Effective Sept. 21, 2025 —❖— A presidential proclamation imposes a $100,000 payment requirement on certain new H-1B petitions. The fee primarily applies to petitions for beneficiaries who are outside the United States and do not already hold a valid H-1B visa, as well as petitions requesting consular notification, port-of-entry notification, or pre-flight inspection. It generally does not apply to change-of-status, extension, amendment, or change-of-employer petitions filed for workers already maintaining valid status in the United States, including many F-1 graduates changing status to H-1B, unless the change-of-status request is denied and the beneficiary must later obtain an H-1B visa abroad. The fee has significantly altered hiring strategies for employers recruiting talent from outside the United States.
June 2026 —❖— In State of California v. Mullin, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that the $100,000 H-1B payment requirement was unlawful and vacated the policy. Four days later, the same court stayed its own order while the government pursued appellate review. As a result, the fee remains enforceable for qualifying petitions and should not be treated as eliminated. Although national-interest exceptions remain available, the government has described them as extraordinarily rare.
Read our analysis:
https://kennedyvisas.com/blog-kl-insights/f/fed-court-vacates-100000-h-1b-fee-then-stays-its-own-order
Effective Feb. 27, 2026 —❖— In a DHS final rule implemented by USCIS for the FY 2027 cap season, the traditional random H-1B cap lottery was replaced by a wage-weighted selection system that gives preference to registrations offering higher prevailing wage levels, particularly Level III and Level IV positions. The annual statutory cap remains 85,000, and the FY 2027 cap was fully reached under the new system. For many employers, compensation strategy has become just as important as eligibility when planning an H-1B filing.
Updated June 2026 —❖— The $100,000 H-1B fee does NOT apply to other employment-based immigration options, including O-1 extraordinary ability visas, P visas, EB-1 immigrant petitions, EB-2 National Interest Waivers, and the Conrad 30 physician waiver program. Each category has distinct eligibility requirements and evidentiary standards, and several are receiving increased government scrutiny. As H-1B filings become more expensive and more competitive, employers and highly skilled professionals are increasingly evaluating these alternatives as part of their long-term immigration strategy.
June 17, 2026 —❖— In Policy Memorandum PM-602-0200, USCIS clarified that dairy-related positions may qualify for the H-2A temporary agricultural worker program when the employer can establish a temporary or seasonal labor need. Dairy farms were not categorically barred from H-2A, but many struggled to meet the temporary-or-seasonal requirement because dairy operations often run year-round.
The memo directs USCIS to evaluate H-2A petitions for dairy-related positions case by case, based on the totality of the facts. The guidance does NOT convert permanent, year-round dairy jobs into H-2A positions. Back-to-back petitions for the same job duties may suggest an ongoing permanent need unless the employer can show that the duties or labor needs are demonstrably different.
For dairy employers, the change creates a new planning opportunity, but not a shortcut. Employers still must satisfy H-2A requirements, including temporary labor certification, recruitment, wage, housing, transportation, and compliance obligations before using the program
May 21, 2026 —❖— Eligibility alone is no longer enough to obtain a green card through adjustment of status. USCIS issued Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199, titled "Adjustment of Status is a Matter of Discretion and Administrative Grace, and an Extraordinary Relief that Permits Applicants to Dispense with the Ordinary Consular Visa Process." The memo directs officers deciding Form I-485 applications under INA § 245(a) to treat adjustment as a discretionary act of administrative grace rather than an entitlement, and to weigh as negative factors a failure to depart after a temporary admission or parole, conduct inconsistent with the purpose of the visa used to enter, and the availability of consular processing abroad. The memo does not change who is eligible to adjust, amend the Immigration and Nationality Act, or carry the force of regulation. It applies to most family- and employment-based adjustment cases, but not to refugees, asylees, SIJS, U-visa, or T-visa applicants, who adjust under separate statutory provisions. The "only in extraordinary circumstances" language that drew widespread attention appeared in the agency's press release—not the memorandum itself—and DHS later emphasized that adjudications remain individualized and case by case.
Updated May 2026 —❖— The PM-602-0199 memo transforms what was often a routine procedural decision into a more significant strategic choice. Adjustment allows applicants to remain in the United States with work and travel authorization while Form I-485 is pending, but it now faces heightened discretionary scrutiny and may result in more Requests for Evidence and Notices of Intent to Deny as officers document their exercise of discretion. Consular processing avoids that discretionary framework but requires departure from the United States, which may trigger the three- or ten-year unlawful-presence bars for some applicants. Dual-intent classifications such as H-1B and L-1 remain compatible with pursuing adjustment, and applicants with long, lawful status histories are generally better positioned, but the memo cautions that maintaining dual-intent status alone does not guarantee a favorable exercise of discretion.
