Immigration Updates

Supreme Court agrees to decide whether people can be held without a bond hearing

The Supreme Court agreed to review Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha (No. 26-104). The question is whether federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A)) requires detention, with no bond hearing, of people who are in the United States without having been admitted. Under a policy ICE adopted in 2025, such people are treated as subject to mandatory detention. Federal appeals courts have divided: CBS News reports that two courts of appeals have allowed the no-bond policy and nine have required bond hearings. News coverage says argument is expected early next year, with a decision likely by late June.

What this may mean: Until the Court rules, whether a detained person can ask for a bond hearing may depend on where they are held. If someone you know is detained, speak with an attorney immediately about bond options and deadlines.

Sources: CBS News · CNN · NBC News · Supreme Court: question presented

USCIS announces fee increases effective October 16, 2026

USCIS announced inflation adjustments to the fees created by the 2025 H.R. 1 law, covering inflation from July 2025 through July 2026. Examples: the annual fee for a pending asylum application rises from $102 to $105, the fee for an initial asylum-based work permit application (Form I-765) from $560 to $570, the Temporary Protected Status application fee (Form I-821) from $510 to $520, and the immigration parole fee (Form I-131) from $1,020 to $1,050. USCIS says that if a request is postmarked on or after October 16 and requires one of these fees, it must include the new fee.

What this may mean: Check the current fee on uscis.gov before you file. A payment that is even a few dollars short can lead to rejection and lost time.

Sources: USCIS announcement · Federal Register notice · USCIS fee schedule

Hearings moved to unfamiliar locations on short notice put people without lawyers at risk

NPR reported on September 4 that people with cases in the Hyattsville and Baltimore, Maryland and Sterling, Virginia immigration courts were told, on days’ notice or in some cases not at all, that their hearings had moved to buildings in Washington, D.C. and Falls Church, Virginia that are not currently set up for in-person immigration hearings. According to five immigration attorneys who spoke to NPR, the notices appeared aimed at people who did not have lawyers. At one hearing an attorney observed, the judge and the government’s lawyer appeared by video while the people required to attend were there in person, and the judge ordered several people removed for not appearing. An officer of the D.C. chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) told NPR the short notice violates Justice Department rules. The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) said it makes scheduling adjustments and opens new hearing locations as needed to handle cases in a timely and lawful manner, and did not answer NPR’s questions about why people were sent to these locations. NPR also reported that removal orders issued in people’s absence have reached a record high, citing the legal technology platform bklg, and that in Baltimore the rate of such orders for people without lawyers rose from 54% in January to 73% in June, according to the group Mobile Pathways.

In a September 28 policy brief, AILA said hearings are also being scheduled at FEMA headquarters in Washington, D.C., at 26 Federal Plaza in New York, and in Los Angeles, with more locations under consideration. AILA says these sites are primarily being used for people without lawyers, that some people received late notice or none, and that ICE officers are denying access to some of the courtrooms. It cites federal rules requiring adequate notice of where to appear and hearings that are open to the public (8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.27 and 1240.10(b)), and it calls for an independent immigration court system. These are AILA’s characterizations of what is happening.

What this may mean: If you have an immigration court case, check your hearing date, time and location regularly, keep your address current with the court, and never skip a hearing because you are unsure where to go. Call the court and EOIR first. Missing a hearing, even by mistake, can lead to a removal order. See why a lawyer matters in immigration court.

Sources: NPR · AILA policy brief (Sept. 28, 2026) · EOIR: Immigration Court Online Resource

New public charge rule takes effect, along with a new Form I-485 edition

DHS announced a final rule on July 16, published July 20, that rescinds the 2022 public charge regulation. It takes effect September 18, 2026 and applies to Forms I-485 postmarked or submitted on or after that date. For means-tested public benefits received on or after September 18, USCIS says it will consider any and all benefits. For earlier periods it will consider only cash assistance for income maintenance and long-term institutionalization at government expense. USCIS also issued updated policy guidance on August 18, and older editions of Form I-485 are rejected starting September 18.

