Immigration America

06/10/2026

𝐅𝐞𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐉𝐮𝐝𝐠𝐞 𝐕𝐚𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 $𝟏𝟎𝟎,𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝐇𝟏𝐁 𝐅𝐞𝐞

© Farhad Sethna, Attorney, 2026
A federal judge in Massachusetts vacated Trump’s declaration imposing a $100,000 fee for H1B applicants. The judge reasoned that the fee amounted to a tax, rather than a penalty. The president is not allowed to impose taxes, that is only Congress's purview. The court found, among other reasons, that the president’s unilaterally imposed $100,000 H1B fee was a tax, and consequently, the president had no authority to impose such a tax, nor did the agencies have the authority to demand payment and collection.
Note that “the fee” was simply that – a whimsical fee imposed by Trump. It was not a penalty either – because the US companies petitioning for their H1B workers had followed the law and processes in applying for the H1B classification for their intended employees. So there was nothing to penalize.
The lawsuit was brought by a coalition of 20 states, led by California, and was heard at the federal district court in Massachusetts.
The states complained that the executive order imposed an extremely undue burden on the states, especially with regard to highly skilled occupations such as the healthcare, computer science and engineering fields.
Further, the judge ruled that, under the Administrative Procedures Act, the agencies were not permitted to impose this fee absent a necessary notice and comment procedures that were required under the Act. Additionally, the court also held that the "foreign affairs" and the "good cause" exceptions did not apply because there were no urgent international or emergency circumstances.
Given this background, the court reined in the agencies' conduct on the grounds that the policy as announced by Trump lacked a reasoned explanation, ignoring any reliance interests and statutory scheme.
It now remains to be seen whether the Trump administration will appeal the federal court's decision to the Second Circuit.
Stay tuned for further developments!

© Farhad Sethna, Attorney, 2026
Farhad Sethna has practiced law for over 30 years. He was awarded his JD in 1990 and his MBA in 1991, both from the University of Akron. Since 1996, he has also been an adjunct professor of Immigration Law at the University of Akron, School of Law, in Akron, Ohio, where he wrote and continues to use his own immigration textbook. Attorney Sethna is a frequent speaker at Continuing Legal Education and professional development seminars on various immigration-related topics. His practice is limited to immigration and small business. He has won awards for excellence in teaching and for pro-bono service. With offices in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, Attorney Sethna represents clients in all types of immigration cases before federal agencies and the immigration courts nationwide. A private pilot, it is Farhad’s goal to fly to each of Ohio’s 88 county airports. Our number is: (330) 384-8000. Please send your general immigration questions to [email protected]. We will try to answer as many questions as possible.

06/01/2026

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐔𝐒𝐂𝐈𝐒’ 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐲 𝐨𝐧 𝐆𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐂𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐦𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐔𝐒

On Friday, May 21, the USCIS overturned immigration law and decades-long policy by issuing a memo ending “Adjustment of Status” – AOS - the process of applying to the USCIS for a “green card”by aliens already present in the USA.
Instead, USCIS declared that such aliens now need to leave the USA and apply for “Immigrant Visas” at US consulates in their home countries, through “Consular Processing”. Never mind that many applicants – for example, Special Immigrant Juveniles, or individuals with valid Employment Authorization, or individuals from one of the 75-odd countries from which the US has banned visa processing, or applicants from countries which have no functioning US consulates, or those who simply cannot return to their home countries – are unable to leave the USA.
What prompted this sudden change in USCIS policy? I believe it is simply an extension of Trump’s desire to limit ALL immigration to the USA – including, in this case, legal immigration by individuals who have played by the rules and who have waited – in many cases – for years and sometimes decades – for visas. This policy is driven by jingoistic nationalism, regardless of the harm it is going to cause the US economy, already battered by Trump’s ill-conceived and poorly executed foray into the Middle East. Keep in mind that immigrants are the life-blood of the US economy – contrast the thriving US engine with the moribund economies of Western Europe and even Australia and Japan: hampered by low birth rates and low immigration, those economies are struggling to generate GDP and tax revenues to maintain the social compact with their citizens as well as their international and defense obligations.
So – what does this intentionally misguided policy augur for the adjustment-eligible portion of non-US citizens? What of the tens of thousands of pending AOS applications? The USCIS memo is silent on retroactive application or effective date….always crucial elements in implementing any government policy. Despite this glaring omission, the USCIS memo expends considerable space – no surprise – on the “negatives” – including why the alien could not or chose not to consular process. However, the statute does not impose consular processing as mandatory; if it did, there would be no reason to even have a law (INA § 245(a)) that has been in applied for decades!
The USCIS “policy” must be challenged in court. There is no valid or rational reason to impose this burdensome requirement, not only on the affected law-abiding non-citizen, but also on a terribly backlogged US Department of State, which operates US consulates overseas, and would be incredibly strained to provide the lengthy interview slots which would be needed to assess every intending immigrant visa application.
In sum, the USCIS policy is not only based on impermissible racial animus, it is detrimental to the US National Interest. Even if for purely selfish interests, Congress should require the USCIS revoke this policy and retain AOS as a viable mechanism for legal immigration. Congress needs to do its job and take a robust stance on USCIS’ oversight.
Stop Press: On Saturday, May 20, the USCIS issued another statement claiming that the May 21 memo was simply a “restatement of longstanding law and policy”, and that the "policy will not prevent any alien from obtaining a green card who legitimately and properly qualify. (sic)". The clarification also went on to assure “highly qualified applicants and skilled professionals who have followed the law” that the policy would have no noticeable impact on them.
Unfortunately, the clarification does not reverse the USCIS’ AOS policy announced on May 21. Instead, the “clarification” generates even more confusion – why are only certain populations carved out for AOS approvals? What about the other categories of applicants who have also followed the law and remain eligible for AOS? What are field officers supposed to do? Is there a policy or is there not?
In short, the coming days and weeks will inform the community whether the scope and implementation of the AOS policy. As a practicing attorney, I will be watching, and pivoting as needed. Another unnecessary mess, no surprise from an administration which thrives in creating unnecessary messes. Making America Great Again? Hardly.

05/21/2026

𝐄𝐥 𝐒𝐞𝐱𝐭𝐨 𝐂𝐢𝐫𝐜𝐮𝐢𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐪𝐮𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐬 𝐞𝐧 𝐝𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐢ó𝐧 𝐦𝐢𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐚 𝐩𝐮𝐞𝐝𝐞𝐧 𝐩𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐫 𝐚𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐬 𝐝𝐞 𝐟𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐳𝐚

El Tribunal de Apelaciones del Sexto Circuito de los Estados Unidos tomó una decisión importante sobre detención migratoria el 11 de mayo de 2026 en el caso Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft. El tribunal explicó cuándo es que las personas detenidas por inmigración tienen derecho a pedir una audiencia de fianza ante un Juez de Inmigración.

𝐋𝐨 𝐪𝐮𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐝𝐢ó 𝐞𝐥 𝐓𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐮𝐧𝐚𝐥

El Sexto Circuito dijo que el gobierno usó incorrectamente la ley 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) en casos como el de Lopez-Campos, donde la persona ya estaba viviendo dentro de Estados Unidos antes de ser detenida por inmigración.

El tribunal explicó que esta sección se utiliza generalmente para personas que son tratadas como si pidieran permiso para entrar en Estados Unidos. En esas situaciones, la detención puede ser obligatoria mientras el gobierno decide si se permitirá quedar a la persona.

La corte explicó que esa sección normalmente se usa para personas que están pidiendo permiso para entrar al país. En esos casos, el gobierno puede mantener a la persona detenida mientras decide si podrá quedarse en Estados Unidos.

Pero la corte dejó claro que esa regla no aplica automáticamente a todas las personas que ya están dentro del país.

En cambio, la corte dijo que otra ley — la sección 1226(a) — aplica cuando una persona ya está en Estados Unidos y luego es puesta en proceso de inmigración. Bajo esta sección, la detención no es automática y la persona puede pedir una audiencia de fianza ante un Juez de Inmigración y el juez de inmigración tiene jurisdicción para determinar si la persona saldrá bajo fianza.