KEY POINT FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED APPLICANTS:
For professionals, physicians, researchers, executives, investors, and other highly skilled workers pursuing employment-based permanent residence—including H-1B, L-1, O-1, E-2, EB-1, and EB-2 National Interest Waiver cases—the choice between adjustment of status and consular processing has become an increasingly important strategic decision.
April 28, 2026 —❖— A State Department cable directs consular officers to ask every nonimmigrant visa applicant whether the applicant has experienced harm or fears returning to the home country. Because these questions address the threshold elements of an asylum claim, the answers become part of the applicant's permanent immigration record. Applicants who answer affirmatively—or decline to answer—may be denied under INA § 214(b). The directive applies to B-1/B-2, F, J, E, H, L, O, and P visa applicants and their dependents.
The design is a bind for anyone with genuine safety concerns: answering honestly costs the visa now, while answering no to obtain the visa puts that denial of fear into the permanent consular record, where USCIS or CBP can later use it to attack the credibility of an asylum claim filed after entry. In effect, the policy screens out and pre-impeaches potential asylum seekers before they ever reach the United States. Applicants must still answer truthfully, and coaching someone on these answers carries serious legal risk, so anyone with safety concerns should get individualized legal advice before a visa interview. Legal challenges are expected.
Read our analysis: https://kennedyvisas.com/blog-kl-insights/f/visa-interviews-new-questions-about-fear-of-returning-home
May 21, 2026 —❖— Following USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199, applicants with a pending I-485 should expect closer questioning, including why they did not consular process, and should build a documented record of positive equities such as family ties, steady employment, tax compliance, and community involvement. Anyone weighing a switch between routes, or planning international travel during a pending case, should confirm the risks first: departing the U.S. on a pending adjustment without advance parole can abandon the application entirely. For nationals of restricted countries, a travel ban can make consular processing abroad risky or impractical, which weighs toward adjusting inside the U.S.; see the Travel Bans section.
June 23, 2026 —❖— In Blanche v. Lau, the Supreme Court held 6-3 that a border officer does not need clear and convincing evidence that a returning lawful permanent resident committed a crime involving moral turpitude before treating that resident as an applicant for admission rather than as already admitted. Justice Thomas wrote for the majority; Justice Jackson dissented, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, calling the ruling a "massive blank check." Ordinarily a green card holder returning from a short trip abroad is treated as already admitted and cannot be put on the inadmissibility track without strong proof. After Blanche, a pending charge or unresolved criminal matter that may qualify as a crime involving moral turpitude is enough for an officer to reclassify the resident at the border; the government may then prove the underlying crime years later, at the removal hearing, with evidence it did not have at the time. The Court did not decide whether Mr. Lau's own offense, New Jersey trademark counterfeiting, even qualifies as a crime involving moral turpitude; it sent that question back to the Second Circuit, so he may still prevail on remand.
What the Reclassification Means in Practice
The shift from "admitted" to "applicant for admission" is not a formality; it changes which removal track applies and who carries the burden of proof. A resident treated as already admitted can be removed only on deportability grounds, where the government bears the burden. A resident treated as seeking admission faces inadmissibility proceedings, where the burden shifts to the individual to prove admissibility. At the border, the practical consequences can include having the physical green card (Form I-551) confiscated, being paroled into the country rather than formally admitted, and being placed in removal proceedings. The I-551 stamp issued in place of the card generally serves as proof of work authorization for only one year, so a resident in this posture can face employment-verification and proof-of-status problems while the case drags on. Permanent residence is not finally lost unless removal proceedings end in a final order, but the period of limbo is real.
Who Should Get Advice Before Traveling
The ruling does not make every arrest or traffic ticket a basis for inadmissibility, and it does not let officers cancel a green card without legal process. It matters most for residents whose history may involve an offense listed in INA § 212(a)(2), which includes crimes involving moral turpitude and certain controlled-substance, fraud, and theft offenses. Any green card holder with an arrest, a pending charge, a plea, a conviction, an open warrant, or an unresolved investigation should get an individualized legal assessment before international travel, and should carry evidence of U.S. ties. Anyone who is paroled rather than admitted at the border should seek counsel immediately, and should obtain an I-551/ADIT stamp or other temporary proof of status rather than relying on a parole I-94 alone.