What this may mean: If you plan to apply for a green card from inside the United States and you or your household use public benefits, get advice before you file. Some categories are exempt by law.

Sources: Federal Register · USCIS guidance · USCIS alerts

Courts order USCIS to lift processing holds; USCIS says it will comply but disagrees

In late 2025, USCIS put pending applications on hold for people from the countries named in the travel-ban proclamations (Policy Memoranda PM-602-0192 and PM-602-0194) and paused asylum decisions. A federal court in Rhode Island vacated those policies on June 5 (Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS), and DHS appealed. On August 24, a federal court in the Northern District of California issued an injunction in Red Eagle Law, L.C. v. Edlow covering a certified class of people from the 39 countries in Proclamations 10949 and 10998, and the Palestinian Authority, whose pending asylum or benefit applications are subject to the holds. On August 28, the same court temporarily vacated USCIS’s separate hold on diversity visa adjustment applications (PM-602-0193, Medani v. Trump), which USCIS announced on September 4. USCIS says it strongly disagrees with the orders but will follow their terms pending possible further judicial review.

What this may mean: If your case was put on hold because of your country of birth or nationality, ask an attorney whether it should now move forward and whether to request action on your case.

Sources: USCIS: recent court order on hold policies · USCIS: court order on hold policies · USCIS: diversity visa hold order · Dorcas docket (CourtListener)

Judge blocks the administration’s newest birthright citizenship order

On August 6, the President signed a new order saying federal agencies would not recognize the citizenship of certain children born in the United States, including children of an “alien enemy,” a foreign government employee, or a parent engaged in so-called birth tourism. On September 2, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman in Maryland blocked the order, finding it very likely unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court’s June ruling. Administration officials said they would go to the Supreme Court if necessary.

What this may mean: The new order is on hold for now. Keep your child’s birth certificate and other proof of citizenship in a safe place.

Sources: CNN · NBC News

$100,000 H-1B fee struck down; DHS proposes a new $103,265 fee by rule

On June 8, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Massachusetts ruled, in a case brought by California and 19 other states, that the $100,000 payment requirement for new H-1B petitions was unlawful, calling it a tax imposed without Congress, and vacated the agency guidance that carried it out. The government appealed, and on July 24 the First Circuit denied its request to pause the ruling. USCIS says it strongly disagrees but will comply with the order, and that if the order is later lifted DHS still plans to collect the payment. Separately, on August 24 DHS proposed a rule that would charge $103,265 for each H-1B cap-subject petition, in addition to other fees, with exceptions for nonprofit research organizations, government research organizations and institutions of higher education. This is a proposal, not a final rule.

What this may mean: Employers and workers planning H-1B filings should get current advice before filing. The situation can change quickly.

Sources: USCIS: H-1B FAQ and court rulings · USCIS: DHS proposes additional H-1B fee · Federal Register proposed rule · NPR

Court vacates the 75-country immigrant visa pause; State Department pauses appointments for training

A federal judge ruled in CLINIC v. Rubio that the State Department’s January 2026 pause on immigrant visas for nationals of 75 countries was contrary to law and beyond the Secretary of State’s authority, and that it illegally discriminated on the basis of nationality. The ruling vacated the policy and set aside visa denials based only on it. The State Department says the pause is no longer in effect. On August 26, The Washington Post reported that the State Department paused immigrant visa appointments worldwide, saying staff need training. The ruling concerned the 75-country pause; the separate entry restrictions in Presidential Proclamation 10998 (39 countries and holders of Palestinian Authority travel documents), in effect since January 1, 2026, are a different policy.

What this may mean: If you have an immigrant visa case abroad, confirm your interview status directly with the consulate before making travel plans. The litigation is ongoing and appeals are possible.

