Resources for U.S. Citizens & Visa Applications Impacted by Conflicts in the Middle East
AILA Practice Pointer: Resources for U.S. Citizens & Consular Updates for NIV/IV Processing Impacted by the Conflicts in the Middle East (June 17, 2025)
AILA’s Department of State (DOS) Liaison Committee provides the following resource to help members understand the current state of consular operations and U.S. Citizen Services for individuals impacted by the current crisis in the Middle East. Due to the fluid and dynamic nature of these events, please check U.S. Embassy and official government websites for the most up-to-date information.
Iraq: On June 11, 2025, the U.S. Department of State ordered the departure of non-emergency U.S. government personnel from Iraq due to “heightened regional tensions.”
For updates on current status of consular services, access the U.S. Embassy in Iraq website at https://iq.usembassy.gov/
Israel: On June 14, 2025, the U.S. Department of State authorized the voluntary departure of family members and non-emergency U.S. government employees from Israel due to “the volatile and unpredictable security situation in the region.” The United States does not have diplomatic relations with the West Bank separately from Israel. Additionally, the United States does not have diplomatic relations with Gaza, as the U.S. government has designated Hamas as a terrorist organization.
For updates on current status of consular services, access the U.S. Embassy in Israel website at https://il.usembassy.gov/
For updates on Department of State advice to U.S. citizens regarding Gaza and the West Bank, access the U.S. Embassy in Israel website at https://il.usembassy.gov/
Iran: The United States has not had diplomatic relations with Iran since April 7, 1980, following the seizure by student militants of the U.S. embassy in Tehran on November 4, 1979. Switzerland currently serves as the protecting power for U.S. interests in Iran. On June 15, 2025, the State Department advised that U.S. citizens should not travel to Iran for any reason and should depart Iran immediately if they are there.
For updates on the Department of State advice to U.S. citizens regarding Iran, access the Virtual U.S. Embassy for Iran at https://ir.usembassy.gov/
General Advice for U.S. Citizens
Enroll in the Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP) to receive security updates.
Receive alerts from the U.S. Department of state’s Bureau of Consular Affairs via WhatsApp.
Prepare a plan for emergency situations. Review the Traveler’s Checklist.
Follow the Department of State on Facebook and Twitter/X.
Monitor local media for information.
Contact information for U.S. Consular Services in Iraq
Immigrant visa applications: BaghdadIV@state.gov
Non-immigrant visa applications: BaghdadNIV@state.gov
American Citizen Services BaghdadACS@state.gov
U.S. Embassy Baghdad
Al-Kindi Street
International Zone
Baghdad, Iraq
Business Hours: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday
Telephone: +964-760-030-3000 or +1-301-985-8841 from the United States
Emergency after-hours telephone: +964-760-030-3000 or +1-301-985-8841, and ask for the duty officer
Email: BaghdadACS@state.gov
U.S. Consulate General Erbil
413 Ishtar, Ankawa
Erbil, Iraq
Business Hours: 8:00am to 5:00pm, Sunday through Thursday
Telephone: +964-66-211-4000 or +1-240-264-3467, ext. 4554, from the United States
Emergency after-hours telephone: +964-66-211-4000 or +1-240-264-3467, ext. 4554, and ask for the duty officer
Email: ErbilACS@state.gov
Contact Information for U.S. Consular Services in Israel
NIV Unit - JerusalemNIV@state.gov
NIV Processing - https://ais.usvisa-info.com/en-il/niv/information/contact_us
IV Unit – JerusalemIVAttorneys@state.gov
IV Processing - https://ais.usvisa-info.com/en-il/iv/information/contact_us
U.S. Embassy Jerusalem
14 David Flusser St. Jerusalem
Telephone: +972-2-630-4000
E-mail: Website: https://il.usembassy.gov/
U.S. Embassy Branch Office Tel Aviv
71 HaYarkon St. Tel Aviv
Telephone: +972-3-519-7575
E-mail: Website: https://il.usembassy.gov/
State Department – Consular Affairs 888-407-4747 or 202-501-4444
Contact Information for U.S. Citizen Services in Gaza and the West Bank
U.S. Embassy Jerusalem
14 David Flusser St. Jerusalem