Lawful permanent residents with arrests, pending charges, criminal convictions, or unresolved investigations should obtain legal advice before international travel. Read our analysis: Supreme Court Narrows Reentry for Returning Green Card Holders. https://kennedyvisas.com/blog-kl-insights/f/supreme-court-narrows-reentry-for-returning-green-card-holders
Updated June 2026 —❖— USCIS continues to process Form I-90 applications to renew or replace Permanent Resident Cards. Following USCIS’s 2026 strengthened screening and vetting updates, some green card renewal applications may take longer or receive additional review, especially where fraud, criminal history, identity issues, or other security concerns are identified.
Renewal of a green card does NOT automatically reopen the original grant of permanent residence, but issues discovered during adjudication may lead to further review in appropriate cases. For the separate question of whether to pursue a green card through adjustment of status or consular processing, see the Adjustment of Status section above.
November 7, 2024 —❖— In State of Texas v. DHS, No. 24-cv-306 (E.D. Tex.), a federal court entered final judgment vacating the Keeping Families Together (KFT) process, which had let certain undocumented spouses and stepchildren of U.S. citizens apply for parole in place without leaving the country. The ruling was immediate and nationwide, and it came the day after the 2024 election was called, which makes revival unlikely. USCIS stopped adjudicating pending Form I-131F applications and stopped accepting new ones, and Application Support Center appointments tied to those filings were cancelled.
A pending I-131F will not be approved and does not protect you from enforcement, so do not rely on it as status. Parole in place for certain military families under INA § 212(d)(5) may still exist in narrow circumstances, but eligibility is limited.
January 24, 2026 —❖— A December 15, 2025 Federal Register Notice moved to terminate the Family Reunification Parole (FRP) process and to revoke the lawful status and work authorization of FRP beneficiaries as of January 14, 2026. On January 24, 2026, Judge Talwani issued a nationwide preliminary injunction in Svitlana Doe v. Noem temporarily blocking that termination while the litigation continues. For FRP beneficiaries hit by the December notice, this means parole and related work authorization remain valid through their original expiration dates for now. The situation can change as the case proceeds, so affected families should confirm their status and deadlines rather than assume either outcome.
2026 —❖— CHNV parole, the process for nationals of Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, is on weaker footing than FRP. The First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Svitlana Doe v. Noem that the administration's termination of the program was lawful, affecting roughly half a million beneficiaries and their sponsors. Litigation over related parole issues continues, but CHNV beneficiaries should not assume the program's protections will remain, and should seek advice about any other status they may qualify for. Most other parole programs have also stopped accepting new applicants.
Updated June 2026 —❖— If your plan depended on parole in place, that door has closed; an I-130 petition from a U.S. citizen spouse remains available, but adjusting without parole in place often requires consular processing abroad, which now carries its own risks (see the adjustment and consular processing section). If you have a prior removal order or are in active proceedings, this is not a wait-and-see situation. Anyone whose parole or parole-based work authorization is ending should get a case review now, before status lapses, rather than waiting on a program that may not survive.
Updated June 2026 —❖— USCIS announced that, for SIJS petitions filed on or after May 10, 2026, it will no longer automatically conduct deferred-action determinations for approved Special Immigrant Juvenile applicants who cannot yet apply for adjustment of status because of visa backlogs. Special Immigrant Juvenile Status remains available for children and young people who qualify under state court and federal immigration law. A new $250 SIJS filing fee also applies.
The change matters because deferred action has often been the bridge that allowed approved SIJS youth to obtain protection from removal and apply for employment authorization while waiting for a green card. SIJS remains a powerful form of humanitarian protection, but the timing and coordination between the state court order, Form I-360 filing, deferred-action request, work authorization, and later adjustment of status now require more careful planning.
Spring 2026 —❖— Governor Wes Moore’s administration, through the Governor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs, launched Citizenship Maryland, a statewide initiative to reduce barriers to naturalization and strengthen access to citizenship services for lawful permanent residents. The program provides grant funding to nonprofit organizations for outreach, informational sessions, pre-application screenings, and referrals.
