‼️ FEDERAL COURT UPDATE‼️
Federal District Courts in Rhode Island and Massachusetts issued final rulings on two significant issues effecting immigrants and their employers.
__________________________________________________________________________________
On Friday, June 5, 2026, the Federal District Court for Rhode Island in Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island vs. USCIS set aside and declared unlawful USCIS’s January 1, 2026 policy of withholding review of petitions and applications involving individuals whose country of birth or country of citizenship is among the 39 countries subject to a partial or complete travel ban.
The Court noted that “the rule of law has to apply to everyone equally and, as evident here, USCIS has neither ‘followed the law’ nor ‘done things the right way.’” The Court found the USCIS’s policy was contrary to the Immigration and Nationality Act, was arbitrary and capricious, and set aside and vacated the policy in its entirety. USCIS must now resume adjudicating petitions and applications for affected foreign nationals and their employers.
__________________________________________________________________________________
On Monday, June 8, 2026 the Federal District Court for Massachusetts in a lawsuit brought by the State of California, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and 18 other states, set aside and declared unlawful the September 19, 2025 Presidential Proclamation which instituted a $100,000 additional filing fee requirement for employers filing H-1B petitions for persons outside the U.S., petitions requesting consular processing even if the sponsored individual held prior H-1B status/visas, or petitions converted to consular processing due to failure to maintain status.
The Court held that the $100,000 payment requirement “improperly levies a tax on H-1B petitions” without Congressional authorization. In addition, the Court found that the Department of Homeland Security’s implementation of the Proclamation violated the Administrative Procedure Act for failing to “offer a reasoned explanation for enacting a heavy tax on the H-1B program” and failed to “provide any explanation for imposing a tax on employers in [the education or health care sector], let alone address these employers’ reliance interests on the H-1B program as it existed before the Policy.” Like the Court in Rhode Island, the $100,000 payment requirement has been set aside and vacated in its entirety.
These rulings are of major significance and likely will be appealed by the Government. Until a higher court stays these rulings, USCIS must adhere to each Court’s vacatur and judgment.
DOS Updates List of Countries Subject to Visa Bonds to Clarify Exceptions for FIFA World Cup
On May 13, 2026, the State Department updated its Visa Bond Pilot Program webpage to clarify that the Trump Administration will waive the bond requirement for certain travelers coming to the United States to watch the FIFA World Cup. See the updated guidance on the State Department website here.
MPR News: “Fear of deportation and delays discourage some immigrants from seeking citizenship”
On May 19, 2026, Minnesota Public Radio reporter Sarah Thamer published an article on the current hesitancy many legal permanent residents are having about applying for citizenship. Despite their eligibility, Thamer reports that “fear, combined with policy changes and processing delays[,] is discouraging some eligible immigrants from applying for citizenship at all.” The policy changes include a new citizenship test with more questions and requiring a higher threshold of correct responses to pass. Naturalization application denials have also increased by 15% from 2024 to 2025, and USCIS is now taking months longer to schedule applications for their naturalization ceremonies after they have been approved during the USCIS interviews.
Read the article from Minnesota Public Radio here.
TPS updates: El Salvador, Lebanon, and Yemen
El Salvador: On April 28, 2026, USCIS updated its TPS El Salvador webpage to indicate that Salvadorans with TPS that expired on March 9, 2025 have an automatic employment authorization extension through July 22, 2026. Per AILA, Salvadoran TPS holders and their employers should print or otherwise save this webpage as evidence of work permission for I-9 and other purposes.
Lebanon: On May 28, 2026, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security published in the Federal Register that TPS holders from Lebanon would receive an automatic six-month extension of TPS protections. The Federal Register Notice states that the Secretary of Homeland Security had not decided whether to extend or terminate TPS for Lebanon because “rapidly unfolding events in Lebanon in March 2026 impacted the Department's ability to conduct a thorough review of prevailing country conditions for the Secretary's timely consideration and determination.” TPS for Lebanon is now set to expire on November 27, 2026. Read the USCIS press release here.
Yemen: On May 1, 2026, a federal district court in New York temporarily blocked TPS termination for Yemen. TPS for Yemenis was set to end on May 4, 2026, but the court order indefinitely postpones the termination. See the updated information available on the USCIS website here.
