Smal Immigration Law Office

08/27/2026

Litigation pending: Two August 6, 2026 Executive Orders defining U.S. citizenship of children of foreign parents born on the U.S. soil.

On August 6, 2026, President signed two executive orders that materially raised the stakes for foreign nationals traveling to the United States and the employers who sponsor them.

The first order states that it implements the Supreme Court’s June 30, 2026, decision in Trump v. Barbara by directing federal agencies to withhold citizenship recognition from children born to certain categories of noncitizen parents.

The second, the birth tourism executive order titled Ending Birth Tourism, authorizes the Department of State (DOS) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to deny, revoke, or permanently bar entry for travelers found to have entered the United States on a nonimmigrant visa for the purpose of giving birth here.

In Trump v. Barbara, the Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause extends birthright citizenship to children born in the United States to parents “for whom no extraterritorial fiction applies,” a phrase the Court drew from case law addressing diplomats and others treated as outside U.S. sovereign authority despite their physical presence. Under the August 6th Executive Order, agencies will not issue or recognize citizenship documents for a child when neither parent is a U.S. citizen and any of the following four conditions apply:

(a) either parent of that person is an alien enemy, defined to include any member of a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization under 8 U.S.C. 1189 or Specially Designated Global Terrorist, consistent with the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq., and Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001 (Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism), as amended;

(b) either parent of that person is a foreign government employee, defined to include:

(i) ambassadors;

(ii) persons employed by a foreign embassy or consulate who are nationals of that foreign country;

(iii) persons employed by a foreign government in an official capacity; and

(iv) persons employed by an international organization that possess international-organization immunity;

(c) either parent of that person engaged in a commercial transaction to purchase or access birthright citizenship for the person, or engaged in fraudulent activity to obtain citizenship, to include:

(i) when the parent(s) of the person engage in a commercial transaction to ensure that the person’s mother is present in the United States, or a territory of the United States, to give birth; or

(ii) when the parent(s) engage in a commercial transaction with a surrogate present in the United States, or a territory of the United States, to give birth;

(d) the person is born in a territory or territorial waters of the United States where citizenship is not conferred by Federal statute.

Read more at https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/08/continuing-to-protect-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/

The Birth Tourism 08-06-2026 executive order defines birth tourism as entering the United States on a nonimmigrant visa for the express purpose of giving birth in the country or facilitating someone else’s entry for that purpose.

It delegates authority under Section 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to the Secretaries of DOS and DHS to deny visas, revoke visas and permanently bar reentry, deny entry, or remove travelers found to have engaged in, or who plan to engage in birth tourism. It further authorizes the Secretaries of DOS and DHS to take action against individuals or organizations that facilitate these actions. The DOS and DHS retain discretion to grant humanitarian or national-interest exemptions, but the order does not lay out a defined process for determining who falls within the scope of this exemption.

Read more at https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/08/ending-birth-tourism/

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered: Section 1. Purpose.

08/24/2026

ALERT: New Public Charge Rule effective September 18, 2026.
Starting September 18, 2026, DHS will significantly change how public charge determinations are made. The final rule rescinds the 2022 Biden-era public charge regulations at 8 C.F.R. §§ 212.20-212.23 and revises the public-charge-bond provisions at 8 C.F.R. § 103.6(c). For adjustment applicants, this means USCIS officers will no longer apply a detailed regulatory framework that defines key terms, limits the benefits inquiry, and directs the analysis through specific regulatory rules. Instead, adjudications will rely more directly on INA § 212(a)(4), future USCIS guidance, and broader officer discretion under the totality-of-the-circumstances standard.

DHS characterized the 2022 framework as overly restrictive and stated that rescinding it would restore officers’ ability to consider all relevant facts. In that sense, the 2026 rule differs from both the 2019 and 2022 approaches. Before the 2019 rule, public charge inadmissibility was administered without binding regulatory definitions, with officers relying on the statute, precedent decisions, and individualized adjudication. The 2022 rule, by contrast, defined a person “likely at any time to become a public charge” as someone likely to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, demonstrated either by receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance or long-term institutionalization at government expense. DHS now takes the position that this definition, like aspects of the 2019 framework before it, constrained officers from fully evaluating whether an applicant was likely to be self-sufficient.