The State estimates that roughly 150,000 lawful permanent residents in Maryland are eligible to become U.S. citizens, with many located in Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties. Naturalization can provide voting rights, a U.S. passport, expanded family-petition immigration options, stronger protection against future immigration consequences, and access to additional economic and educational opportunities.
Applying for naturalization also gives USCIS another opportunity to review how permanent residence was obtained. An eligibility and risk review is a smart first step before filing.
June 2026 —❖— DHS has proposed increasing the Form N-400 naturalization filing fee from $760 to $1,330 for paper filings and from $710 to $1,280 for online filings. The proposal would also eliminate the reduced-fee option and eliminate fee-waiver eligibility for many naturalization applicants.
The proposal is NOT currently in effect. If finalized, it would make naturalization substantially more expensive, especially for lower-income permanent residents. Eligible green card holders who are already considering naturalization should evaluate eligibility, risk factors, and timing before filing.
2026 —❖— A denial under INA § 318 is different from an ordinary naturalization denial. Rather than finding only that the applicant failed to qualify for citizenship, USCIS may conclude that lawful permanent resident status was never validly obtained. Common issues include alleged fraud or misrepresentation, marriages entered into for immigration purposes, unresolved inadmissibility, or defects in the original adjustment or immigrant visa process.
In practice, the naturalization interview can become a second audit of a green card case that may have closed years earlier. Under current enforcement practices, a Section 318 denial may result in referral to removal proceedings, making the stakes far greater than a delayed citizenship application. Permanent resident status itself may be placed at risk.
The deadlines are unforgiving. A Form N-336 Request for a Hearing generally must be filed within 30 days of the denial, or 33 days if the decision was mailed. That administrative review ordinarily must be completed before seeking de novo review in federal district court under 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c), where a federal judge independently decides eligibility and may order naturalization. Anyone receiving a Section 318 Notice of Intent to Deny or denial should calendar the deadline immediately and obtain experienced legal counsel before responding.
Read our analysis:
https://kennedyvisas.com/blog-kl-insights/f/the-naturalization-interview-that-puts-a-green-card-at-risk
Updated June 2026 —❖— Most asylum applicants remain eligible to apply for an initial Employment Authorization Document (EAD) after the required 150-day waiting period, and USCIS continues to process many initial asylum-based work permit applications within approximately 30 days. However, DHS has proposed major changes that would make both initial work permits and renewals more difficult to obtain, expand discretionary denials, and eliminate several existing protections. The proposal has not been finalized and is not currently in effect, but it signals the direction of future asylum policy.
Updated June 2026 —❖— For Employment Authorization Document renewals filed on or after October 30, 2025, the government no longer grants new automatic extensions while renewal applications are pending, although previously issued 540-day automatic extensions remain valid if they were granted on or before October 29, 2025. Employment Authorization Documents issued on or after December 4, 2025 are generally valid for 18 months instead of five years, and filing fees have increased, including a $560 fee for an initial asylum-based work permit. Filing renewal applications as early as permitted has become increasingly important to reduce the risk of employment authorization gaps.
January 1, 2026 —❖— Presidential Proclamation 10998, signed December 16, 2025, expanded the June 2025 travel ban and related visa restrictions to 39 countries, plus individuals traveling on Palestinian Authority documents. Nineteen countries are subject to full suspension, meaning visa issuance is suspended for both immigrant and nonimmigrant visa categories unless an exception or waiver applies: Afghanistan, Burkina Faso, Burma (Myanmar), Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Laos, Libya, Mali, Niger, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The full suspension also applies to individuals traveling on documents issued or endorsed by the Palestinian Authority.
Nineteen additional countries are subject to partial suspension for immigrant visas and for B-1, B-2, B-1/B-2, F, M, and J visas: Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Burundi, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Dominica, Gabon, The Gambia, Malawi, Mauritania, Nigeria, Senegal, Tanzania, Togo, Tonga, Venezuela, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. For those countries, other nonimmigrant categories, including many work visa categories such as H-1B, L, O, and P, generally remain available, though with reduced validity and heightened scrutiny.
Turkmenistan is treated separately. The prior suspension on B-1, B-2, B-1/B-2, F, M, and J visas for Turkmenistan was lifted, but immigrant visa issuance for nationals of Turkmenistan remains suspended.
January 1, 2026 —❖— The ban applies only to people who are outside the United States on January 1, 2026 and do not hold a valid visa on that date. Visas issued before that date are not revoked by the proclamation. Lawful permanent residents are exempt, though they may still face enhanced screening at ports of entry. Dual nationals who travel on a passport from a non-banned country are not subject to the ban.
