Update on DOS mass closure of consulates in Africa – implementation FAQs
As mentioned in last month’s newsletter, the Department of State is conducting a restructuring of visa operations across Africa, effective August 1, 2026. 25 posts are discontinuing immigrant and nonimmigrant visa processing, with these processes now exclusively taking place in 20 “hubs”. This policy change comes at a time when the Trump administration is already limiting or outright banning travel to the United States for many African nationals.
The Department of State has given additional information on the implementation of these changes. Below is a summary of the provided questions and answers:
Q: Is the State Department closing any consulates or embassies? No, all posts mentioned above will remain open.
Q: Which posts will serve as hubs? Routine immigrant and nonimmigrant visa services will be provided at the U.S. embassies and consulates in Abidjan, Accra, Addis Ababa, Cape Town, Dakar, Dar-Es-Salaam, Djibouti, Johannesburg, Kampala, Kigali, Kinshasa, Lagos, Lome, Luanda, Malabo, Monrovia, Nairobi, Port Louis, Praia, and Yaoundé.
Q: Which posts will now only provide American Citizen Services (ACS) and limited nonimmigrant visa services? Antananarivo, Asmara, Bamako, Bangui (emergency ACS only), Banjul, Brazzaville, Bujumbura, Conakry, Cotonou, Durban, Freetown, Gaborone, Harare, Juba, Libreville, Lilongwe, Lusaka, Maputo, Maseru, Mbabane, N’Djamena, Niamey, Nouakchott, Ouagadougou, Windhoek. There are no consular operations in Bangui and Khartoum.
Q: What type of visa services are no longer offered at the 25 non-hub posts? All routine visas services, for both nonimmigrant and immigrant visas, will no longer be offered. Visa services will likely only be available in exceptional cases at these posts.
Q: What should I do if I have an appointment scheduled at a post where routine visa services are being discontinued? The Department of State will be in contact with those affected by these changes via email.
Q: If I have paid the machine-readable visa fee at a non-hub post from August 1, but do not schedule an appointment by July 31, will my fee be refunded? No. You must schedule an appointment by July 31.
Q: Does this affect my current valid visa? No. This does not affect any currently valid visas.
Q: Where will applicants conduct their immigrant visa medical exams? Applicants can complete their medical exam in either their home country if available or in the designated hub.
New Trump Administration trend: DOS revokes visas for minor law enforcement encounters
Our office and numerous colleagues in the American Immigration Lawyers Association have noticed a new alarming trend with the State Department revoking the visas of foreign nationals who have had minor or not fully adjudicated law enforcement encounters. By visa, we mean the physical visa foil that is printed in a foreign national's passport, and not a foreign national's actual immigration status, making this solely an issue with a foreign national’s ability to return to the United States after international travel. In many of these situations, the law enforcement encounter would not typically be grounds for a visa revocation. These revocations are occurring both while foreign nationals are in the United States and after they have departed for international travel.
In light of this new trend, we would like to remind foreign nationals that there is always some level of risk present when traveling internationally. If you have had any prior encounters with law enforcement, this risk has risen significantly under the current administration. We will continue to provide updates on this trend as we receive them.
Trump Administration considers instituting $100,000 bond for IV consular processing
According to reporting from the Wall Street Journal, the Trump administration is considering imposing a $100,000 bond on immigrant visa applicants who are applying for a green card from abroad. The report’s sources claim that the bond would act as a form of collateral. Immigrants would only receive the money back once they become U.S. citizens. If enacted, the policy would expand upon the $5000 to $15,000 bond imposed on tourists and business visitors from roughly 50 countries, most of which are in Africa. While no official action has been taken, the policy coincides with the Trump administration’s broader efforts to restrict immigrants of limited means from entering and staying in the United States. We will continue to monitor any updates regarding the requirement of bond payments for immigrant visa applicants.
Please see the Wall Street Journal’s report here for more information.
New Public Charge Rule – expanded to include more (any?) means-tested benefits
On July 17, 2026, the Trump Administration published a Final Rule that will change the Department of Homeland Security's policy on how to determine whether a foreign national is likely to become a "public charge" when it goes into effect on September 18, 2026. A public charge is someone who is dependent upon certain social safety net programs, which would generally make them ineligible for Permanent Residency.
Based on the new Final Rule, DHS has announced that they will issue new guidelines and a revised Form I-485 on or before September 18, 2026. We expect that the guidelines will be published in the USCIS Policy Manual and will grant USCIS officers significantly more discretion in determining whether they think a foreign national might become a public charge in the future.
