Saluja Law

Saluja Law Immigration and Sports law firm located in West Virginia

08/28/2026

IMMIGRATION UPDATE: The U.S. Department of State has temporarily paused the issuance of certain immigrant visas while consular officers receive guidance and training concerning revised public charge screening procedures.

The pause reportedly began in early August 2026 and appears to primarily affect some family-based immigrant visa applicants processing through U.S. embassies and consulates abroad. Certain interviews may be rescheduled for September, October, or November. Applicants should continue attending all scheduled appointments unless they receive official notice of a cancellation or postponement.

This development follows a federal court ruling addressing an earlier restriction on immigrant visa processing for applicants from 75 countries. An emergency motion has now been filed asking the court to determine whether the broader processing pause is consistent with that ruling. The government has characterized the pause as temporary, but its duration and ultimate legal effect remain uncertain.

Separately, the State Department is reportedly reviewing the possible revocation of certain B-1 business and B-2 visitor visas issued between 2016 and 2026 to individuals who later applied for asylum.

For individuals already in the United States with pending asylum applications, revocation of a visitor visa ordinarily does not automatically terminate the asylum application. Their ability to remain in the United States generally depends on the pending asylum or removal proceedings, rather than the continued validity of the visa used to enter. However, visa revocation could create significant problems for individuals who are outside the United States or who travel while their cases are pending.

Because these policies remain subject to change and ongoing litigation, affected individuals should closely monitor official communications, maintain updated financial and immigration records, and consult immigration counsel before making international travel or other significant decisions.

Saluja Law Offices, PLLC is monitoring these developments and is available to assist individuals affected by immigrant visa delays, public charge concerns, visa revocation, or pending asylum proceedings.

This post is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration policies may change, and each case must be evaluated based on its particular facts.

08/25/2026

The federal government is reportedly preparing to revoke certain visitor visas issued to individuals who later applied for asylum in the United States. The initiative could affect thousands of people who entered using B-1 business visas or B-2 tourist visas.

It is important to understand that applying for asylum after entering on a visitor visa does not automatically constitute fraud. Individuals may seek asylum when circumstances change, conditions in their home country deteriorate, or new threats make returning unsafe.

Likewise, a revoked visa does not automatically terminate a pending asylum application or result in immediate deportation. However, visa revocation can create serious immigration consequences, including possible removal proceedings, complications with international travel, and increased scrutiny of future immigration applications.

Every case depends on its specific facts, including the individual’s original intent when entering the United States, the circumstances supporting the asylum claim, and the current status of any pending immigration applications.

If you entered the United States on a visitor visa and subsequently applied for asylum, do not withdraw your application, leave the country, or disregard government notices without first consulting an experienced immigration attorney.

Saluja Law Offices, PLLC assists individuals and families with asylum applications, removal proceedings, and other complex immigration matters. Contact our office to discuss your situation and understand your available legal options.

08/18/2026

A new executive order may significantly affect how federal agencies recognize birthright citizenship for certain children born in the United States.

Signed on August 6, 2026, Executive Order 14418 directs federal agencies to deny citizenship documents when neither parent is a U.S. citizen and one parent falls within certain categories involving foreign government employment, terrorism designations, alleged birth-tourism transactions, fraud, or certain surrogacy arrangements.

The order follows a recent Supreme Court decision confirming that the Fourteenth Amendment generally grants citizenship to children born in the United States, including children whose parents are undocumented or temporarily present. The Court recognized a narrow exception for children whose parents possess diplomatic or comparable immunity.

The new order appears to extend beyond that traditional exception, raising serious constitutional questions. An executive order cannot amend the Fourteenth Amendment or override a controlling Supreme Court decision. The provisions involving birth tourism, foreign government employees, and surrogacy arrangements are therefore likely to face legal challenges.

Federal agencies must issue implementation guidance by September 5, 2026. Until that guidance is released, affected families may face uncertainty concerning passports, Social Security numbers, Certificates of Citizenship, and other federal documents.