Por eso, la corte decidió que Lopez-Campos sí puede pedir una audiencia de fianza y solicitar ser liberado mientras su caso de inmigración sigue pendiente.

𝐐𝐮é 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚 𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐚 𝐥𝐚𝐬 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐬 𝐝𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐬

Esta decisión es especialmente importante para las personas a las que ya se les ha denegado la fianza por un juez de inmigración y que todavía siguen detenidas.

Incluso si alguien ya ha recibido una denegación de fianza y ha apelado esa decisión, aún puede solicitar una nueva revision mientras permanezca detenido. Una denegación previa no significa automáticamente que no pueda volver a perdir su liberación.
Incluso si la persona no apeló una negación anterior, todavía puede presentar una nueva solicitud de fianza si es que continúa en detención. Cada solicitud puede ser evaluada según las circunstancias actuales de la persona.

Por esta razón, es importante actuar rápido. Presentar una solicitud de revisión de fianza lo antes posible puede ser muy importante mientras la persona sigue detenida. Esperar demasiado puede afectar la oportunidad de obtener una audiencia de fianza y una posible liberación.

𝐃𝐢𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐬 𝐄𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐲 𝐏𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐢ó𝐧 𝐝𝐞 𝐥𝐚 𝐂𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐞 𝐒𝐮𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐚

Aunque el Sexto Circuito tomó esta decisión, el tema todavía no está completamente resuelto en todo el país. Ahora existe un desacuerdo entre diferentes cortes federales de apelaciones y es probable que la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos tenga que decidir el tema en el futuro.

El Quinto y Octavo Circuito han apoyado la posición del gobierno, diciendo que la detención obligatoria bajo la sección 1225(b) limita el acceso a fianza.

Sin embargo, el Segundo, el Undécimo y ahora el Sexto Circuito han decidido que los Jueces de Inmigración todavía pueden dar audiencias de fianza bajo la sección 1226(a), aun después de la decisión conocida como Matter of Yajure Hurtado.

Debido a estas diferencias entre las cortes, es probable que la Corte Suprema tenga que resolver este asunto más adelante.

Andrea Aguilar es abogada asociada en los despachos de abogados Farhad Sethna. Obtuvo su título de Juris Doctor en la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad de Akron y está autorizada para ejercer ante el Tribunal Supremo de Ohio. Durante la facultad de derecho, formó parte del Equipo de Juicio y participó en la Summer Trial Academy, donde recibió el "Roo Award" por su excelencia en defensa en tribunales.
Desde que se incorporó a la Oficina Legal de Farhad Sethna, ha colaborado en una amplia gama de asuntos migratorios, incluyendo asilo, defensa en casos de expulsión y procedimientos de detención y fianza ante los tribunales de inmigración. Trabaja estrechamente con clientes y familias navegando procesos migratorios complejos y contribuye a la preparación de casos y a la estrategia de litigios en diversos tipos de ayuda migratoria.

05/12/2026

𝐒𝐢𝐱𝐭𝐡 𝐂𝐢𝐫𝐜𝐮𝐢𝐭 𝐇𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐬 𝐃𝐞𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐍𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐧𝐬 𝐀𝐫𝐞 𝐄𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐁𝐨𝐧𝐝 𝐇𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued an important immigration detention decision on May 11, 2026, in Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft. The court addressed when people in immigration detention are entitled to a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge.

𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐝

The Sixth Circuit held that the government incorrectly used 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) in cases like Lopez-Campos, where individuals were already living inside the United States when they were later taken into immigration custody.

The court explained that this section is generally used for people who are being treated as if they are asking for permission to enter the United States. In those situations, detention can be mandatory while the government decides whether the person will be allowed to stay.

However, the court made clear that this rule is not meant to apply broadly to everyone who is found inside the United States after they have already entered.

Instead, the court held that a different section - 1226(a) - applies when a person is placed into immigration court proceedings while they are already inside the country. Under this rule, detention is not automatic, and the person has the right to ask for a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge.

Based on this, the court found that Lopez-Campos falls under this different section, meaning he may request a bond hearing and ask the court to decide whether he can be released while his immigration case is still pending.

𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐌𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐏𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐃𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧

This decision is especially important for individuals who have already been denied bond by an Immigration Judge and are still being held in immigration detention.

Even if someone has already received a bond denial and appealed that decision, they may still be able to ask for a new bond redetermination while they remain detained. A prior denial does not automatically prevent another request for release.

Even if a person did not appeal a prior bond denial, they may still be able to file a new request for bond redetermination if they are still in detention. Each request can be reviewed based on the person’s current circumstances.

Because of this decision, individuals and families should act quickly. Filing a bond redetermination request as soon as possible may be important, especially while detention continues. Delays can affect the opportunity to obtain a bond hearing and possible release.

𝐂𝐢𝐫𝐜𝐮𝐢𝐭 𝐒𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐏𝐨𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐒𝐮𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐑𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰

Although the Sixth Circuit has issued this decision, the issue is not fully settled nationwide. There is now a clear disagreement among the federal courts of appeals that will likely need to be resolved by the United States Supreme Court.

The Fifth and Eighth Circuits have upheld the government’s position favoring mandatory detention under section 1225(b), which limits access to bond. In contrast, the Second, Eleventh, and now the Sixth Circuit have held that Immigration Judges can still conduct bond hearings under the other section, 1226(a), despite Matter of Yajure Hurtado.

Because of this split among the courts, the Supreme Court will likely need to decide the issue in the future.

Andrea Aguilar is an associate attorney with the Law Offices of Farhad Sethna. She earned her Juris Doctor from the University of Akron School of Law and is admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of Ohio. While in law school, she was a member of the Trial Team and participated in the Summer Trial Academy, where she received the “Roo Award” for excellence in courtroom advocacy.

Since joining the Law Offices of Farhad Sethna, she has assisted in a wide range of immigration matters, including asylum, removal defense, and detention and bond proceedings before the immigration courts. She works closely with clients and families navigating complex immigration processes and contributes to case preparation and litigation strategy across various types of immigration relief.

04/10/2026

Just in the last week, I have had TWO male clients who are in removal proceedings before the immigration court come to me, perplexed, with notices of Selective Service registrations that they had NOT made! Apparently, ICE still deport you, but first you must fight Orange Man's wars.

The Selective Service System is registering ALL males 18-25 for a (prospective) draft. This even includes non-resident, non-immigrant males! Apparently, the 2025 National Defense Authorization Act made it mandatory to register ALL males between ages 18-25. So if males between these ages go in for a Driver's License or state ID or file some other government application, they will be registered for the Selective Service. See the article, below.

Automatic registration into Selective Service was mandated in December 2025, when President Donald Trump signed into law the fiscal year 2026 NDAA.

03/25/2026

Excellent piece on NPR on the immense impact of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decisions......well researched and written, it explains how the tiny BIA affects immigration policies NATIONWIDE! With just 15 members handpicked by the Attorney General, the board has sided with the Department of Homeland Security in an overwhelming 97% of the cases heard in 2025.

President Trump has slashed the number of people on the Board of Immigration Appeals and stacked it with his appointees, tightening the due process available for immigrants, an NPR analysis shows.

02/26/2026

𝐘𝐚𝐣𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐇𝐮𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐝𝐨 𝐯𝐚𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 (𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐧𝐨𝐰)!