The new Final Rule erases all previous definitions of what constitutes a public charge and instead leaves it up to USCIS interpretation and discretion. It is therefore possible that the Trump Administration could consider receipt of any means-tested benefit to mean that a foreign national will become a public charge in the future, and therefore deny them Permanent Residency.
For a full summary of the new Rule, visit the American Immigration Council's website here.
TPS Updates for August 2026
a. Haiti: Based on the Supreme Court ruling last month, the immigration law field was expecting a decision on July 27, 2026 regarding whether TPS for Haiti has been terminated. As of July 29, 2026, the federal district court that originally head the case has not issued a decision, and the USCIS website is currently reporting that Haitians with TPS do not currently have permission to work. However, in an interview with NPR on July 28, 2026, prominent immigration attorney Ira Kurzban noted that it is possible that the lawsuit will continue in the federal district court. Attorney Kurzban explained that the initial ruling that made its way to the Supreme Court was based on a temporary record and “was not based on the full discovery and full record that was needed in order to establish many of the things that [plaintiffs] were seeking.”
We will continue to provide updates on this lawsuit as we receive them.
b. Venezuela: On July 9, 2026, the Trump Administration asked the Supreme Court to order the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider its previous ruling on TPS for Venezuelans, which was issued before the Supreme Court’s June 2026 holding on TPS for Haiti and Syria. The Trump Administration is requesting that the Ninth Circuit factor in the Supreme Court’s holding and determine that the Trump Administration did permissibly end TPS for Venezuelans. Read a summary of the request from SCTOUSblog here.
Dorcas update – federal district court denies Trump Admin’s motion to stay order
On July 15, 2026, the federal district court for the District of Rhode Island refused to grant the Trump Administration's motion to stay the order that lifted USCIS's 39-country adjudicatory pause. For background, last month the District of Rhode Island held in Dorcas Int'l Institute of Rhode Island, et al v. USCIS that USCIS must resume application and petition adjudications for foreign nationals from the 39 countries named in President Trump's two 2025 Policy Memoranda. The Trump Administration appealed the decision to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, but it also asked the federal district court to stay its order during the appeal with the First Circuit. The federal district court's refusal to do so means that the 39-country adjudicatory pause is still not in effect.
We will continue to provide updates on this lawsuit as we receive them.
Federal district court temporarily blocks Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act from retroactively shortening TPS employment authorization validity
On July 21, 2026, the federal district court for the District Massachusetts temporarily blocked the Trump Administration from implementing certain TPS and asylum provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act ("H.R. 1"), which were set to take effect on July 22, 2026. If implemented, the TPS and asylum provisions in H.R. 1 would have retroactively shortened the employment authorization validity of individuals with TPS and would have imposed severe consequences on asylum applicants who failed to pay a new annual asylum fee, including a rejection of their asylum application, termination of their employment authorization, and placing the asylum applicant in removal proceedings.
The federal district court's temporary order will remain in effect until the court issues a second order no later than August 5, 2026. For more information on the lawsuit, see reporting from Bloomberg Law here.
H-1B Cap season update: no second round of H-1B lottery for FY2027
On July 17, 2026, USCIS announced that it had received enough H-1B petitions to meet the congressionally mandated 65,000 regular H-1B cap and 20,000 U.S. master's degree cap for federal government fiscal year 2027-2028. Therefore, USCIS will not run a second round of the H-1B cap lottery this year. See the USCIS announcement here.
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 August 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 was little to no movement throughout the employment-based Final Action Dates chart:
EB-1:
China: advanced 1 month
India: no change
All Other, Mexico, Philippines: no changes
EB-2: no changes in any categories
EB-3:
China: advanced 10 days
India and Philippines: no change
All Other and Mexico: advanced 1 month
Other Workers:
China, Mexico, and All Other: advanced 1 month
India and Philippines: no change
See the August 2026 Visa Bulletin here.
If you have questions about planning, please schedule a consultation with one of the attorneys at Iandoli, Desai & Cronin (info@iandoli.com).
$100,000 H-1B fee update: First Circuit refused to reimplement $100,000 fee during appeals process
On July 24, 2026, the First Circuit Court temporarily barred the Trump Administration from imposing the $100,000 Presidential Proclamation fee on certain H-1B petitions. For background on this fee, read our summary post here and our most recent update on the district court ruling here.
In the July 24, 2026 ruling, the First Circuit ruled against the Trump Administration's request to reinstate the $100,000 tax during the appeals process. The $100,000 is therefore currently not in effect. The appeals process will likely take several weeks or longer, and it is possible that the Supreme Court will also pick up the case. We will continue to provide updates on this fee as they become available.