Telephone: +972-2-630-4000
E-mail: JerusalemACS@state.gov
Website: https://il.usembassy.gov/u-s-citizen-services/
Contact Information for U.S. Citizen Services in Iran
Email the U.S. Embassy in Bern, Switzerland at BernACS@state.gov. Include “IRN” in the subject line. Include:
Full name as shown on U.S. passport
Date of Birth
Place of Birth
U.S. passport number
Current location
Phone number
If a dual national, the other country of nationality
Whether the individual is in possession of a valid travel document
Call +1-888-407-4747 or +1-202-501-4444
Contact Information for U.S. Citizen Services in Gaza and the West Bank
U.S. Embassy Jerusalem
14 David Flusser St. Jerusalem
Telephone: +972-2-630-4000
E-mail: JerusalemACS@state.gov
Website: https://il.usembassy.gov/u-s-citizen-services/
Contact Information for U.S. Citizen Services in Iran
Email the U.S. Embassy in Bern, Switzerland at BernACS@state.gov. Include “IRN” in the subject line. Include:
Full name as shown on U.S. passport
Date of Birth
Place of Birth
U.S. passport number
Current location
Phone number
If a dual national, the other country of nationality
Whether the individual is in possession of a valid travel document
Call +1-888-407-4747 or +1-202-501-4444
International Travel Advisories & Alerts2
Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza travel Advisory (June 16, 2025)
Iran Security Alert: Threat of Additional Military Strikes (June 13, 2025)
Security Alert – Exercise Increased Caution in the Region (June 12, 2025)
Iraq Travel Advisory: Level 4: Do Not Travel (June 11, 2025)
Federal Judge Blocked the Trump Administration from Limiting Passport Sex Markers for Many Transgender and Nonbinary Americans
Associated Press//June 18, 2025//
“A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from limiting passport sex markers for many transgender and nonbinary Americans.
The June 17 ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Julia E. Kobick means that transgender or nonbinary people who are without a passport or need to apply for a new one can request a male, female or “X” identification marker rather than being limited to the marker that matches the gender assigned at birth.
In an executive order signed in January, the president used a narrow definition of the sexes instead of a broader conception of gender. The order said a person is male or female and rejected the idea that someone can transition from the sex assigned at birth to another gender.
Kobick first issued a preliminary injunction against the policy last month, but that ruling applied only to six people who joined with the American Civil Liberties Union in a lawsuit over the passport policy.
In the June 17 ruling, she agreed to expand the injunction to include transgender or nonbinary people who are currently without a valid passport, those whose passport is expiring within a year, and those who need to apply for a passport because theirs was lost or stolen or because they need to change their name or sex designation.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The government failed to show that blocking its policy would cause it any constitutional injury, Kobick wrote, or harm the executive branch’s relations with other countries.
The transgender and nonbinary people covered by the preliminary injunction, meanwhile, have shown that the passport policy violates their constitutional rights to equal protection, Kobick said.
“Even assuming a preliminary injunction inflicts some constitutional harm on the Executive Branch, such harm is the consequence of the State Department’s adoption of a Passport Policy that likely violates the constitutional rights of thousands of Americans,” Kobick wrote.
Kobick, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, had granted the ACLU’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
“The Executive Order and the Passport Policy on their face classify passport applicants on the basis of sex and thus must be reviewed under intermediate judicial scrutiny,” Kobick wrote in the preliminary injunction issued earlier this year. “That standard requires the government to demonstrate that its actions are substantially related to an important governmental interest. The government has failed to meet this standard.”