USCIS Policy Memo Attempts to Restrict and Reframe In-Country Green Card Applications as “Extraordinary Relief”
On May 21, 2026, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) issued Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199 (“Policy Memo”) that purports to severely restrict the availability of the Congressionally created Adjustment of Status (in-country green card application) (“AOS”) process by casting AOS as “extraordinary relief.”[1] For background, a noncitizen can apply for a green card either abroad at a U.S. consulate through the immigrant visa process or within the U.S. through the filing of an application to adjust status to permanent residency. The Policy Memo, cloaked as a reminder to USCIS officers, represents a departure from over 50 years of practice and ignores numerous statutory updates to the AOS process, some dating back to 1960, which makes clear that Congress views AOS and consular processing as neutral alternative methods to securing permanent residence status.
The Policy Memo claims, without citation, that “Congress expects aliens paroled into the United States or admitted into the United States as nonimmigrants to depart rather than pursue adjustment of status.” Based on the unsupported supposition that the statute prefers immigrant visa processing over AOS, USCIS now considers approval of an AOS application as an “extraordinary” act. Indeed, courts and immigration authorities have long held that there is nothing untoward or inherently dishonorable for a noncitizen to apply for adjustment of status if otherwise eligible. Brownell v. Carija, 254 F.2d 78 (DC Cir 1957). See also, Matter of Hosseinpour, 15 I&N Dec 191 (BIA 1975)
The Policy Memo is of questionable legality because it establishes new rules without following proper procedure, ignores long-established precedent guiding the exercise of discretion in the AOS process, and contravenes the detailed AOS statutory structure enacted by Congress. USCIS frames the Policy Memo as a restatement of law but the directive instructs officers to consider the very act of applying for AOS as an adverse factor--a new policy that has no basis in statute, regulations, or history. As courts have reminded the immigration service in the past, “[t]he mere fact that a statute gives the [agency] discretion as to whether to grant relief after application does not by itself give the [agency] the discretion to define eligibility for such relief.” Succar v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 8, 10 (1st Cir. 2005). Furthermore, the Policy Memo would likely fail even if USCIS followed the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"). The APA requires administrative agencies to pass regulations that are consistent with Congress’s intent, as evidenced by statutes and the congressional record. Contrary to USCIS’s assertions, the AOS statutory framework firmly establishes that Congress intended AOS to be generally available to nonimmigrants who are otherwise eligible to become permanent residents. In other words, AOS is not a “loophole” to allow noncitizens to evade consular processing but rather an established component of American immigration law that Congress carefully crafted and revised over several decades.[2]
USCIS’s news release announcing the Policy Memo further confuses matters by announcing that “[f]rom now on, [a noncitizen] who is in the U.S. temporarily and wants a Green Card must return to their home country to apply, except in extraordinary circumstances.” Nowhere in the Policy Memo does it provide that AOS would only be approved in extraordinary circumstances. Rather the memo juxtaposes AOS with what it believes is the ordinary process (consular processing).
Despite the Policy Memo’s legal shortcomings, the immigration bar does not yet know how USCIS officers will execute this new policy and what specific factors USCIS will use when determining whether someone meets the “extraordinary circumstances” standard set out in the press release. The new policy could force several hundred thousand nonimmigrants to apply for their green cards abroad annually, which would severely disrupt American families, key industries, and educational opportunities across the United States, in addition to the burden it places on noncitizen applicants. The policy would additionally exponentially strain the already-taxed immigrant visa processing backlog at our U.S. consulates.
In summary, the Policy Memo does not preclude individuals from filing for Adjustment of Status. However, applicants will likely face additional hurdles including Requests for Evidence on their applications. We have received early reports that USCIS field offices are enforcing the Policy Memo during adjustment of status interviews, which is typically the final step for applicants before their applications are approved or denied. It has been reported that USCIS officers have asked applicants questions such as -
Why did you apply for AOS instead of consular processing?
Are there any factors that would prevent you from pursuing consular processing?
Why did you decide not to return to your country when your period of authorized stay expired?
In the Policy Memo USCIS indicated that it may provide additional guidance on specific types of AOS applications and “discrete populations…to aid officers in identifying those applications that may or may not warrant this act of grace...”
We will provide updates on this Policy Memo as they become available.
-----
[1]U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Serv., PM-602-0199, Adjustment of Status is a Matter of Discretion and Administrative Grace, and an Extraordinary Relief that Permits Applicants to Dispense with the Ordinary Consular Visa Process (2026).