For AOS adjustment applicants, the most significant change is not simply which benefits may be considered. It is the extent of the broad and undefined DISCRETION afforded to adjudicating officers. USCIS officers may consider the mandatory factors listed in INA § 212(a)(4)(B), other case-specific circumstances, and even empirical data relevant to self-sufficiency. This may result in less predictable and uneven outcomes. Once regulatory definitions are removed, similar fact patterns may be treated differently from one office to another or even from one officer to another. The agency has made clear that new USCIS guidance will shape how this framework operates, but such guidance will not go through public notice-and-comment procedures. That means some of the most important rules in practice may emerge through internal training, policy updates, interview trends, RFEs, and NOIDs rather than through regulations published in the Code of Federal Regulations.

The benefits inquiry is where many applicants will feel this change most sharply. DHS argued that the 2022 rule produced illogical results by requiring officers to disregard entire categories of public benefits, including Medicaid, CHIP, SNAP, and housing assistance, even when those benefits might bear on an applicant’s ability to support themselves. DHS has made it clear that the agency believes officers should not be barred from considering a wider universe of means-tested public benefits when evaluating self-sufficiency. That is a significant shift from the 2022 approach, which tied the inquiry more closely to cash assistance for income maintenance and long-term institutionalization. In the new system, lawful benefit use may still become part of a negative evidentiary narrative, even if no single benefit or application is automatically disqualifying. While focusing on traditional non-cash and cash assistance, the flexible criteria raise concerns that other welfare support such as health, food, and housing programs could be factored against applicants. This could cause a chilling effect as many immigrant families will be afraid to access any public benefits for which a household member is eligible, forgoing supports in times of need to preserve future immigration prospects. This would result in worse health outcomes for individuals, families and communities.

At the same time, this remains a prospective inquiry. Public charge is still supposed to be a forward-looking determination about whether the applicant is likely at any time to become a public charge, not a punishment for having participated in a benefit program at some point in the past. DHS itself frames the inquiry as a totality-of-the-circumstances review rather than a single-trigger rule. In adjustment cases, USCIS will continue to use information from Forms I-485 and I-693, as well as interview questioning, to assess age, health, family status, assets, resources, financial status, education, skills, and the receipt of means-tested public benefits.

The 2026 rule does not appear to revive Form I-944. Instead, USCIS is expected to revise Form I-485 before the rule takes effect. The revised Form I-485 is therefore likely to be used to inquire about public charge. USCIS has announced that it will publish a revised Form I-485 and that older editions postmarked or submitted electronically on or after September 18, 2026, will not be accepted. Applicants should expect the public charge questions on the new form to do more than ask whether they are exempt from INA § 212(a)(4). The form may seek more detailed information about the applicant’s household, financial resources, health insurance or ability to pay for medical care, education and skills, employment history, and receipt of means-tested public benefits. Even if USCIS does not revive a separate Form I-944, the expanded I-485 questions may function as a condensed public charge worksheet, requiring applicants to anticipate how their answers could be weighed under the totality of the circumstances.

The affidavit of support may also offer less protection than many family-based applicants previously assumed.

Under the 2022 framework, a sufficient Affidavit of Support under INA § 213A was incorporated into a structured analysis. Under the new framework, USCIS will have greater flexibility in determining how much weight to give Form I-864 within the broader totality-of-the-circumstances review.

***The statutorily mandated affidavit remains important, but applicants may need to present a more comprehensive picture of their financial stability, health coverage, employment history, skills, and overall ability to remain self-sufficient.

***Another area of concern is the indirect role of family or household benefits.

DHS has indicated that the analysis generally focuses on the applicant rather than benefits received by relatives. However, the final rule also makes clear that family-member benefits may become relevant in certain circumstances.

For example, if a family member’s means-tested benefits indicate that the applicant’s household income falls below a program threshold, that information may be considered as part of the applicant’s assets, resources, and financial status under INA § 212(a)(4)(B).

Similarly, where a family member’s public benefits help support the applicant financially, that fact may be considered in the overall analysis. Although DHS does not treat family-member benefits as an independent negative factor, it leaves room for them to be considered indirectly.