In its lawsuit, the ACLU described how one woman had her passport returned with a male designation while others are too scared to submit their passports because they feared their applications might be suspended and their passports held by the State Department.
Another mailed in their passport on Jan. 9 and requested to change their name and their sex designation from male to female. That person was still waiting for their passport, the ACLU said in the lawsuit, and feared missing a family wedding and a botany conference this year.
In response to the lawsuit, the Trump administration argued that the passport policy change “does not violate the equal protection guarantees of the Constitution.” It also contended that the president has broad discretion in setting passport policy and that plaintiffs would not be harmed since they are still free to travel abroad.”
Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction Preserving Harvard’s Ability to Host International Students
By Matan H. Josephy and Laurel M. Shugart, Crimson Staff Writers
Updated June 20, 2025, at 6:16 p.m.
“A federal judge on Friday granted Harvard a preliminary injunction halting the Trump administration’s withdrawal of its ability to enroll international students but did not address President Donald Trump’s entry ban on holders of Harvard-sponsored visas.
The preliminary injunction will prevent the federal government’s May 22 revocation of Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification until United States District Judge Allison D. Burroughs reaches a decision in the University’s lawsuit.
Burroughs also directed the federal government to issue guidance to consular and customs officers to disregard the revocation and document its compliance in the next 72 hours.
But she declined to include several provisions that Harvard asked for in its proposed language for the injunction.
She did not block the government from imposing a “categorical restriction” on Harvard’s ability to host students, instructors, and researchers on F and J visas, which would have stopped Trump’s June 4 entry ban. A temporary restraining order blocking the entry ban remains in effect until Monday.
And she did not impose a 30-day pause on the Trump administration’s second attempt to revoke Harvard’s SEVP certification. That effort, which began on May 28, could take effect as soon as Wednesday.
Still, the injunction “allows Harvard to continue enrolling international students and scholars while the case moves forward,” a University spokesperson wrote. In a message to current international students after Burroughs’ order, the Harvard International Office wrote that Harvard “strongly opposes any effort to withdraw the University’s certification.”
Regarding Trump’s June 4 proclamation, the HIO wrote that “we expect the judge to issue a more enduring decision in the coming days.”
Link: show_temp-234.pdf
U.S. District Court Judge Asks How the Government Defines DEI
“US District Judge William G. Young on Thursday pointedly questioned a government lawyer in Boston on how the Trump administration defines DEI — the acronym for diversity, equity, and inclusion — as a rationale to slash more than $1 billion in medical research grants.
“When you say to me, DEI, as though that’s bad, I don’t understand what that means,” Young told Anuj Khetarpal, a federal attorney who had asked the judge to dismiss a lawsuit seeking to halt funding cuts by the National Institutes of Health.
“Someone’s got to help me on that,” Young added. “I’m not making policy statements. I’m asking for a definition of a policy that squares with what I had always understood were the defining elements of the American experience.”
“Does that mean our policy is homogeneity, inequity, and exclusion? I mean, are you going to stand there and tell me, that now is the policy of the National Institutes of Health?” Young asked.
“Your honor,” Khetarpal replied, “I am not making that assertion.”
“It would be a breathtaking assertion,” Young said.”
As reported in Boston Globe
Link: Nationwide Injunction on Student SEVIS term cases.
Harvard's TRO Motion Granted Stopping Revocation of Harvard's Authorization To Admit International Students
Harvard's TRO Motion Granted Today (5/23/25) - Stopping Revocation of Harvard's Authorization To Admit International Students
Here's the attachment as a link for your review: gov.uscourts.cand.447674.50.0_1.pdf
Announcement of Expanded Screening and Vetting for Visa Applicants
June 18, 2025
The State Department is committed to protecting our nation and our citizens by upholding the highest standards of national security and public safety through our visa process. A U.S. visa is a privilege, not a right.