Unlike the June 2025 version, Proclamation 10998 removed categorical exceptions for immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, adoption cases, and Afghan Special Immigrant Visas. Those cases now depend on discretionary, case-by-case national-interest waivers unless another exception applies. Any national of a listed country who is not a lawful permanent resident should obtain legal advice before leaving the United States.
January 21, 2026 —❖— Separate from Proclamation 10998, the State Department paused immigrant visa issuance for nationals of 75 countries effective January 21, 2026, citing review of public-charge screening and financial self-sufficiency. This is not the same policy as the travel ban. It affects immigrant visa issuance abroad for a broader group of countries and has no stated end date. The State Department says affected applicants may still submit applications and attend interviews, but immigrant visas will not be issued while the pause remains in effect. Applicants processing green cards through U.S. consulates should confirm whether their country is affected before relying on ordinary consular-processing timelines.
2026 —❖— The State Department's visa bond program requires some B-1/B-2 visitor-visa applicants from designated countries to post a refundable bond of $5,000, $10,000, or $15,000, set by the consular officer at the visa interview. A bond does NOT guarantee visa issuance. If the visa is issued, the traveler must comply with the visa-bond terms, including entry and departure requirements. The bond may be returned if the traveler complies with the terms of admission, does not travel before the visa expires, or applies for admission and is denied entry. The bond may be breached if the traveler overstays, fails to depart, or applies to adjust out of nonimmigrant status, including by claiming asylum.
The list of covered countries expanded substantially through early 2026 and now reaches dozens of countries. Visitor-visa applicants from affected countries should confirm whether a bond applies before scheduling a visa interview or making travel plans.
June 5, 2026 —❖— Separately from the entry restrictions and State Department visa restrictions, USCIS had frozen or delayed immigration benefit adjudications for nationals of 39 travel-ban or high-risk countries, as well as individuals with Palestinian Authority-issued or endorsed documents. That freeze affected benefits such as green cards, work permits, asylum applications, naturalization applications, and other USCIS filings.
In Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS, a federal court vacated the USCIS benefits freeze and related hold policies, so USCIS must resume processing affected benefits unless a stay or later ruling changes the result.
The ruling does NOT invalidate Proclamation 10998, the State Department visa restrictions, the 75-country immigrant-visa pause, or the visa bond program. It addresses USCIS processing of immigration benefits inside the agency system.
Read our analysis:
https://kennedyvisas.com/blog-kl-insights/f/fed-court-vacates-uscis-travel-ban-freeze-on-immigration-benefits
June 25, 2026 —❖— In Mullin v. Doe (decided with Trump v. Miot), the Supreme Court held 6-3 that the Department of Homeland Security may terminate Temporary Protected Status for roughly 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians, reversing lower-court orders that had postponed the terminations. Justice Alito, writing for the majority, held that the TPS statute bars judicial review of non-constitutional challenges to the Secretary's termination decisions. The Court also rejected the Fifth Amendment claim that ending Haiti's designation was driven by racial animus, finding the cited statements were not "overtly racial" and could rest on race-neutral grounds. Justice Kagan, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson, dissented, arguing the program likely ended unlawfully because DHS skipped the required country-condition consultations and, as to Haiti, allowed "impermissible race-based considerations" to taint the decision. Protections remain in place only until DHS completes the administrative steps to end them, expected within weeks. By holding that TPS terminations are not subject to judicial review, the June 25 decision removes the main legal check that had slowed them, which is why the case reaches well beyond Haiti and Syria.
Consequences of a TPS Termination: Lost Work Authorization and Removal Exposure
On the termination date, affected holders lose TPS-based work authorization and face renewed exposure to removal, unless they already hold another status or have a pending application that provides protection. Employers should note that continued employment authorization depends on the EAD's validity and the termination's effective date.
The Program Nationwide: 1.3 Million Holders, 13 of 17 Designations Ending
TPS covered roughly 1.3 million people from 17 countries as of March 2025. The administration has moved to terminate 13 of those designations; by May 2026 only four remained active (about 273,000 people), and the four that remain, including El Salvador, are set to expire by late November 2026.