[2] Except for fiscal years 2020 and 2021, DHS statistics show that since fiscal year 2016 roughly the same number of individuals receive green cards through the AOS process as through consular processing.
Visa Bulletin update
The Department of State publishes a monthly Visa Bulletin which operates as the “waiting list” for green cards (immigrant visas), with an individual’s Priority Date serving as their place in line. The Bulletin identifies all immigrant visa “preference” categories and indicates whether a backlog exists for that category. When a backlog exists, an individual in that category may not apply for a green card (or “adjust status”) until their Priority Date becomes “current.” A priority date is current when it is earlier than the date listed in the Visa Bulletin. The Bulletin lists family-based (“FB-”) preference categories and employment-based (“EB-") preference categories. These categories are further separated into two charts: the Final Action Dates chart and the Dates for Filing chart. The Final Action Dates chart indicates whether an individual can expect USCIS to make a decision on their application soon, whereas the Dates for Filing chart, if USCIS chooses to use it that month, indicates whether an individual may file their adjustment application and receive the benefits associated with having a green card application pending with USCIS.
In June 2026, USCIS will be using the Dates for Filing chart for family-based preference categories and the Final Action Dates chart for employment-based categories.
This month, there were notable retrogressions for the EB-1 India and EB-2 India Final Action Date categories, and slight advancements in the EB-3 and Other Workers categories for India and China. These changes were as follows:
EB-1: India retrogressed 3.5 months (no other changes)
EB-2: India retrogressed 10.5 months (no other changes)
EB-3:
China: advanced 1.5 months
India: advanced 1 month
All Other: no change
Other Workers:
China: advanced 2 months
India: advanced 1 month
See the June 2026 Visa Bulletin here.
AILA Client Flyer: Employment Authorization Documents—What You Need to Know
On May 13, 2026, the American Immigration Lawyers Association (“AILA”) published a client flyer "Employment Authorization Documents: What You Need to Know” to help employers understand some of the basics of employment authorization. The flyer explains what DHS considers to be “work;” when an EAD is and isn’t needed; and EAD processing times, validity periods, and renewals.
Download a copy of the flyer here.
J-1 options for STEM graduates not selected in the H-1B cap lottery
STEM graduates who were not selected in the H-1B cap lottery this year might be eligible for a J-1 visitor exchange program if they are working in research, observation, or consultations connected to research projects for esteemed institutions, including corporate research facilities. To be eligible, applicants must have a bachelor’s degree or higher and have a background in research, academia, science, or similar experience. Programs can range from three months to five years, and not all programs are subject to the two-year home residency requirement.
For more information on J-1 programs for STEM graduates, visit the American Immigration Council website here.
Cap season update
We are now in the middle of the H-1B petition filing period for beneficiaries who were selected in the FY2027 H-1B cap lottery at the end of March. Employers have until June 30, 2026 to file H-1B petitions for their employees who were selected in the lottery. If USCIS does not receive the maximum 85,000 H-1B cap petitions by June 30, 2026, then they may run a second lottery to fill the remaining spaces.
If you require assistance with filing an H-1B petition for a worker selected in the cap lottery, please contact us at info@iandoli.com to set up a consultation.
Update on the Department of Health and Human Services’ adjudicatory pause on J-1 physician waivers
IDC has received anecdotal reports that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) has resumed adjudications for J-1 physician waiver applications filed at the beginning of the federal government’s fiscal year in October 2025. For several months earlier this year, HHS had not been processing J-1 waiver applications for foreign national physicians seeking to transition into healthcare roles in underserved communities at the end of their medical residency or fellowship programs. The pause was imposing significant concerns for hospitals, health centers, and the medical research industry because it was becoming increasingly likely that J-1 physicians could not directly transition from their J-1 program to H-1B status and would have to return to their home countries while their cases were completed, causing work flow disruptions and subjecting the physicians to President Trump’s new $100,000 fee for H-1B workers that require consular processing. For more information on the pause, see reporting from the Kaiser Family Foundationhere.
Colleagues in other offices have shared that some of the J-1 waiver applications they filed in early 2026 are now being adjudicated, which is a six-month processing timeline that used to only take 1-3 weeks. However, many of these applications are still at risk of not being completed by the end of the physicians’ J-1 programs, as the waivers must now be processed by the State Department before USCIS also processes and makes a final determination on the J-1 waiver.