***The 2026 public charge rule represents a significant shift away from the structured framework of prior regulations and toward a more discretionary, case-by-case assessment under INA § 212(a)(4). By emphasizing the totality of the circumstances and affording officers greater flexibility in weighing statutory factors, benefit use, and other evidence, DHS has created a framework that may produce greater uncertainty.

***Applicants subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility should be prepared for a scrutinized review in which benefit use, financial resources, health, education, employment history, and household circumstances may all receive closer attention. In practice, that may translate into more detailed questioning, increased requests for evidence, and a greater need to present a comprehensive record demonstrating the ability to remain self-supporting.

***The May 2026 USCIS memorandum on adjustment of status has already armed USCIS officers with greater discretion by emphasizing that adjustment under INA § 245 is a matter of administrative grace and extraordinary relief, not an entitlement.

When that discretionary framework is combined with the broadened public charge rule, USCIS will have still more room to deny adjustment applications even where applicants satisfy the threshold statutory requirements.

Public charge concerns may become one more discretionary factor in a wider adverse narrative, allowing officers to weigh financial vulnerability, benefit use, household circumstances, health coverage, and employability against the applicant in deciding whether adjustment should be granted.

New immigration policies underscore the need for applicants to treat the I-485 filing not merely as a form-driven eligibility submission, but as an affirmative request for favorable discretion supported by a complete and persuasive record.

The public charge rule would provide even more discretion to officers to deny adjustment of status applications in light of the USCIS memo that indicates that adjustment of status requires extraordinary discretion.



The final rule:

DHS is rescinding the 2022 public charge ground of inadmissibility regulations ("2022 Final Rule"). The 2022 Final Rule was not the best implementation of the statute. It was inconsistent with congressional intent, unduly restrictive, and hampered DHS's ability to make accurate, precise, and...

08/20/2026

ALERT: Если вы с Украины и все еще ждете утверждения ТПС, вы скоро получите письмо (копию прикрепила), которое продлит ваше разрешение на работу по ТПС для Украины до 19 октября 2026 (т.к. старое продление было максимум до апреля 2026).
Хотя USCIS продлили срок действия истекшего разрешения на работу до 19 октября 2026 для украинцев, к сожалению, сам статус ТПС для Украины больше не продлили. По закону, статус ТПС автоматически был продлен на 6 месяцев - до 19 апреля 2027. Администрация может продлить статус ТПС, но никаких индикаторов для этого не видно.
The Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation of Ukraine and related benefits are set to terminate on Oct. 19, 2026. USCIS is sending notices to Ukraine TPS recipients who continue to be eligible for TPS but haven’t received renewal EADs with category codes A-12 or C-19 and whose TPS-based EAD application is still pending, that their expired TPS-based EADs are extended until Oct. 19, 2026, the end of the Ukraine TPS designation. USCIS will send the notices by mail and electronically.

To schedule a consultation, please use our online calendar at Calendly.com/lubasmal

More about it: https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/form-i-9-related-news/update-on-temporary-protected-status-for-ukraine-release-aug-14-2026

07/29/2026

USCIS Announced New Rule Changed Asylum System: effective immediately: July 27, 2026
With this rule, USCIS can refer asylum applications I-589 to Immigration Judges without interviewing the applicant first.

Currently, both USCIS and Department of Justice (DOJ) Immigration Judges adjudicate applications for asylum: USCIS adjudicates “affirmative” asylum applications for aliens who are not in removal proceedings, while Immigration Judges adjudicate “defensive” asylum applications for aliens who are in removal proceedings. Depending on the alien’s immigration status, USCIS will usually either adjudicate the application or refer it to an Immigration Judge, who will then conduct a new review of the application. This essentially allows an alien to get a second chance at asylum.

The interim final rule allows USCIS to refer asylum applications to Immigration Judges without first interviewing the applicant. Among other reasons, USCIS is making this change to reduce the asylum backlog.

“For far too long the asylum system has been exploited for purposes of delay and work authorization, not legitimate claims of protection,” said USCIS Director Joseph Edlow. “America’s asylum system exists to protect individuals who genuinely fear persecution and this rule will help ensure that resources are directed to the timely adjudication of those claims instead of to those seeking to use the system as a loophole.”