We use all available information in our visa screening and vetting to identify visa applicants who are inadmissible to the United States, including those who pose a threat to U.S. national security. Under new guidance, we will conduct a comprehensive and thorough vetting, including online presence, of all student and exchange visitor applicants in the F, M, and J nonimmigrant classifications.
To facilitate this vetting, all applicants for F, M, and J nonimmigrant visas will be instructed to adjust the privacy settings on all of their social media profiles to “public.”
Our overseas posts will resume scheduling F, M, and J nonimmigrant visa applications soon. Applicants should check the relevant embassy or consulate website for appointment availability.
Every visa adjudication is a national security decision. The United States must be vigilant during the visa issuance process to ensure that those applying for admission into the United States do not intend to harm Americans and our national interests, and that all applicants credibly establish their eligibility for the visa sought, including that they intend to engage in activities consistent with the terms for their admission.”
E-Verify Corrects Erroneous Issuance Of Final Non-Confirmation Notice
“…on May 19, 2025, E-Verify issued a notice to alert employers to a technical issue that has resulted in the issuance of erroneous final nonconfirmations (FNCs) for E-Verify cases that were referred between April 9, 2025 and May 5, 2025. See example below.
The Committee recommends that employers with any FNCs review this alert to determine if their cases fall under this technical issue.
The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) states that employers should not take any adverse action, nor terminate the employment of individuals that received a FNC during this identified time period.
Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the Birthright Citizenship
On May 15th, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the Birthright Citizenship case. A final ruling is not expected to be issued until June or early July 2025.
BBC article: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm2yer83120o (quote below):
“The case asks whether lower court judges should be able to block presidential orders for the entire country - as they have done in this case. The justices did not appear to reach a consensus as they considered both sides.
The US solicitor general argued that lower courts overstepped their authority, saying this power should be curtailed.
Meanwhile, the New Jersey solicitor general - arguing on behalf of a group of states - said siding with Trump would create a patchwork system of citizenship.
Justices across the ideological spectrum seemed to grapple with two issues during Thursday's two-hour hearing.
There was questioning of lower courts' power to block a presidential order nationwide. And the justices also considered the merits of the birthright citizenship order itself - which critics argue violates the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution and Supreme Court precedent.”
Supreme Court hears arguments on Trump's order to end birthright citizenship
US President Donald Trump took his bid to end birthright citizenship to the US Supreme Court on Thursday, in a case that could help further his agenda on immigration and other issues.
The case asks whether lower court judges should be able to block presidential orders for the entire country - as they have done in this case. The justices did not appear to reach a consensus as they considered both sides.
The US solicitor general argued that lower courts overstepped their authority, saying this power should be curtailed.
Meanwhile, the New Jersey solicitor general - arguing on behalf of a group of states - said siding with Trump would create a patchwork system of citizenship.
This would create "chaos on the ground", argued the lawyer, Jeremy Feigenbaum.
It is not clear when the court will issue its decision. If it agrees with Trump, then he could continue his wide-ranging use of executive orders to make good on campaign promises without having to wait for congressional approval - with limited checks by the courts.
Justices across the ideological spectrum seemed to grapple with two issues during Thursday's two-hour hearing.
There was questioning of lower courts' power to block a presidential order nationwide. And the justices also considered the merits of the birthright citizenship order itself - which critics argue violates the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution and Supreme Court precedent.
US Solicitor General D John Sauer, arguing on behalf of the Trump administration, said lower judges did not have the right to put time-consuming legal obstacles in front of the Trump Administration's agenda.
He argued the current system "required judges to make rushed, high-stakes, low-information decisions".
Sauer proposed class-action lawsuits - which allow large numbers of plaintiffs to sue together - as one potential alternative. However, justices and Sauer's opponents noted that this process was time-consuming and did not provide relief in emergency circumstances.
The justices grilled Sauer for over an hour, with liberal Justice Elena Kagan noting that the administration had lost on the birthright citizenship issue in every lower court. "Why would you ever take this case to us?" she asked.
