Johnson Law Office US

09/03/2026

Be aware and reach out to an immigration attorney who’s not only willing to help, but can. 🙏⚖️

An official who oversaw the vetting of ICE recruits cited an “unprecedented lowering of standards” amid a hiring surge.

09/02/2026

The troll in the WH has it wrong:

“The key purpose of the U.S. immigration court is to adjudicate immigration cases—primarily deciding whether a noncitizen is removable from the United States and whether they qualify for any relief that would allow them to remain.”

*IT’S NOT TO REMOVE, BUT TO SEARCH FOR ANY RELIEF TO REMAIN IN THE USA. 🙏🇺🇸

08/27/2026

Many of these are illegal. Know the Law and seek an immigration attorney asap. Prevent crisis before it becomes a crisis. ⚖️

As immigration arrests hit record highs, ICE appears closer than ever to meeting its goal of 2,000 daily arrests.

08/21/2026

Legal Immigration Faces Historic Cutbacks as Stephen Miller’s Agenda Accelerates

Thomas Johnson,
Immigration Attorney

The United States is entering one of the most consequential periods in modern immigration policy, marked by sweeping restrictions, rising fees, and accelerated enforcement actions that touch every corner of the system. At the center of these changes is senior White House adviser Stephen Miller, whose long‑standing agenda to reduce legal immigration is now being implemented across federal agencies with unprecedented speed and scale.

Over the past year, the administration has moved to slow or freeze multiple legal pathways, including family‑based petitions, employment visas, Diversity Visas, and humanitarian programs. Analysts estimate these measures could reduce legal immigration by 33% to 50%, reshaping the demographic and economic landscape of the country for decades. Lawsuits challenging these actions are already moving through federal courts.

At the same time, the Department of Homeland Security has proposed major fee increases, most notably raising the N‑400 naturalization fee to more than $1,300, while eliminating most fee waivers. For many long‑term residents, the cost of becoming a U.S. citizen may soon double.

Other changes are equally significant. USCIS now has authority to refer asylum cases directly to immigration court without an interview, making the written record on Form I‑589 more critical than ever. The long‑standing Duration of Status (D/S) framework for students and exchange visitors will end in September, replaced by fixed end dates requiring formal extensions. Visa revocations have surged past 175,000, often triggered by minor police encounters or online activity.

New executive orders signed on August 6 target birthright citizenship and birth tourism, prompting immediate legal challenges from civil‑rights organizations. Meanwhile, the rescission of the 2022 public‑charge rule will restore broad officer discretion beginning September 18, affecting thousands of pending green‑card applicants.

For immigrants already in the United States—whether out of status, in proceedings, or simply unsure of their options—these rapid changes create real risk. Now is the time to consult an experienced immigration attorney who can evaluate your situation, protect your rights, and guide you through the shifting legal landscape. Your future in this country deserves professional support.

---

La Agenda de Stephen Miller Impulsa Recortes Históricos en la Inmigración Legal

Thomas Johnson,
Abogado de Inmigración

Estados Unidos está entrando en uno de los periodos más decisivos en la historia moderna de la política migratoria, marcado por restricciones amplias, aumentos de tarifas y acciones de cumplimiento aceleradas que afectan cada parte del sistema. En el centro de estos cambios se encuentra el asesor de la Casa Blanca Stephen Miller, cuya agenda de reducir la inmigración legal ahora se está implementando con una rapidez sin precedentes.

Durante el último año, la administración ha movido para frenar o congelar múltiples vías legales, incluyendo peticiones familiares, visas de empleo, Visas de Diversidad y programas humanitarios. Analistas estiman que estas medidas podrían reducir la inmigración legal entre 33% y 50%, cambiando la estructura demográfica y económica del país por décadas. Varias demandas ya están avanzando en los tribunales federales.

Al mismo tiempo, el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional ha propuesto aumentos significativos en las tarifas, especialmente elevando el costo de la naturalización N‑400 a más de $1,300, eliminando la mayoría de las exenciones. Para muchos residentes permanentes, el costo de convertirse en ciudadano podría duplicarse.

Otros cambios son igualmente importantes. USCIS ahora puede enviar casos de asilo directamente a la corte sin entrevista, haciendo que el expediente escrito del Formulario I‑589 sea más crítico que nunca. El sistema de Duración de Estatus (D/S) para estudiantes y visitantes de intercambio terminará en septiembre, reemplazado por fechas fijas que requieren extensiones formales. Las revocaciones de visas ya superan 175,000, muchas veces por encuentros menores con la policía o actividad en línea.

Nuevas órdenes ejecutivas firmadas el 6 de agosto apuntan a la ciudadanía por nacimiento y al turismo de parto, provocando demandas inmediatas de organizaciones de derechos civiles. Además, la eliminación de la regla de carga pública de 2022 restaurará una amplia discreción a los oficiales a partir del 18 de septiembre.

Para los inmigrantes dentro del país—ya sea sin estatus, en proceso, o simplemente confundidos por los cambios—este momento representa riesgo real. Ahora es el momento de contactar a un abogado de inmigración que pueda evaluar su caso, proteger sus derechos y guiarlo en este sistema cambiante. Su futuro merece ayuda profesional.

08/06/2026

This is the cruelest president ever…

Trump Moves to Restrict Birthright Citizenship

President Donald Trump on Thursday introduced a series of executive orders aimed at narrowing birthright citizenship and curbing what his administration describes as “birth tourism,” marking one of the most sweeping attempts in decades to reinterpret the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. The directives instruct the Departments of Homeland Security and State to intensify visa screening, deny entry to travelers suspected of coming to the United States to give birth, and limit automatic citizenship for children born to certain categories of non‑citizens.