The new rule will go into effect immediately. USCIS will accept public comments and later issue a final rule responding to those comments.

Read more at: https://www.dhs.gov/news/2026/07/27/uscis-announces-rule-change-asylum-system-reduce-backlog

DHS released a statement after U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced a rule change designed to reduce the backlog in the asylum system.

07/29/2026

STUDENT VISA F-1 FOREIGN STUDENTS LOSE DURATION OF STATUS:
On July 16, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS / USCIS) released its long-anticipated Final Rule eliminating the “duration of status” (D/S) admission framework for F academic students, J exchange visitors (including international medical graduates), and most I representatives of foreign information media.

This rule has been in development since August 2025 and is an extension of efforts during the first Trump Administration to change how F, J, and I nonimmigrants are admitted to the United States, by replacing D/S with a fixed period of admission tied to the nonimmigrant’s program.

The Final Rule represents a significant change from longstanding D/S admissions. In pursuing this change, DHS has stated that this shift away from D/S is being made to support the integrity of these nonimmigrant programs, facilitate increased vetting, and align F/J/I nonimmigrants with many other nonimmigrants in the United States who are admitted for a fixed period of stay. These considerations are strongly reiterated in the Final Rule.

As has been widely anticipated, the Final Rule adheres closely to the changes proposed in the agency’s notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), although there are some changes and clarifications.

The Final Rule allows 60 days for implementation and will take effect on September 15, 2026. However, it has been classified as a major rule subject to congressional review. Congress could act to change or void the rule during the implementation window.

For employers, universities, teaching hospitals, exchange programs, and media organizations, this rule introduces new compliance considerations and a formal extension process that did not previously exist under D/S.

Key Provisions at a Glance:

The Final Rule makes several substantive changes to how F, J, and I nonimmigrants are admitted to and maintain status in the United States, while notably, H-1B cap gap benefits are unaffected by the Final Rule and will continue to operate as they do today.

Replaces “duration of status” (D/S) with a fixed admission of 4 years or the program length, whichever is shorter.
DHS declined to extend the 4-year cap for longer programs (e.g., F-1 doctoral study, J-1 research scholars, J-1 medical training). Students and exchange visitors in programs longer than 4 years will need to timely file for extensions of stay to complete their programs.

How the 4 years is counted:

The 4-year clock runs from the program start date. The 30-day pre-program entry window does not count against the maximum. Early arrival does not shorten the authorized period.

English Language Training (ELT)

F-1 students in ELT programs receive a shorter fixed admission of 24 months.
ELT students face the tightest timeline and should plan program completion accordingly.

Foreign media (I visa):

Fixed admission of up to 240 days (90 days for Chinese nationals). I-visa holders will need to track and extend status far more frequently.

Transition period

Current F/J nonimmigrants admitted for D/S keep that status until their program end date or 4 years from the rule’s effective date, whichever is sooner — unless they travel internationally.

No immediate action is required for currently enrolled students and exchange visitors.

Travel during transition:

F/J nonimmigrants who travel abroad will receive a fixed-admission I-94 upon re-entry.

Any international trip converts a D/S admission to a fixed one.

Travel decisions should be made with this in mind.

Grace period:

Post-completion departure grace period reduced from 60 to 30 days for F nonimmigrants.

Half the runway to depart, change status, or begin a new program after completion.

Early program completion:

If an F-1 student finishes early, the DSO shortens the program end date in SEVIS, triggering the 30-day departure period. Early completion accelerates the departure clock — coordinate with your DSO before finishing ahead of schedule.

F-1 program withdrawal If an F-1 student is authorized to withdraw from classes, a 15-day departure period is triggered.
Program withdrawal accelerates the departure clock even further and should be closely coordinated with a DSO.

H-1B cap gap:

Cap-gap protections are preserved and unchanged by the final rule. F-1 students selected in the H-1B lottery retain cap-gap coverage, which extends both status and employment authorization.

Unlawful presence:

Not applied retroactively; no new penalties for pre-effective-date violations. However, unlawful presence begins accruing on the rule’s effective date for individuals whose programs are already complete.

Anyone past their program end date should assess status options before the effective date.

