Global law firm Greenberg Traurig, LLP received the most Tier 1 national rankings, with 43 national rankings, and second-most metropolitan Tier 1 rankings, with 294 metro rankings, in the 2026 Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms.” With 528 total rankings, both metro and national, Greenberg Traurig has the most combined total rankings compared with any other law firm listed.
This Bloomberg Law article examines how proposed changes to the H-1B visa program are prompting companies to update their compliance practices. The new rules aim to increase transparency and oversight, requiring employers to adopt stricter documentation and reporting procedures. Kate Kalmykov, co-chair of Greenberg Traurig’s Immigration & Compliance practice, noted that these changes are encouraging companies to be more proactive and thorough in their compliance efforts. Experts also observe that organizations are reviewing and improving their internal processes to meet the evolving requirements for hiring foreign workers under the H-1B program.
GT’s Immigration & Compliance Practice is proud to announce that seven of its lawyers are recognized on the 2026 Best Lawyers in America list, and three are included on the 2026 Best Lawyers in America: Ones to Watch list. According to the publication, the first list highlights lawyers of outstanding legal capabilities in their respective practices, and the latter spotlights attorneys who offer the same promise early in their careers.
In total, the firm has more attorneys listed in the combined editions than any other law firm in the 2026 guide.
It’s mid-morning at a company’s headquarters, a professional office connected to a warehouse facility. Reception calls to inform the employer that Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents are in the lobby. They present a document titled “Warrant for Entry.” It bears a judge’s signature, but it is not a criminal warrant; rather, it is a civil warrant issued under immigration authority. The agents explain that it authorizes them to enter private areas of the workplace, including offices and the warehouse floor, to look for undocumented individuals. Managers turn to the employer for guidance. On the one hand, he wants to cooperate fully with law enforcement. On the other, he may be aware that admitting ICE could raise constitutional issues and create legal exposure for the company. Should the owner allow access? Wait for counsel? This is a dilemma employers may face when confronted with what are known as Blackie’s warrants.
Blackie’s warrants are named after the 1981 case Blackie’s House of Beef v. Castillo, where the D.C. Circuit held that the Immigration and Naturalization Service could obtain civil warrants from judges to conduct worksite searches. A Blackie’s warrant is a judicially issued civil search warrant. It differs from a criminal warrant because it does not require the same probable cause standard that evidence of a crime will be found. Instead, it is issued in the context of civil immigration enforcement and authorizes ICE to enter nonpublic commercial areas to look for individuals who may be removable under immigration law. The warrant must be signed by a judge or magistrate and must specify the place and scope of the search.
This distinguishes Blackie’s warrants from administrative warrants ICE officers can issue internally, such as Form I-200 (warrant for arrest of an alien) or Form I-205 (warrant of removal/deportation). Those ICE-issued documents are not reviewed by a judge, do not carry judicial authority, and do not allow agents to enter private areas of a workplace without employer consent. Confusion between the two types of warrants is common during worksite encounters.
In May 2025, the Southern District of Texas addressed the limits of Blackie’s warrants. U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew Edison rejected ICE’s application for an administrative inspection warrant to search a private business for unauthorized workers. The court held that because employers can face criminal penalties for knowingly employing undocumented workers, such a search was inherently criminal in nature and required a criminal warrant based on probable cause, not a civil warrant. Judge Edison further criticized the government’s application for overbreadth, which sought access to “any locked area” without particularity. He noted that people are not documents or safety hazards, underscoring that immigration enforcement cannot be justified as a routine administrative inspection. This case demonstrates that even judicially issued civil warrants, if vague or expansive, may be subject to challenge for failing to meet constitutional standards.
Employers may encounter three categories of warrants in worksite enforcement. A Blackie’s warrant is a civil search warrant signed by a judge or magistrate. It allows ICE to enter nonpublic commercial areas to look for removable individuals, but its authority is narrower than that of a criminal search warrant. A judicial criminal search warrant, issued under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41, requires probable cause of a crime and allows agents to search for specific evidence in designated places. An administrative ICE warrant, by contrast, is signed only by ICE officials and does not authorize entry into private spaces without employer consent. The employer’s dilemma lies in knowing which document is being presented, since refusing a valid judicial warrant can lead to obstruction charges, while complying with an overreaching administrative document can expose the company to privacy, civil rights, and state-law liability.