Parents who believe the order could affect their child should preserve all immigration, birth, medical, employment, diplomatic, and surrogacy records and seek legal advice before responding to an agency inquiry.

Saluja Law Offices will continue monitoring the implementation of Executive Order 14418 and any resulting litigation.

This post is for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.

08/18/2026

Growing uncertainty surrounding the H-1B visa program is causing many highly skilled professionals to reconsider whether their futures remain in the United States.

For an H-1B worker, a layoff is more than a loss of employment. Because lawful status is generally tied to continued qualifying employment, termination can quickly become an immigration crisis. An affected worker may have only a limited period to secure another sponsoring employer, pursue a different lawful status, or prepare to leave the country.

Job loss can also disrupt years of progress toward permanent residence. For professionals already facing lengthy employment-based visa backlogs, changing employers may complicate or delay the green card process. This uncertainty affects decisions about buying a home, changing careers, traveling, starting a business, and building a future in the United States.

Meanwhile, other countries are expanding their technology sectors and actively competing for the same talent. When experienced engineers, researchers, developers, and business leaders leave the United States, they take valuable knowledge and expertise with them.

H-1B professionals should not wait for a layoff or immigration problem before evaluating their options. Employers should also seek guidance before changing a sponsored worker’s duties, compensation, worksite, or employment relationship.

Proactive immigration planning can preserve options that may disappear once a deadline passes.

Saluja Law Offices assists professionals and employers with H-1B petitions, transfers, extensions, employment disruptions, and permanent residence planning. Contact our office to discuss how a job change, layoff, or evolving immigration policy may affect your status.

08/12/2026

The U.S. Department of State has announced that more than 175,000 visas have been revoked under the Trump Administration, signaling a significant expansion of immigration enforcement and "continuous vetting" of foreign nationals who hold U.S. visas.

For visa holders, the most important issue may not be the number of revocations, but what is triggering them.

According to the Department of State, many revocations have followed "law enforcement encounters" involving allegations such as DUI, reckless driving, assault, theft, drug offenses, fraud, and other criminal activity.

This distinction is important: an arrest is not a conviction, and a criminal charge is not a finding of guilt. Nevertheless, under the current enforcement environment, even an encounter with law enforcement may create immigration consequences before the criminal case is fully resolved.

The government's scrutiny also extends beyond criminal allegations. Visa revocations have reportedly involved social media activity, foreign policy and national security concerns, alleged immigration fraud, and other conduct the government believes may affect continued visa eligibility. International students have also faced heightened scrutiny, including expanded social media screening and thousands of reported student visa revocations.
What does this mean for visa holders?

A visa should no longer be viewed simply as a document that remains valid until the expiration date printed in the passport. Foreign nationals may remain subject to continuing government review after the visa has been issued.

If you are a noncitizen who has been arrested or charged with an offense, received notice concerning your visa, or are considering international travel following a potentially adverse immigration or criminal event, obtaining immigration advice before taking further action can be critical.

Visa revocation, lawful immigration status, inadmissibility, removability, and eligibility for future immigration benefits are separate legal issues. The consequences depend upon the individual's circumstances.

Saluja Law Offices, PLLC represents individuals, families, students, professionals, and businesses in complex U.S. immigration matters.

If you have questions about how an arrest, visa revocation, international travel, or another recent event may affect your immigration status, contact Saluja Law to discuss your circumstances.

This post is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

06/30/2026

Today, the United States Supreme Court issued one of the most significant immigration decisions in decades.

In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees United States citizenship to children born in the United States, even when their parents are unlawfully present or only temporarily present in the country.

The Court concluded that the Constitution's Citizenship Clause, together with more than 150 years of constitutional history and longstanding Supreme Court precedent, protects birthright citizenship for children born on American soil who are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The decision rejects Executive Order 14160, which sought to limit automatic citizenship based on a parent's immigration status.

The majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, relied heavily on the historical origins of the Fourteenth Amendment and reaffirmed the Supreme Court's landmark decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). The Court emphasized that its ruling addresses citizenship at birth only. It does not provide lawful immigration status to parents, prevent removal proceedings, or otherwise change existing immigration laws.

The decision was not unanimous. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch each filed dissenting opinions, offering differing constitutional interpretations of the Citizenship Clause and the meaning of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

Regardless of where one stands on immigration policy, today's decision is a landmark constitutional ruling that will shape immigration law for years to come.

At Saluja Law, we will continue to monitor developments affecting immigrants, families, employers, and our communities. If you have questions about how this decision may affect your family or your immigration case, we are here to help.

06/25/2026

Today may prove to be one of the most significant days for immigration law in recent years.

In two major decisions issued this morning, the United States Supreme Court substantially expanded the federal government's authority over both asylum processing at the southern border and Temporary Protected Status (TPS). Regardless of where one falls politically, these decisions deserve careful attention because they reshape how immigration laws will likely be interpreted for years to come.

The first case addressed a deceptively simple question: When does someone "arrive in the United States" for purposes of seeking asylum?

The Court held that an individual standing at a port of entry on the Mexican side of the border has not yet "arrived in the United States" under the Immigration and Nationality Act. As a result, the government is not required to process an asylum application until the individual has actually entered the United States. In reaching that conclusion, the Court emphasized that its role was not to decide whether the government's prior "metering" policy was good or bad public policy. Instead, it focused on what Congress actually wrote in the statute.

The second decision involved Temporary Protected Status, commonly known as TPS.

For decades, TPS has provided temporary humanitarian protection to nationals of countries experiencing war, natural disasters, or other extraordinary conditions. Many designations, however, have remained in place for years and, in some cases, decades.

The Supreme Court held that Congress largely insulated TPS designation and termination decisions from judicial review. In other words, federal courts have a much more limited role in reviewing the Secretary of Homeland Security's decisions to terminate TPS than many had previously believed.

Taken together, these opinions reveal something important about the current Supreme Court.

Rather than expanding immigration protections through broad interpretations of federal law, the Court continues to rely on the plain language enacted by Congress. Whether one agrees with the outcomes or not, the message is consistent: immigration policy is primarily for Congress and the Executive Branch to make, while the judiciary's role is to interpret the statutes as written.

For immigrants and their families, these decisions should not be viewed as the end of available relief. Asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture, family-based immigration, employment-based immigration, waivers, cancellation of removal, and many other forms of relief remain available where the law and facts support eligibility.

What these cases do reinforce is that immigration law continues to become increasingly technical. Success often depends not only on the facts of a case, but also on understanding how rapidly changing statutes, regulations, and court decisions intersect.

At Saluja Law, we will continue closely monitoring these developments and helping our clients navigate an immigration system that continues to evolve.

As always, this post is intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. If you have questions about how these decisions may affect your individual situation, we encourage you to consult with experienced immigration counsel.

06/05/2026

A major federal appeals court has ruled that a President cannot simply eliminate asylum protections created by Congress through executive proclamation alone.

In a significant decision issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the court held that while a President may have authority to restrict “entry” into the United States under certain circumstances, that authority does not permit the government to bypass the immigration laws Congress enacted regarding removal proceedings, asylum protections, and humanitarian relief.

The court emphasized an important legal principle that has existed in immigration law for decades: there is a difference between restricting entry into the country and removing individuals who are already physically present in the United States. Once someone is here, even if they entered unlawfully, Congress has established procedures and protections that the Executive Branch must follow.

Perhaps most importantly, the court reaffirmed that individuals physically present in the United States may still apply for asylum regardless of how they entered the country. Federal law specifically provides that asylum protections may be sought “whether or not” an individual arrived at a designated port of entry.

The ruling also rejected efforts to create new summary removal procedures that bypassed credible fear screenings and limited access to asylum and withholding protections under federal law.