Another liberal justice, Sonia Sotomayor, made the comparison with gun ownership, saying if any future administration wished to remove people's guns, the courts would be powerless to stop them.
Justice Samuel Alito, one of the court's most prominent conservatives, appeared critical of the lower court's power to issue nationwide injunctions.
"Sometimes they're wrong," he said, adding that some lower court judges were "vulnerable to an occupational disease, which is the disease of thinking that I am right, and I can do whatever I want."
Reuters
Representatives including Democrat Nancy Pelosi attended protests outside the court
Feigenbaum, arguing on behalf of states alleging harm from the executive order, said siding with the Trump administration on this matter would be impractical and unconstitutional.
Eliminating the option for nationwide injunctions could create a patchwork citizenship system, he argued, where an individual could have status in one state, but lose it when crossing into another.
Feigenbaum said this standard would have a harmful impact on distribution of government benefits like Medicaid, immigration enforcement, and maintaining accurate statistics.
"Since the 14th Amendment, our country has never allowed American citizenship to vary based on the state in which someone resides," Feigenbaum said.
As the justices lobbed questions at the lawyers, a large group of protesters gathered outside to voice opposition to Trump's immigration policies.
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, the former speaker of the House of Representatives, joined the demonstrators outside and read from the US Constitution.
"This is about birthright, it's about citizenship, it's about due process," she said.
It is unusual for the Supreme Court to hold a hearing in May, and there is no indication of when it may rule. Trump appointed three of the nine justices on the conservative-majority court in his first term.
Many legal experts say the president does not have the power to end birthright citizenship because it is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. So, even if Trump wins the current case, he may still have to fight off other legal challenges.
Specifically, the 14th Amendment stipulates that "all persons born or naturalised in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens".
In the executive order, Trump argued that the phrase "jurisdiction thereof" meant that automatic citizenship did not apply to the children of undocumented immigrants, or people in the country temporarily.
Federal justices in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington, however, issued nationwide - or universal - injunctions that blocked the order from being enforced.
The injunctions, in turn, prompted the Trump administration to argue that the lower courts exceeded their powers.
The case being heard in the Supreme Court stems from three separate lawsuits, both from immigration advocates and 22 US states.
The Trump administration has asked the court to rule that the injunctions can only apply to those immigrants named in the case or to the plaintiff states - which would allow the government to at least partly carry out Trump's order even as legal battles continue.
Nearly 40 different court injunctions have been filed since the beginning of the second Trump administration, according to the justice department.
In a separate case, two lower courts blocked the Trump administration from enforcing a military transgender ban, although the Supreme Court eventually intervened and allowed the policy to be enforced.
An end - even a partial one - of birthright citizenship could impact tens of thousands of children in the US, with one of the lawsuits arguing that it would "impose second-class status" on a generation of people who were born, and have only lived, in the US.
Alex Cuic, an immigration lawyer and professor at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio, told the BBC that a potential end of birthright citizenship could force some of these children to become undocumented or even "stateless".
"There's no guarantee that the countries where their parents are from would take them back," he said. "It would not even be clear where the government could deport them to."
Supreme Court “De-Documents” 350,000 Venezuelans – And Keeps Everyone In The Dark About What’s Next
Posted by Dara Lind | May 21, 2025 | Humanitarian Protection, Temporary Protected Status
The American Immigration Council does not endorse or oppose candidates for elected office. We aim to provide analysis regarding the implications of the election on the U.S. immigration system.
Here are the messages that the 350,000 Venezuelans in the U.S. who were granted Temporary Protected Status in 2023 have heard from the federal government since January:
January 17: You can keep your TPS protections until fall 2026.
January 28: We’re reviewing whether you can keep your TPS protections.
February 5: Your TPS protections will expire on April 7, 2025.
March 31: Your TPS protections can remain valid while a lawsuit about them is pending.
May 19: Your TPS protections have already been revoked. Probably. We assume.