The distinction between public and private spaces remains critical. ICE may lawfully enter public areas of a workplace, such as lobbies or reception desks, without a warrant. Entry into nonpublic areas (including private offices, internal hallways, break rooms, and warehouse floors) requires either employer consent or a judicially issued warrant. Employers that grant entry based only on an ICE-issued administrative form risk exceeding their legal obligations and violating employee rights.
Employees confronted during worksite enforcement have certain protections. They may decline to answer questions about their immigration status. Employers may wish to be careful not to facilitate questioning in a way that creates claims of discrimination or retaliation. In unionized workplaces, collective bargaining agreements may impose further obligations if ICE enforcement affects working conditions. The risks cut both ways: ICE may view resistance as noncooperation, but employees may view over-compliance as a violation of their rights.
Employers find themselves caught in a double bind. Refusing entry under a judicial warrant may risk obstruction charges. Cooperating too broadly under an ICE-issued administrative warrant may risk constitutional challenges, employee claims, and even penalties under state law. The uncertainty can create operational disruption, reputational harm, and long-term legal consequences. This dilemma may be especially pronounced in businesses that operate both public-facing offices and restricted warehouse facilities, where the boundaries between public and private spaces are not always clear.
Two further issues may amplify the stakes. First is data privacy. ICE requests often include I-9s, payroll records, and personnel files. Employers risk violating federal or state privacy laws by producing records without proper judicial authorization. With state-level privacy statutes expanding, especially in California and other states, mishandling employee data during enforcement may carry liability. Second are state and local sanctuary laws. Some jurisdictions impose penalties on employers who voluntarily allow ICE access to nonpublic areas or who provide records without a judicial warrant, while other states actively prohibit sanctuary policies and require cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Multi-state employers may face a complex patchwork of conflicting obligations, and what may appear as lawful cooperation in one jurisdiction could trigger penalties in another.
Preparation may help resolve this tension. Employers may wish to adopt a worksite enforcement response plan that distinguishes clearly among types of warrants. Staff may be trained to request and examine the document carefully, to contact legal counsel immediately, and to document the interaction. Employers may wish to avoid granting consent beyond what is legally required, particularly when ICE presents an administrative warrant signed only by the agency. In all cases, the company’s designated legal point of contact may take the lead in determining the proper response.
ICE’s use of Blackie’s warrants underscores the balance between cooperation with law enforcement and protection of constitutional rights. Unlike ICE-issued administrative warrants, Blackie’s warrants do carry judicial authority, but recent rulings highlight their constitutional limits. For employers, the challenge may be acute: cooperate fully and risk overstepping the law, or resist and risk government retaliation. Especially in workplaces that combine public and private areas, preparation and clarity are essential. With appropriate policies, training, and legal support, employers may be able to protect their interests and their employees’ rights when ICE arrives at the workplace door.
The shift toward remote and hybrid work arrangements has created compliance challenges for U.S. employers sponsoring foreign workers under H-1B, E-3, and H-1B1 classifications. While remote work offers flexibility and expanded talent pools, it introduces complex legal obligations that, if overlooked, may result in substantial penalties and backpay awards, as well as possibly jeopardizing employees’ immigration status.
Under U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) regulations, every location where an H-1B, E-3, or H-1B1 employee performs work must be listed on a Labor Condition Application (LCA) and covered by the underlying petition. This includes the employee’s home office when working remotely.
When an employee works from home, their residence becomes a “worksite” for immigration and labor law purposes. This means:
A compliance gap may emerge if employees relocate during their H-1B validity period without informing their employer’s immigration team. This seemingly minor oversight may create cascading compliance complications.
If an employee relocates within the same MSA as originally listed on their LCA:
Required Action: The employer must post a notice in two conspicuous places at the employee’s new residence, where they work remotely, for 10 business days and update the respective Public Access File.
Common Failure: HR teams update payroll records and internal systems but fail to notify immigration counsel, resulting in a lack of required postings at the new location and outdated, deficient Public Access File documentation.
Consequences:
If an employee relocates outside the MSA covered by their current LCA:
Required Action: File an amended H-1B petition with a new LCA covering the new geographic area before the employee begins work at the new location.
Common Failure: Employees relocate and continue working without the employer’s knowledge, creating an immediate status violation.