F-2 and J-2 dependents:

Dependents may not stay beyond the principal F-1 or J-1’s authorized period of stay — even if their I-94 shows a longer admission. Dependents must file for extension of stay (EOS) when the principal does. Families must file extensions together; a dependent’s longer I-94 date cannot be relied upon.

Program transfers & changes (undergraduate and below):

No transfers or changes of educational objective during the first academic year. New students are locked in for year one.

Program transfers & changes (graduate level):

No transfers or changes of educational objective at any point during the program; SEVP may authorize limited exceptions (e.g., school closure).

Graduate students should choose programs carefully — mid-program moves are essentially foreclosed.

Repeat or lower-level programs:

F-1 students may not pursue a second program at the same level (e.g., a second master’s) or a lower level.

Serial degree strategies at the same or lower level are no longer viable in F-1 status.

F-1 extension of stay:

DSO must issue a new I-20 to facilitate extension. Extensions can be based on compelling academic reasons, documented illness, or circumstances beyond a student’s control (e.g., natural disaster). Students should remain in close contact with DSOs if they change majors, experience research problems or funding delays, or experience a serious medical issue or injury.

Impact of F-1 extension filing on work authorization:

A timely filed F-1 extension will facilitate automatic extensions of certain work authorization for up to 240 days: on-campus employment, curricular practical training, and employment authorization based on severe economic hardship.

F-1 students reliant on these forms of work authorization should file extensions early; the auto-extension does not apply to applications filed during the grace period.

J-1 extension of stay:

The program end date on a DS-2019, standing alone, does not extend J status.

Program participants should coordinate with their Responsible Officer (RO) early to facilitate extension.

Impact of J-1 extension filing on work authorization:

A timely filed J-1 extension will support an automatic extension of work authorization for up to 240 days; employment and activities must be consistent with program objectives. Program participants should be aware that 240-day auto extensions are tied to existing regulatory provisions, which limit such extensions to ongoing employment with the same employer.

What Employers and Foreign Nationals Need to Know:

Increased Compliance Considerations:

*** F/J/I nonimmigrants will now be required to carefully track fixed admission periods and timely file extension of stay (EOS) applications with USCIS to maintain status.

*** For impacted foreign nationals, the practical effect of the Final Rule is an added administrative step: filing an EOS application before the fixed admission period lapses, rather than simply maintaining enrollment or program participation as under D/S. Even during the 4-year transition period, individuals in F/J/I status who travel internationally and return to the United States will need to carefully monitor their I-94 admission dates, and understand that the I-94 date, not the visa stamp date or any other indicator, controls their authorized stay in the United States.

*** Employers with F/J/I workers, specifically their HR and immigration teams, will need to adjust compliance and I-9 reverification procedures.

*** Increased USCIS Processing Times:

The Final Rule acknowledges that an expansion of premium processing is not being implemented with this rulemaking, and the volume of EOS filings will increase significantly under the rule as F/J/I nonimmigrants will now have the same extension obligations as other nonimmigrant populations. DHS has stated that USCIS, as a fee-funded agency, should be able to leverage the 4-year transition period to adjust staffing and processes to handle the increase in filings, and also points to USCIS’ consideration of expedite requests as an alternative to premium processing.

Individuals in F/J/I status who must file an EOS (together with, or separate from, an I-765 application for employment authorization), should be prepared to file applications at the earliest opportunity and adhere closely to all filing requirements to protect against anticipated delays.

In the F-1 context, doctoral PhD students are a population of concern, with programs that routinely extend beyond 4 years.

Extensions of stay remain available in circumstances of compelling academic need, such as changes in research, unexpected changes in faculty advisor, or funding delays, but those same challenges do not support a program transfer or change at the graduate level or higher. This gap risks severe disruption for doctoral research if, for example, a faculty advisor changes institutions in the middle of a doctoral program. In this case, the Final Rule appears to preclude a PhD student from following their advisor to a new program or institution, without risking international travel.