Administration officials argue the measures are necessary to prevent misuse of immigration laws and reduce incentives for undocumented immigration. They claim that foreign nationals increasingly travel on short‑term visas to secure U.S. citizenship for their newborns, a practice they say strains federal resources and poses security concerns.

Legal scholars counter that the Supreme Court has consistently held that nearly all children born on U.S. soil are citizens at birth, regardless of parental status. Civil‑rights groups are preparing immediate legal challenges, calling the orders unconstitutional and warning they could create confusion for mixed‑status families and U.S.‑born children.

Immigration attorneys report rising anxiety among undocumented residents who fear the policy may be used to question the citizenship of their children. They emphasize that the orders do not change existing law and urge families to seek reliable legal guidance to understand their rights and options.

If you or your family may be affected by these developments, now is the time to speak with a qualified immigration attorney who can help protect your status and guide you through the legal process.

07/29/2026

Let the Truth be known!

07/03/2026

Texas immigration be aware:

The sweeping Texas state immigration enforcement is in effect. The landmark law—widely known as Senate Bill 4 grants local and state police the authority to arrest individuals “suspected” of entering the country unlawfully and allows state judges to issue removal orders.After a prolonged legal seesaw and various injunctions, the full Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals cleared the legislation to take effect in its entirety.Additionally, a related immigration measure, Texas Senate Bill 8, is also active. This law mandates that county sheriffs operating local jails collaborate directly with federal authorities and carry out immigration enforcement duties under the 287(g) program.

there is no traditional federal due process hearing or formal immigration court proceeding built into the initial arrest and removal mechanism of Texas Senate Bill 4 (SB 4).

Because SB 4 treats unauthorized entry and reentry as state criminal offenses rather than federal civil immigration violations, the law explicitly bypasses the federal immigration court system.

State Criminal Proceedings (Not Immigration Hearings)When an individual is arrested by local or state police, they enter the Texas state criminal justice system rather than federal custody.

Right to Counsel: Because it is a state criminal prosecution, individuals have a right to a court-appointed criminal defense attorney if they cannot afford one. HOWEVER… THERE IS No Court-Appointed Immigration Attorney: There is no right to a free, public immigration attorney to argue asylum or federal protections.

State Magistrates and "Orders to Return"Instead of a federal immigration judge evaluating a noncitizen’s case, a Texas state magistrate or judge handles the case.

The Removal Process: If a magistrate determines there is probable cause for the arrest, the judge can directly issue a written "order to return" discharging the person and requiring them to cross back into the foreign nation (typically Mexico) from which they entered.

Bypassing Federal Protections: Civil rights organizations and legal experts note that this rapid state process completely bypasses standard federal due process protections, such as the right to apply for asylum, seek a withholding of removal, or request protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

HERE’s THE REAL ISSUE OF IT ALL:

Pending Claims Ignored: Under SB 4, state prosecutions and removals are generally not paused or canceled even if the individual has an active, pending immigration application with the federal government.

EITHER VOLUNTEER TO LEAVE OR FACE A FELONY!

The "Agreement to Return" LoopholeA state judge can dismiss the criminal charges early if the arrested person agrees to the removal order. If they accept this, they waive further local proceedings and are escorted by Texas law enforcement to a port of entry. If they refuse to comply with the order or refuse to leave, the offense escalates into a high-level state felony.

First-Time Offender PenaltiesJail Time: Punishable by up to 180 days (6 months) in a local or county jail, $2000 fine, Alternative Resolution: A state judge or magistrate has the authority to drop the misdemeanor charges entirely if the individual agrees to voluntarily return to the foreign nation from which they entered.

YOU MUST DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE BEFORE YOU GET ARRESTED. CONACT AN IMMIGRATION ATTORNEY ASAP! YOUR FUTURE AND YOUR FAMILY DEPENDS ON IT!

04/28/2026

Small victories add up 🙏

Second Circuit issued a published decision today effectively striking down Matter of Hurtado. Judge Bianco, a Trump appointee, wrote the opinion.

"On appeal, the government argues Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under Section 1225(b)(2)(A). We disagree. The plain text of both
Sections 1225(b)(2)(A) and 1226(a) make clear that only one applies to a noncitizen like Petitioner: Section 1226(a). Section 1225(b)(2)(A) does not apply to noncitizens, such as Petitioner, who are present in the United States after entering the country without inspection and admission, and who were not apprehended at or near the border at the time of entry.

This result is dictated by the plain text of these provisions, and further confirmed by the statute’s context, structure, history, and purpose. It likewise comports with the Supreme Court’s established understanding of Sections 1225 and 1226. It reflects Executive Branch practice over thirty years and across five Presidential administrations. Moreover, it explains why Congress has never
challenged that settled practice despite making numerous amendments to the immigration laws.

Finally, even if the government’s newfound interpretation of Section 1225(b)(2)(A) were plausible—and it is not—we would nonetheless reject it based on our obligation to construe these statutes in a manner that would avoid the serious constitutional questions attendant to what would be the broadest mass-detention-without-bond mandate in our Nation’s history for millions of
noncitizens.

Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner’s detention is governed by Section 1226(a), not Section 1225(b)(2)(A), and we AFFIRM the district court’s grant of the writ of habeas corpus.

Judge Cabranes concurs in the judgment and opinion of the Court and files a separate opinion."

04/27/2026

We must fight the good fight against corruption!

Judges are ordering an unprecedented number of people deported after coming under significant pressure from the administration to do so or risk losing their jobs.