With that last one – a single-page unsigned order, which, technically speaking, overruled an order to postpone the Department of Homeland Security’s termination of TPS for Venezuela – the Supreme Court achieved what law professors believe to be the biggest instantaneous “de-documentation” of immigrants in U.S. history. 350,000 people who woke up on Monday with legal status in the U.S. went to bed Monday without it.
Probably. We assume.
The lack of clarity is maddening. But it’s, in a way, the logical endpoint of the way TPS holders have always had to live their lives – 18 months at a time – and of the Trump administration’s insistence on pulling the rug out from under people who had filed their papers with the U.S. in exchange for permission to stay.
The Supreme Court’s Legal Triple Negative
Going into the procedural details of how all of this happened will not exactly make the constant flip-flops any less confusing, but here goes:
In 2023, President Biden decided that conditions in Venezuela were bad enough that it would be inappropriate to deport anyone there, and therefore Venezuelans in the United States needed Temporary Protected Status (if they lacked other legal status) to remain here legally until conditions improved. He both extended TPS for Venezuela – allowing people who had received TPS after it was first offered in 2021 to renew it for an additional 18 months, which would be added to the end of their existing TPS period – and redesignated it, allowing Venezuelans who had arrived since 2021 to apply for TPS for the first time and receive 18 months of protections.
As many as 350,000 people took the government up on the offer, receiving protections through April 2025. Many of them – about 67,000 – had arrived in the United States with a different form of temporary protection: they were paroled in under the Biden administration’s “CHNV” (Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan and Venezuelan) program, with protections that expired after two years. Applying for TPS allowed someone whose parole was set to expire in January 2025, for example, to give themselves an extra few months, a more durable form of protection, and the potential for further extensions if the executive branch chose to give them.
A few days before leaving office, the Biden administration published a notice that essentially combined the 2021 and 2023 TPS timelines, and allowed both to reapply for TPS through September 2026. The Trump administration seized on this move, and moved within days of its inauguration to vacate Biden’s decision; a few days later, it issued its own proclamation, saying it would be ending TPS for the 2023-protected Venezuelans after all, and they would lose their legal status on April 7.
TPS holders sued the administration over the bait-and-switch. In an order issued mere weeks before the expiration date, a federal judge ordered DHS to “postpone the effective date” of its decision to end TPS for Venezuela, while the lawsuit over the legality of the decision was ongoing.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the postponement. The Supreme Court, on Monday, overturned it.
So if the termination of TPS would have gone into effect already, but it was postponed, and now it’s been unpostponed, that means it’s implicitly already in effect…right?
Here’s the problem: the Supreme Court didn’t actually clarify whether the termination is in effect now, or whether the government has to do something to make the original April 7 termination effective. Litigators in the case say that it’s up to the government to make the next move, and announce how it is interpreting the court’s order – which is to say, whether it considers all 350,000 Venezuelans to be already out of status and potentially subject to removal, or whether it’s going to set a new date by which they will become so. (The litigators aren’t saying that whatever the government does will be legally correct, just that they have to take the initiative.)
As of Tuesday evening, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services webpage about TPS for Venezuela had not been updated to reflect Monday’s ruling. It still said that work permits issued to 2023 TPS holders would be auto-extended through next April – “under protest pursuant to court order.”
Leaving TPS Holders To Gamble with Their Freedom
TPS holders are already in a “liminal status” that they can never convert to permanent residency, and every expiration date brings with it the possibility that the president won’t grant another extension – underlined during Trump’s first term when he tried to do just that for hundreds of thousands of people from Haiti, El Salvador, and others. Those terminations were held up in court until President Biden took office and undid them.
Telling people they would be able to plan for another 18 months of life in the United States, then telling them they had just over 60 days to leave, is a different category of arbitrariness. (Technically, the Supreme Court acknowledged, people who had already applied for and received new TPS grants between January 17 and February 5 might legally be allowed to keep them – but given the processing time for TPS applications, it is highly unlikely any such people exist.) The cruelty is especially apparent given that, in the weeks before the April 7 expiration date, TPS holders in the US saw their compatriots deported without hearings and sent to a notorious Salvadoran prison under the Alien Enemies Act — including at least four people with active TPS.