This decision is not simply about immigration policy. It is also about separation of powers and the rule of law. The court made clear that Congress writes immigration laws, and while presidential administrations retain broad enforcement authority, they cannot rewrite statutes through executive action alone.

For many families fleeing persecution, violence, or torture, this ruling preserves critical humanitarian protections that Congress intentionally built into the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Immigration law continues to change rapidly, and additional appeals may follow. If you or a loved one may qualify for asylum, withholding of removal, or other humanitarian relief, it is important to seek experienced legal counsel immediately.

Saluja Law continues to monitor these developments closely and remains committed to protecting the rights of immigrants and their families.

05/22/2026

Major Immigration Policy Shift Announced by USCIS

On May 21, 2026, USCIS issued a significant new policy memorandum that could dramatically impact how many individuals pursue lawful permanent residence in the United States.

Under the new guidance, USCIS is emphasizing that Adjustment of Status (applying for a Green Card from inside the United States) is an “extraordinary” discretionary benefit, not the default pathway to permanent residence.

The agency made clear that, in most cases, individuals who entered the U.S. temporarily on tourist visas, student visas, or many work visas should expect to complete the immigrant visa process through U.S. consulates abroad rather than remain in the United States and adjust status domestically.

The memorandum directs USCIS officers to closely scrutinize Adjustment of Status applications and weigh factors such as:

▪️ Violations of immigration status
▪️ Unauthorized employment
▪️ Fraud or misrepresentation
▪️ Failure to depart after temporary status expired
▪️ Conduct inconsistent with the purpose of admission
▪️ Whether consular processing abroad was available

USCIS also emphasized that simply meeting the statutory requirements for Adjustment of Status may no longer be sufficient. Applicants must demonstrate that they warrant a favorable exercise of discretion.

While certain categories, including some dual-intent visa holders and humanitarian-based applicants, may continue to receive different treatment, this policy signals a major shift in how USCIS intends to adjudicate many family-based and employment-based Green Card applications moving forward.

Individuals considering Adjustment of Status should carefully evaluate their immigration history, current status, and available legal options before filing.

Saluja Law will continue monitoring this development and its impact on immigrants, families, employers, and adjustment applicants nationwide.

If you have questions about how this policy may affect your case, contact Saluja Law to discuss your options.

04/30/2026

New Visa Policy Could Quietly Block Asylum Seekers Before They Reach the U.S.

A newly revealed State Department cable, first reported by the Washington Post, signals a major shift in how the U.S. is handling visa applications and, more importantly, access to asylum.

Under this policy, visa applicants must now affirm that they do not fear harm or persecution in their home country. If they say they do, or even hesitate to answer, their visa is likely to be denied.

This creates a serious dilemma:

• Tell the truth about fearing persecution → likely denied entry
• Deny fear to get a visa → risk permanent immigration consequences for misrepresentation

The result? Many individuals who may qualify for asylum under U.S. law and international protections like the 1951 Refugee Convention may never even get the chance to present their case.

This policy effectively moves asylum screening outside the legal asylum process and into the visa stage, before someone ever reaches U.S. soil.

While framed as a security and fraud-prevention measure, the real impact is much broader. It could block access for:

• Victims of domestic violence
• Political dissidents
• Journalists and activists
• Members of persecuted religious or social groups

For immigration practitioners and applicants alike, this changes the landscape. A visa application is no longer just about travel. It can now determine whether someone ever has access to protection under U.S. asylum law.

This policy will likely face legal challenges, but for now, it represents a significant shift in how the U.S. controls access to its immigration system.

If you or someone you know may be affected, it is critical to understand the risks before applying.

Address

206 Capitol Street Suite 400
Charleston, WV
25301

Opening Hours

Monday 8am - 5pm
Tuesday 8am - 5pm
Wednesday 8am - 5pm
Thursday 8am - 5pm
Friday 8am - 5pm

Telephone

+13047551101

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Saluja Law posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Practice

Send a message to Saluja Law:

Shortcuts

Share

Category