© Farhad Sethna, Attorney, 2026

The US Federal District Court for the Central District of California issued a decision on February 18, 2026, finally vacating the BIA decision Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025) in its entirety. It appears that the District Court had finally lost patience with the reticence of the executive branch since Judge Sunshine Sykes issued her order in December, requiring that eligible class members were entitled to bond hearings before immigration judges.
In response, on January 13, 2026,Chief Immigration Judge Teresa Riley, sitting in Cleveland, Ohio, decreed that immigration judges should not follow the December order, claiming that Judge Sykes had issued only a declaratory judgment, and not an injunction. Therefore, immigration judges could continue to deny non-citizens bond if they had not entered the country after having been inspected and admitted.
Judge Sykes’ patience finally wore out. On February 18, she issued the order which is attached. I would commend the reader to look at pages 15 and 16 of the order, which politely, but firmly, described the judge’s frustration with the continued intransigence of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice, which oversees the immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Briefly, the order requires that Immigration Judges grant bond hearings to aliens and that Immigration Judges have the authority to grant bond to detained aliens. The DHS has already begun to float the idea that Judge Sykes’ ruling applies only in the states within the 9th Circuit.
Of course, the DHS can and probably will appeal. They could appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and even move for a stay pending appeal, or they could take the case directly to the Supreme Court on the emergency docket. Either way, we shall see. My money is on the DHS appealing directly to the Supreme Court.
In the interim, detained aliens can and must seek release on bond, stating that Yajure Hurtado has been vacated, and consequently, immigration judges have the legal authority and the discretion to grant release on such bond and under such conditions as they deem appropriate.
Stay tuned for developments on this very important matter.

© Farhad Sethna, Attorney, 2026
Farhad Sethna has practiced law for over 30 years. He was awarded his JD in 1990 and his MBA in 1991, both from the University of Akron. Since 1996, he has also been an adjunct professor of Immigration Law at the University of Akron, School of Law, in Akron, Ohio, where he wrote and continues to use his own immigration textbook. Attorney Sethna is a frequent speaker at Continuing Legal Education and professional development seminars on various immigration-related topics. His practice is limited to immigration and small business. He has won awards for excellence in teaching and for pro-bono service. With offices in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, Attorney Sethna represents clients in all types of immigration cases before federal agencies and the immigration courts nationwide. A private pilot, it is Farhad’s goal to fly to each of Ohio’s 88 county airports. Our number is: (330) 384-8000. Please send your general immigration questions to [email protected]. We will try to answer as many questions as possible.

02/22/2026

Fighting ON - and ON: What I think will be the next big pitched battle on Immigration, this time in the Federal Courts of Appeals -

The last big (and continuing) contest was in the Federal District courts. We witnessed and know of DHS arbitrarily detaining and locking up individuals who had pending asylum applications, TPS, non-citizens reporting to ICE, and even defendants and respondents appearing for court and administrative proceedings. Those detentions resulted in a host of upwards of FOUR THOUSAND petitions for Habeas Corpus being filed in the Federal District Courts.

Now we have another wave of upcoming litigation: The BIA rewrote case law and very generously interpreted the preamble to regulations to give DHS the opportunity to deport asylum seekers to THIRD COUNTRIES with who the USA has sketchy, undefined and unregulated "Asylum Cooperative Agreements". Under the ACA with another country, that country agrees to take WHICHEVER asylum seeker (Not unaccompanied minors- thus far anyway) the USA sends to it and processes that asylee's asylum claim to be able to live in THAT third country. For example, an asylum seeker from Nicaragua could be deported to Ecuador or Honduras and those countries would determine if the asylum seeker could seek and be granted asylum in THOSE countries.

Aside from the fact that the third countries are basically poor nations which lack any bargaining power to reject the Trump Administration's demands to enter into ACA's and are bribed and coerced with US Taxpayer money into agreeing to an ACA, two underlying fundamental facts belie the "due process" argument the DHS is using to justify repatriating these asylum seekers to third countries. FIRST - the countries lack any kind of meaningful asylum review process whatsoever; and
SECOND - there is no mechanism to secure and protect the asylum seekers while their claims for asylum wend their way through a system which does not even exist!

Why do I say the battle will be fought in the Federal Courts of Appeals?

Because the Immigration Judges grant the DHS' motions to pertermit (that is, basically dismiss before completion) the asylum seeker's claims. The process mandates that the asylum seeker must appeal the dismissal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, a tribunal that has been stacked with Administration supporters. Only after the BIA rules (which will essentially be a rubber-stamp of the IJ decision, because after all, it was the BIA set up the impossible hurdle for asylum seekers to surmount to successfully rebut the DHS' claims for pretemission under the ACA - SEE: Matter of C-I-G-M- & L-V-S-G-, 29 I&N Dec. 291 (BIA 2025)) can the asylum seeker appeal to the US Appeals Court for their judicial circuit.