Sources: NPR · CNN · State Department · The Washington Post · Congressional Research Service on the travel ban

USCIS may require electronic filing for certain forms

An interim final rule published in the Federal Register on August 11, 2026 lets USCIS require online (electronic) filing of any immigration form that has been available for e-filing for at least 180 days. USCIS must announce the requirement on its website at least 60 days before it takes effect for a form, and the rule explains how to request a waiver if you cannot file electronically. Public comments are due October 13, 2026.

What this may mean: Check each form’s page on uscis.gov to see how it must be filed, and create a USCIS online account if you do not have one.

Sources: USCIS announcement · Federal Register rule

USCIS can send asylum cases directly to immigration court without an interview

Under an interim final rule effective immediately on July 27, USCIS may refer affirmative asylum applications directly to an Immigration Judge without first interviewing the applicant. USCIS says the change is meant to reduce the backlog. The agency is accepting public comments and plans to issue a final rule later.

What this may mean: Filing an affirmative asylum application can now lead to removal proceedings without an asylum interview. Talk to an attorney before you file, and keep USCIS informed of every address change.

Sources: DHS announcement

Signature rule takes effect: no chance to correct an invalid signature

An interim final rule effective July 10, 2026 (published May 11) says that if USCIS accepts a filing and later finds it lacks a valid signature, USCIS may reject or deny it, with no opportunity to replace or correct the signature, and may keep the fee when it denies. Under the USCIS Policy Manual, a valid signature is a handwritten mark by the person who must sign. A photocopy, scan or fax of the original is generally acceptable unless the form says otherwise, and online filers sign electronically through their USCIS account. Typed names, stamps, auto-pens and images pasted in from elsewhere are not accepted, and attorneys, representatives and preparers cannot sign for the person who must sign.

What this may mean: Sign each form yourself, exactly as it requires, and have an attorney review your package before you file.

Sources: Federal Register rule · USCIS Policy Manual: signatures · USCIS policy alert (July 10, 2026)

Supreme Court strikes down the 2025 birthright citizenship order

In Trump v. Barbara, the Court ruled 6–3 that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority. Justice Kavanaugh agreed that the order was unlawful on statutory grounds, and Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch dissented. The ruling invalidated the executive order signed January 20, 2025.

What this may mean: The constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship was upheld. The administration has since issued a narrower order, which a court has blocked (see Sep 2).

Sources: National Constitution Center · NPR · Supreme Court docket 25-365

Supreme Court: courts largely cannot review Temporary Protected Status terminations

In Mullin v. Doe, the Court ruled 6–3 that the Temporary Protected Status statute bars most judicial review of decisions to end a country’s TPS designation. That cleared the way for the terminations for Haiti and Syria, which took effect July 27. As of mid-August, according to Pew Research Center, DHS had ended TPS for 11 countries, four designations (El Salvador, Ukraine, Sudan and Lebanon) remained and were set to expire before the end of 2026, and terminations for Ethiopia and Somalia were suspended by litigation.

What this may mean: If you hold or held TPS, speak with an attorney now about other possible options, and check the USCIS TPS page for your country’s current status.

Sources: Pew Research Center · USCIS: TPS · ABC News

USCIS says it will grant adjustment of status only in “extraordinary circumstances”

USCIS announced on May 22, in a policy memorandum dated May 21 (PM-602-0199), that it will grant adjustment of status, which is applying for a green card from inside the United States, only in “extraordinary circumstances.” The agency’s announcement describes the policy as aimed at people in temporary status, such as students, temporary workers and visitors, who must generally seek permanent residence through consular processing in their home countries. The memorandum describes adjustment as discretionary relief, and its text says applicants must show “unusual or even outstanding equities.” USCIS says officers will evaluate cases individually and that it is directing resources to priorities such as visas for victims of violent crime and human trafficking, and naturalization applications.

What this may mean: If you are in temporary status and plan to apply for a green card from inside the United States, get advice before you file. This policy may affect whether adjustment is realistic or whether consular processing is the better path.

Sources: USCIS announcement · Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199