Saluja Law

Saluja Law Immigration and Sports law firm located in West Virginia

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.

04/29/2026

Major Immigration Decision: Bond Hearings Restored for Many Detainees

A new decision from the Cunha v. Freden case is changing the landscape of immigration detention law and it has real, immediate consequences for individuals and families.

For years, people living in the United States after entering without inspection could seek release on bond while fighting their cases. But in 2025, the government took a new position: that these individuals could be detained without bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1225, even if they had lived here for decades and were arrested far from the border.

The Second Circuit just rejected that argument.

The court made a critical distinction:
👉 § 1225 applies to people seeking admission at the border
👉 § 1226 applies to people already living inside the U.S.

Because of that distinction, individuals like Mr. Cunha are entitled to bond hearings instead of mandatory detention.

This is a big deal. The government’s interpretation would have allowed detention without bond for millions of people. The court refused to go that far.

⚖️ Even more important: there is now a circuit split. Other courts (5th and 8th Circuits) have sided with the government, meaning this issue is likely headed to the Supreme Court.

What this means right now:

Many detainees may now qualify for bond hearings
Habeas challenges to detention are stronger than ever
Where your case is located matters

At Saluja Law, we are actively tracking this development and using it to advocate for our clients facing detention.

If you or someone you know is being held in immigration custody, this decision could change everything.

04/27/2026

IImmigration Courts Are Changing — And It Matters

The U.S. immigration court system is undergoing a major shift right now, and the impact is immediate for individuals facing removal.

A large number of immigration judges have been replaced, and new judges are being hired at a rapid pace to address a backlog of more than 3 million cases. Many of these new judges reportedly have limited immigration law experience and are receiving less training than in prior years.

At the same time, asylum approval rates have dropped sharply, signaling a significant change in how cases are being decided.

What does this mean in practical terms?

Immigration court has always required strong preparation. But in today’s environment, the stakes are even higher:
• Cases must be thoroughly documented
• Testimony must be precise and credible
• Legal arguments must be strategically developed from the outset

While the law itself has not changed, how it is being applied is evolving in real time.

For individuals in proceedings, this creates real uncertainty. For attorneys, it requires a more aggressive and detail-driven approach to advocacy.

At Saluja Law, we are actively adjusting our litigation strategies to meet these changes head-on and to ensure that every client receives the strongest possible representation.

If you or a loved one is in immigration proceedings, now more than ever, preparation matters.

04/22/2026

Saluja Law – Immigration Update

The DHS shutdown is no longer just a funding lapse. It is quickly becoming a turning point in how immigration enforcement is financed and carried out in the United States.

Since February, DHS has remained partially shut down due to a fundamental disagreement in Congress over funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Democrats have pushed for accountability reforms following recent incidents, while Republicans have prioritized uninterrupted enforcement funding as a national security necessity.

Now, Senate Republicans have introduced a new framework that could significantly change the landscape. Instead of negotiating a full DHS budget, the proposal isolates ICE and CBP and seeks to fund them through the reconciliation process, allowing passage with a simple majority.

What does this mean in practical terms?

• Up to $140 billion in multi-year funding dedicated to enforcement agencies
• Long-term financial stability for ICE and CBP through the end of the current presidential term
• Reduced leverage for Congress to tie funding to reforms
• Likely expansion of enforcement activity, detention capacity, and removal operations

For individuals and families, the impact is mixed. While many immigration benefits continue to be processed, enforcement activity could increase significantly once funding is resolved. At the same time, immigration courts remain backlogged, creating added uncertainty.

From a legal standpoint, this approach raises serious questions. When funding expands without corresponding safeguards, litigation often follows. Issues involving detention, due process, and constitutional protections will remain front and center.

Bottom line: the shutdown is evolving into a structural shift in immigration policy, not just a temporary disruption.

Saluja Law is closely monitoring these developments and advising clients accordingly. If you have questions about how this may affect your case or status, we are here to help.

04/15/2026

There are 537 elected officials in Washington, D.C. One President. One Vice President. One hundred Senators. Four hundred thirty-five Members of Congress.

And yet, immigration reform remains stuck.

This is not a political issue anymore. It is an economic issue. It is a workforce issue. It is a family issue.

Across this country, the impact is real:

Farmers cannot find workers to harvest crops.
Construction projects are delayed.
Restaurants and hotels are understaffed.
Hospitals are stretched thin.
Businesses in IT and engineering are competing globally for talent and losing ground.

This is not theoretical. This is happening right now.

When there are not enough workers, prices go up. Projects slow down. Families feel it. Our economy absorbs the damage.

A functioning immigration system is not optional. It is essential infrastructure.

Yet instead of coming together, lawmakers continue to push narrow, partisan approaches that avoid real solutions and meaningful collaboration.

Enough.

To the 537 elected leaders in Washington: stop the political back and forth. Stop treating immigration as a talking point. Sit down. Work together. Fix this system.

We need practical, bipartisan immigration reform that:

Creates lawful pathways for workers
Supports American businesses
Protects families
Reflects the realities of today’s labor market

Every day without reform makes the problem worse.

At Saluja Law, we see the consequences firsthand. Families in limbo. Businesses struggling. People who want to contribute but are stuck in a broken system.

The need for reform is not abstract. It is urgent.

04/06/2026

College athletics is at a crossroads.

On April 3, 2026, President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order titled “Urgent National Action to Save College Sports,” signaling a major federal effort to address the rapidly changing landscape of college athletics.

Over the past few years, the rise of NIL compensation, expanded transfer freedoms, and ongoing litigation have fundamentally reshaped the system. What was once a structured model has evolved into a highly competitive and, at times, unpredictable marketplace. Universities are now facing significant financial pressures, and there is growing concern about maintaining balance across all sports programs.

The Executive Order attempts to bring structure back into the system. It targets pay-for-play arrangements disguised as NIL deals, proposes clearer eligibility and transfer rules, and emphasizes protecting opportunities in women’s and Olympic sports. It also signals that federal funding relationships may be tied to how institutions comply with emerging standards.

That said, the legal reality is more complex. Executive Orders do not create new law. Many of the issues in college athletics today stem from federal court decisions and antitrust principles, which cannot simply be overridden by executive action. As a result, this Order is likely to face legal challenges and will ultimately depend on whether Congress steps in with comprehensive legislation.

What this does make clear is that the future of college sports is still being written. Universities, athletes, and stakeholders are operating in a system that continues to evolve in real time.

At Saluja Law, we are closely monitoring these developments and their legal implications. If you are navigating issues related to NIL, eligibility, or compliance, understanding the legal landscape is more important than ever.

The rules are changing. The question is how quickly the law will catch up.

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

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.

Shortcuts

Share

Category