For Practitioners: Litigation After the Judicial-Review Bar; Screen Every Client for an Alternative
The decision narrows litigation options by foreclosing statutory review of termination decisions, pushing remaining challenges toward constitutional and procedural theories and toward reliance-based arguments. Reliance interests — the settled expectations of long-residing holders who built lives, families, and employment around the status — remain a live argument in some postures and at the policy level, even though they did not carry the day here. Counsel should screen every TPS client now for an independent path: adjustment through a qualifying relative, asylum if a timely fear claim exists, or another humanitarian or employment basis, and should calendar each client's termination date and any wind-down period.
For TPS Holders: Get Screened for Another Status Before Your Status Expires
Do not wait for the termination date. Get screened now for any other status you may qualify for, ideally before TPS and its work permit expire. The State Department currently rates both Haiti and Syria at Level 4, "Do Not Travel," which bears both on the danger of return and on any hardship or protection argument.
December 2, 2025 —❖— In a signed analysis, Kennedy Law argues that TPS is not only a humanitarian measure but a principled, conservative form of governance grounded in law, stability, and predictability, and that revoking a lawful protection people relied on is a betrayal of the trust good governance depends on. The piece makes a structural point often lost in the debate: TPS is not a border or "pull factor" issue, because eligibility is fixed to a physical-presence cutoff date published in the Federal Register. People who arrive after that date are categorically ineligible, so TPS stabilizes a population already screened, vetted, and integrated into the workforce rather than expanding it. Withdrawing protection from law-abiding families who followed the rules, the analysis argues, does not strengthen the system; it manufactures a new undocumented population and imposes costs on employers and communities.
The piece frames three values — protection, promise, and reliance. Protection being the stability TPS gives vetted families and the communities around them; promise being the assurance that protection will be tied to real conditions in the home country and not withdrawn abruptly or for unrelated reasons; and reliance being the principle that when a government confers lawful status, people structure their lives around TPS. Honoring that reliance is a matter of legal consistency and moral responsibility. This piece closes that justice without mercy is unsustainable, mercy without justice has no foundation, and law without regard for reliance is unworthy of public trust. Read the full analysis: https://kennedyvisas.com/blog-kl-insights/f/tps-protection-promise-reliance
Updated June 2026 —❖— Asylum applications are still being accepted, but new fees now apply. The initial Form I-589 asylum filing fee remains $100. A separate $102 Annual Pending Asylum Application Fee applies to asylum applications that remain pending for the required period. The annual fee is adjusted for inflation and may be due each year the asylum application remains pending.
Applicants should not ignore fee notices or assume that a pending asylum case will continue automatically without payment. Failure to pay the required annual asylum fee may result in rejection, dismissal, denial, or consequences for asylum-based employment authorization, depending on where the case is pending and the procedural posture.
June 25, 2026 —❖— In Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, No. 25-5, the Supreme Court held 6-3 that asylum seekers stopped on the Mexican side of a U.S. port of entry have not legally “arrived in the United States” for purposes of the inspection and asylum-processing obligations in the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Because they have not yet arrived in the United States, immigration officers are not required to inspect them or accept an asylum request at the port of entry. The decision affects individuals attempting to seek asylum at the southern border. It does NOT affect people who are already inside the United States with pending asylum applications or removal proceedings. The ruling also gives the government flexibility to revive the former border-management policy known as “metering” if it chooses.
June 2026 —❖— In Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS, a federal court vacated USCIS policies that had frozen or delayed immigration benefit adjudications for nationals of 39 travel-ban or high-risk countries, as well as individuals with Palestinian Authority-issued or endorsed documents. The ruling affected asylum applications and other USCIS benefits, including green cards, work permits, naturalization applications, and related filings.
The ruling does NOT invalidate the travel ban or State Department visa restrictions. It addresses USCIS processing inside the agency system and requires USCIS to resume adjudicating affected benefit applications unless a stay or later ruling changes the result. Whether the decision changes a particular asylum case depends on the applicant’s nationality, procedural posture, filing history, and any additional security screening.
June 3, 2026 —❖— A federal district court in the Northern District of California entered final judgment in East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, vacating the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways rule, commonly known as the asylum transit ban. The rule had presumed that many individuals who crossed the southern border without authorization between May 11, 2023, and May 11, 2025, after transiting through a third country, were ineligible for asylum unless they had sought and been denied protection in a transit country, obtained a CBP One appointment, or entered through a parole program.
The court held the rule conflicted with the asylum statute, was arbitrary and capricious, and was adopted without complying with required administrative procedures. Although the rule expired in May 2025, it continued to apply to individuals who entered during its effective period. Unless the decision is stayed on appeal, the rule is unenforceable nationwide.