In the J-1 context, J-1 physicians and associated training programs remain an area of significant concern. J-1 physicians in residency or fellowship programs are bound to a structured, annual training cycle that often includes transitions between institutions, and this training is at risk of being severely disrupted by potential delays in the adjudication of extension of status applications. Many physician training pathways, in both primary and specialty areas, also routinely require more than 4 years of training. In its application of a standard, 4-year fixed term and reliance on existing automatic-extension provisions that are premised upon the continuation of employment with the same employer, DHS has missed an opportunity to support critical healthcare professionals that care for Americans in all corners of the country, including rural and high-need communities. Gaps or disruptions in status would not only impact physicians’ ability to live and work in the United States, but worsen physician shortages across clinical specialties, to the detriment of American patients and hospital systems.

Finally:

With the Final Rule now in place, universities, program sponsors, and employers must now begin implementing programmatic changes to account for fixed periods of admission for F, J, and I status holders. DHS proposes to hold stakeholder engagements during the implementation period for this rule, and organizations should consider attending any sessions while also continuing to develop training resources for visa holders and internal personnel. The focus should be on planning for potential USCIS and consular delays, budgeting for extension filings, and I-94 tracking.

The Final Rule:

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/07/17/2026-14439/establishing-a-fixed-time-period-of-admission-and-an-extension-of-stay-procedure-for-nonimmigrant

To schedule a consultation, please use our online calendar at Calendly.com/lubasmal



As previously advised, it is critical for individuals in F/J/I status to understand that the I-94 expiration date controls authorized stay in the United States, even if a visa stamp remains valid for a longer period. Individuals considering program changes, transfers, new educational levels, CPT, OPT strategy, extensions, or travel should consult with counsel or their DSO before taking action.

07/29/2026

USCIS RESCINDED 2022 PUBLIC CHARGE RULE - EFFECTIVE 09-18-2026:
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has rescinded the 2022 public charge rule and, for applications filed on or after September 18, 2026, will apply a much broader, discretionary standard when making public charge determinations.

No new guidance for public charge assessment has been issued by DHS; instead, officers will evaluate the totality of the circumstances without the limitations the Biden-era rule imposed.

Who is Impacted?

"Applicants for admission" to the United States are subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility under Section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) unless specifically exempted.

The public charge ground of inadmissibility requires adjudicating officers to determine whether an applicant is likely to become primarily dependent on the U.S. government for subsistence. It is most relevant in family-based immigrant visas and some employment-based cases where an affidavit of support is required.

Under the current regulations, the applicant is generally assessed based on their age, health, income/assets, education/skills, and whether they have a financial sponsor to provide support in the United States. If an officer finds that an applicant will likely become a public charge, they must DENY their application for a green card, visa, or admission into the U.S.

What changes?

Under the 2022 regulation, DHS officers could not consider benefits received for food, health, and housing. Officers would only consider primary dependence on cash-assistance programs, such as SSI (Supplemental Security Income), TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), and state or local General Assistance, as well as long-term institutionalized medical care paid for by the government, and statutory factors such as age, income, and education/skills.

Under the new rule, the Biden-era limitation on the types of benefits considered is eliminated. Instead, USCIS officers are given broad discretion in assessing any benefits the applicant received.

The new rule will become effective September 18, 2026, and will impact applications filed on or after this date.

Applications filed before September 18, 2026, will be assessed under the 2022 rule.

Likewise, benefits received before September 18, 2026, will be evaluated under the 2022 rule.

USCIS announced it will issue a new edition of Form I-485 application form in light of the new rule.

What Should Green Card Applicants Do?

Applicants pursuing immigrant visas (green cards) through consular processing abroad should keep in mind that, in February 2026, the Department of State (DOS) issued guidance on public charge determinations which already expanded health, education, and past receipt of public assistance considerations beyond those reflected in the INA and previous Foreign Affairs Manual guidance. The DOS guidance can be found here.

Additionally, applicants should also consider if they are subject to the travel ban proclamation issued in January, which prevents individuals from a list of 75 countries from applying for a green card from outside the U.S because it is the government’s view that they are at “high risk” of becoming a public charge. For further information on the travel ban, please review our client alert, which includes the full list of countries impacted. A lawsuit challenging this ban is currently pending, CLINIC et al. v. Rubio et al, filed by the National Immigration Law Center (NILC) and others.

This new rule will likely face legal challenges.

To schedule a consultation with immigration attorney, please use our online calendar at Calendly.com/lubasmal