The threat of detention and deportation was terrifying. The court ruling postponing the termination offered little psychological relief to Venezuelan TPS holders. One Venezuelan advocate described her state of mind this way to Politico in the days following the reprieve: “It’s exhausting, it’s disheartening, it’s painful and I’m not going to lie, last night I cried.”
The Supreme Court’s order shows why they were uncomforted. What courts grant, courts can take away. Probably. We assume.
Add to this the fact that some Venezuelans who have TPS may also still be within the two-year window for their CHNV parole to be valid – except that the Trump administration is trying to kill that, too. That termination has also been held up in court (for now), but the Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to overturn that ruling, too. A decision could come any day.
The lack of clarity on the question of whether TPS has already been terminated has enormous real-world stakes. Should someone with TPS show up to work their next shift, on a work permit that was valid on Monday morning but may now be (in legal terms) six weeks past its expiration date? Should they cancel their leases and buy plane tickets, or keep studying for their final exams at school? If they are arrested, will the ICE agents accept the explanation that no one appears to know if they have valid papers or not?
The strategy of this administration is to cast as broad a net of enforcement as possible – and to make it clear even to those who aren’t caught up in it today that they could be caught up in it tomorrow. But the rule of law is built on certainty and predictability. A legal regime under which people can have their status taken away from them in a day, without even a clear explanation that that’s happened, fully undermines both of those. A law that can’t be relied on isn’t a law anyone can live by.
Recent H-1B Rule Extends F-1 Cap-Gap Extension
April 28, 2025
If you are an F-1 student planning to transition to H-1B employment, recent changes to the H-1B program may directly impact you.
As of January 17, 2025, DHS implemented a final H-1B rule that extends the cap-gap extensions of eligible F-1 students from October 1 to April 1 of the relevant fiscal year. The cap-gap period previously ended on October 1. With this extension, the cap-gap period now ends April 1 of the relevant fiscal year. This rule will be applied to eligible F-1 students who are a beneficiary of a timely filed H-1B cap-subject petition beginning with the FY 2026 H-1B registration period.
What Is the Cap-Gap Extension?
The “cap-gap” refers to the period between the expiration of an F-1 student’s program of study (or optional practical training (OPT) and the start of H-1B employment. To bridge this period, DHS has historically allowed an automatic extension of F-1 status and employment authorization for students with a timely filed cap-subject H-1B petitions, but only up to October 1.
What Has Changed?
Under the new H-1B rule, the cap-gap extension has been expanded. Eligible F-1 students may now receive an automatic extension of both their F-1 status and work authorization until April 1 of the fiscal year for which the H-1B petition is filed. This change is intended to provide added flexibility for foreign students and prevent disruptions in lawful status or employment authorization that may occur due to delays in USCIS adjudication or processing timelines.
Who Is Eligible?
You may qualify for extended cap-gap if:
You are in a valid period of F-1 status (to be eligible for an extension of employment you must be in a valid period of post-completion OPT or science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) OPT.
You have not violated the terms or conditions of your immigration status.
You are a beneficiary of a timely filed cap-subject H-1B petition that requests the following:
· A change of status to H-1B and not consular processing; and
· An employment start date in the fiscal year for which such H-1B status is being requested
If the H-1B petition is denied, withdrawn, rejected or revoked, the automatic cap-gap extension is terminated immediately. In such cases, the foreign student is no longer authorized to work in the United States under F-1 status and has a 60-day grace period to prepare for departure.
For further guidance, consult your designated school official to ensure you meet all requirements and deadlines.
Link: Recent H-1B Rule Extends F-1 Cap-Gap Extension | Study in the States