Individuals who were denied asylum because of the transit ban—but granted withholding of removal—may have grounds to seek reconsideration, reopening, or remand of their cases.
April 28, 2026 —❖— The State Department now instructs consular officers to ask nonimmigrant visa applicants whether they have experienced persecution or fear returning to their home country. Applicants must answer truthfully. Those answers become part of the immigration record and may later be examined if the applicant seeks asylum after entering the United States. Individuals with genuine protection concerns should carefully evaluate their legal strategy before attending a visa interview.
[Proposed rules are not currently in effect, but they often signal the direction of future immigration policy and allow applicants to plan ahead.]
June, 2026 —❖— In a proposed rule titled “Employment Authorization Reform for Asylum Applicants,” DHS proposed sweeping changes to employment authorization for asylum applicants. Among other changes, the proposal would extend the current USCIS processing timeframe for initial asylum-based work permit applications from 30 days to 180 days, expand discretionary denials, add eligibility requirements, and make other significant changes affecting eligibility and renewals.
The proposal is NOT currently in effect. If finalized, it would substantially change when—and whether—many asylum applicants can obtain or keep permission to work.
Updated June 2026 —❖— Removal proceedings remain active until an Immigration Judge enters a final order or otherwise closes the case. Hearing dates may be advanced, rescheduled, or added with little notice. Check your hearing information regularly through EOIR's automated system and always keep your address current with the Immigration Court. Missing a hearing will usually result in an in absentia removal order unless a legal exception applies.
June 2, 2026 —❖— In Amica Center for Immigrant Rights v. EOIR, a federal district court vacated core provisions of an EOIR interim final rule that would have restructured Board of Immigration Appeals review. The government has appealed to the D.C. Circuit, and the rules governing BIA appeals remain subject to change.
The vacated rule would have shortened the appeal deadline, required issue identification at filing, expanded single-member screening, and made summary dismissal the central mechanism for disposing of appeals. Many BIA appeals could have been screened for dismissal before the full record, transcript, and briefing were realistically available.
That matters because BIA review is not decorative. It is the administrative process that is supposed to correct immigration judge error, clarify legal standards, preserve issues, and create a meaningful record before federal court review.
The deeper problem is exhaustion. Federal court review of a removal order generally requires exhaustion of available administrative remedies, including BIA review. If the BIA becomes a tollbooth rather than a meaningful adjudicatory body, exhaustion starts to look like a procedural trap: people must pass through the Board to reach federal court, but the Board may not actually review the claims on the merits
If the rule is revived on appeal or adopted through later rulemaking, it would represent a major shift away from meaningful administrative appellate review and toward expedited finality in removal cases.
In our Law360 Expert Analysis, Kennedy Law examines the rule through Justice Stephen Breyer’s lens of judicial legitimacy: courts and adjudicatory bodies maintain public authority only when their procedures create confidence that decisions are reasoned, reviewable, and law-governed—not merely fast. The article explains why turning the BIA into a summary-dismissal tollbooth threatens both administrative exhaustion and the legitimacy of immigration adjudication.
Read our analysis:
https://kennedyvisas.com/blog-kl-insights/f/law360-immigration-appeals-rule-would-prevent-meaningful-reviewRead our analysis: Law360 – Immigration Appeals Rule Would Prevent Meaningful Review. https://kennedyvisas.com/blog-kl-insights/f/law360-immigration-appeals-rule-would-prevent-meaningful-review
June 2026 —❖— In Raycraft v. Lopez-Campos, No. 25-1415, the Trump administration filed a petition for writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court to decide whether certain noncitizens who entered the United States without inspection, later lived in the United States, and were arrested in the interior may be detained without bond hearings while removal proceedings are pending.
The government argues that these individuals are “applicants for admission” subject to mandatory detention under INA § 235(b)(2)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), and that a circuit split requires Supreme Court review. The petition follows a May 11, 2026 Sixth Circuit decision in Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft holding that § 1225(b)(2)(A) did not authorize mandatory no-bond detention for the noncitizens before the court and that detention without bond hearings violated due process.
The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to take the case. If review is granted, the decision could affect whether many people arrested by ICE inside the United States can request bond while their removal proceedings are pending.