All this is set up to grind the asylum seeker into submission - drain them of resources, time, patience, dignity and above all, hope. The government can succeed if asylum seekers, weary after years of waiting, simply give up and leave the USA to a third country where they could very well become victims once again. Stay tuned as the Trump Administration bullies non-citizens into submission.

02/17/2026

Please find below a link to a video podcast that I took part in recently, discussing the recent widely criticized actions of masked ICE agents.

Immigration Attorney says DO NOT open the door if ICE agents refuse to show a judicial warrant.

01/19/2026

𝐈𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐚 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐩𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐩𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐛𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐭𝐬
© 2026 Farhad Sethna, Attorney

The US Department of State has issued a new directive to consulates worldwide, asking them to pause immigrant visa applications to check whether applicants pose a potential to seek public benefits while in the United States.
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/News/visas-news/immigrant-visa-processing-updates-for-nationalities-at-high-risk-of-public-benefits-usage.html
The directive comes weeks after the US government understood what it said was substantial fraud in public benefits, specifically, childcare centers operated by Somalis in Minnesota.
Similar claims will probably be made about other immigrant communities which rely on certain types of social services in the United States.
All of this is of course in keeping with the Trump administration’s desire to curb immigration to the USA, to demonize immigrants, and to try and deport as many immigrants - both lawful as well as undocumented - through any means possible, including unfounded and baseless allegations.
In addition, the Department of State has updated the list of countries whose nationals may be required to post a visa bond when applying for a visitor visa (B-1/B-2 for business or tourism).
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/News/visas-news/countries-subject-to-visa-bonds.html
“Any citizen or national traveling on a passport issued by one of these countries, who is found otherwise eligible for a B1/B2 visa, must post a bond for $5,000, $10,000, or $15,000. The amount is determined at the time of the visa interview.”
These directives come as the US gears up to host the World Cup, the ultimate sporting event in the world for football (soccer) in the USA.
The directives, as is usual for Trump orders, are vague. It requires consulates to vet applicants for immigrant and nonimmigrant visas for potential use of public benefits in the USA. Applicants will need to fill out an additional form to justify to the State Department that they will not be potentially seeking any public benefits on admission to the USA. The department will also ask whether they have ever received any public benefits anywhere in the world in any other country, as a determining factor of whether the applicant will also rely on public benefits in the US.
Some of the factors that the Department of State requires officials to look into include the following: age, health, family status, finances, education, skills, and - as noted above - past use of public assistance anywhere in the world. The Consulates are also now required to assess the applicant’s English proficiency and are allowed to do so by conducting interviews in English. This will obviously pose a severe burden to individuals who do not speak the English language, and are coming to the USA for nonimmigrant purposes - for example, tourism, to attend the World Cup, business, etc.
At this time, 75 countries are on the State Department’s list for this heightened immigrant visa screening. Full details of all the countries can be found in the article from NPR, which you can find here: https://www.npr.org/2026/01/14/g-s1-106065/trump-immigrant-visa-suspensions-public-assistance
For further details, in the ever widening and unsubstantiated decisions of the Trump administration to restrict immigration, please stay tuned to this website.
© Farhad Sethna, Attorney, 2026
Farhad Sethna has practiced law for over 30 years. He was awarded his JD in 1990 and his MBA in 1991, both from the University of Akron. Since 1996, he has also been an adjunct professor of Immigration Law at the University of Akron, School of Law, in Akron, Ohio, where he wrote and continues to use his own immigration textbook. Attorney Sethna is a frequent speaker at Continuing Legal Education and professional development seminars on various immigration-related topics. His practice is limited to immigration and small business. He has won awards for excellence in teaching and for pro-bono service. With offices in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, Attorney Sethna represents clients in all types of immigration cases before federal agencies and the immigration courts nationwide. A private pilot, it is Farhad’s goal to fly to each of Ohio’s 88 county airports. Our number is: (330) 384-8000. Please send your general immigration questions to [email protected]. We will try to answer as many questions as possible.

The State Department says it will suspend the processing of immigrant visas for citizens of 75 countries whose nationals are deemed likely to require public assistance while living in the United States.