June 2026 —❖— In Abrego Garcia v. Mullin, pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, the Department of Justice argued that Kilmar Ábrego García cannot use habeas corpus in district court to block removal to Liberia or require removal to Costa Rica. The government contends that challenges to the execution of a removal order must proceed through the court of appeals or through related class litigation, not through a separate district-court habeas case.
Ábrego García’s attorneys argue that the government is using third-country removal as punishment for his successful challenge to his earlier wrongful removal to El Salvador, where he had been sent despite an immigration judge’s order barring removal there. They argue that Costa Rica has agreed to accept him and that Liberia presents unnecessary risk because he has no ties there and no assurance against onward removal.
The issue is broader than one person’s case. It reflects a growing fight over third-country removals, habeas jurisdiction, and whether a person with a final order of removal can ask a federal district judge to review where the government is trying to send him. Anyone facing possible third-country removal should get legal review immediately, especially if the proposed country was not designated in the immigration proceedings.
Updated June 2026 —❖— ICE enforcement has expanded through raids, targeted arrests, increased detention capacity, and arrests at scheduled ICE check-ins. People with final orders of removal, pending removal cases, prior missed hearings, criminal history, or prior removal orders face heightened detention risk. A scheduled ICE check-in should not be treated as routine without first reviewing the person’s immigration history, current case posture, and removal risk.
If detained, a person who fears return should say clearly and repeatedly: I am afraid to return to my country. I want to apply for asylum or protection. I want to speak with a lawyer. That request should be repeated to officers, detention staff, and immigration officials until it is documented.
June 2026 —❖— Two recent federal cases challenge expanded ICE arrest practices. In M-J-M-A- v. Lyons, the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon certified classes of people arrested, or at risk of arrest, for alleged immigration violations without a warrant and without individualized pre-arrest assessments of probable cause and flight risk. The court had previously entered a preliminary injunction limiting warrantless immigration arrests in Oregon.
In Soumare v. Rife, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, plaintiffs seek class-wide relief challenging the Philadelphia ICE Field Office’s alleged abandonment of a “changed circumstances” policy. The complaint alleges that ICE had previously required an individualized determination of a material change in circumstances—such as new danger or flight risk—before re-arresting or re-detaining people who had already been released and were complying with ICE check-ins and other release conditions.
The Oregon case involves certified classes. The Philadelphia case is newly filed and seeks class-wide relief, but no class has been certified. Neither case directly governs Maryland. Together, however, they reflect a broader enforcement issue: people who were previously released, who are complying with ICE check-ins, or who encounter ICE during enforcement operations may still face arrest or re-detention depending on local ICE practices and the posture of their case.
Anyone with an ICE check-in, prior release from detention, supervision conditions, a pending removal case, or a prior removal order should review the case posture before appearing. A check-in or routine appointment should not be treated as risk-free when detention practices are changing.
Updated June 2026 —❖— Early access to counsel can affect the direction of an immigration detention case. Legal advice may affect bond strategy, release requests, asylum screening, habeas options, and whether a detained person signs documents without understanding the consequences. This is especially important before signing voluntary departure, stipulated removal, withdrawal, parole, bond, or fear-screening documents.
Federal courts continue to serve as an important check on unlawful detention, and public habeas tracking shows hundreds of immigration detention challenges filed since January 2025, with recurring judicial findings of government noncompliance and court intervention.
Read our analysis:
https://kennedyvisas.com/blog-kl-insights/f/access-to-counsel-in-early-immigration-detention-a-tro
June 23, 2026 —❖— In Pablo Sequen v. Albarran, a federal district court vacated the 2025 policies authorizing expanded immigration arrests at and around courthouses, holding that the policies were arbitrary and capricious. The court also struck down the related hold-room waiver, restoring the prior 12-hour limit on detention in short-term holding cells. The decision does not prohibit all courthouse arrests; instead, it restores the earlier enforcement guidance that limited such arrests to specified circumstances. The government is expected to appeal.
Kennedy Law, LLC
1 Research Court, Ste. 450, Rockville, MD, USA.
Copyright © 2026 Kennedy Law, LLC - All Rights Reserved.
DISCLAIMER: This website provides general information about immigration rules and eligibility. It is not legal advice, tax advice, or a substitute for individualized consultation. Immigration outcomes depend on your specific circumstances. For advice tailored to your case, schedule a consultation with Kennedy Law.
PRIVACY POLICY: No mobile information will be shared with third parties or affiliates for marketing or promotional purposes.
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.