Consequences:
The DOL’s enforcement focus on prevailing wage compliance makes unreported address changes particularly precarious. Key risks include:
Consider the following real-world scenario that illustrates the consequences of inadequate address change procedures:
The Situation: Sarah, a software engineer in H-1B status, was initially hired to work in Dallas, Texas, with a Level 4 prevailing wage determination of $156,998 annually. Her employer’s remote work policy allowed employees to work from home, and her LCA properly listed her Dallas residence as a worksite.
The Move: One year into her three-year H-1B validity period, Sarah relocated to San Francisco to be closer to family. She promptly informed HR and payroll of her address change, and her W-2 forms began reflecting California state taxes. However, the payroll team failed to notify the company’s immigration team about the relocation.
The Compliance Failure: Sarah’s move from Dallas to San Francisco represented a change to a different MSA with a substantially higher prevailing wage, approximately $213,512 for a Level 4 software engineer position in the San Francisco area, an annual difference of $56,514. Under DOL regulations, this required:
None of these steps were taken because the company’s immigration team was unaware of the move.
The Discovery: Two years later, when Sarah’s employer filed her H-1B extension petition, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued a Request for Evidence (RFE). USCIS had cross-referenced Sarah’s petition against her California state tax records and identified the discrepancy between her approved work location (Dallas) and her actual work location (San Francisco).
The Consequences: The RFE created multiple serious problems:
The Resolution Costs: To address the violation, the employer had to:
This case demonstrates how a simple communication breakdown can escalate into a six-figure compliance problem with lasting immigration consequences.
The increasing sophistication of government enforcement mechanisms means that address change violations are more likely to be detected than ever before. Employers should be aware of the following discovery methods:
The FDNS unit conducts unannounced site visits to verify petition information. During these visits, inspecting officers may discover that employees have relocated to new addresses without proper LCA amendments or H-1B petition updates. FDNS officers are specifically trained to identify compliance gaps and will document any discrepancies between approved work locations and actual employee residences.
As demonstrated in the software engineer case study above, USCIS increasingly cross-references employee state tax filings against residential addresses on record during the adjudication of new H-1B filings, including amendments and extensions. This data matching has become more sophisticated and systematic, making it more likely that geographic discrepancies will be identified during routine petition processing.
USCIS is issuing RFEs requiring H-1B employees to complete biometrics appointments across multiple petition types, but mostly on H-1B petitions and I-140 immigrant petitions, even though these cases do not typically require biometric collection. During these appointments, USCIS captures current address information and cross-references it against the approved petition locations. This enforcement mechanism allows USCIS to identify address changes that were never reported to immigration authorities, creating an additional layer of compliance verification that employers may not be unprepared for.
The expansion of biometric RFEs to I-140 immigrant petitions demonstrates that USCIS is using address verification as a compliance tool across the entire immigration continuum. Employees who may have had compliant H-1B petitions initially but developed violations during the validity period may find their permanent residence applications jeopardized when USCIS discovers unreported address changes during I-140 adjudication.
During Form I-9 compliance audits, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) may identify H-1B deficiencies when reviewing employee documentation. While this discovery method is currently less common, employers should anticipate increased scrutiny as compliance enforcement becomes stricter and more integrated across agencies. ICE auditors are trained to spot immigration status violations that may not be immediately apparent from I-9 documentation alone.
H-1B employees who become aware of prevailing wage requirements may file complaints when they realize they are being underpaid due to their employer’s failure to update LCAs for new work locations. These complaints may trigger DOL wage and hour investigations and result in significant penalties. Educated employees increasingly understand their rights and may seek legal counsel when they suspect wage violations.
During consular visa interviews for visa renewals or family member applications, consular officers may identify discrepancies between an employee’s stated residential address and the work location listed on their H-1B petition. While currently uncommon, this discovery method may become more frequent as consular officers receive enhanced training on H-1B compliance issues and as information sharing between agencies improves.
Another discovery method involves H-1B change of employer petitions (portability cases). When an employee transfers to a new employer, USCIS may identify prior compliance violations during the adjudication process by cross-referencing the employee’s state tax filings against the previous employer’s H-1B petition.
The Problem for New Employers: This situation creates an impossible burden for new employers because they typically do not have access to the prior employer’s complete H-1B petition file. The new employer cannot reasonably identify potential compliance issues before filing their change of employer petition, yet they may face petition denials or RFEs based on the prior employer’s failures.
Heightened Risk During Grace Periods: This issue is particularly acute for employees in the 60-day grace period following termination. USCIS has significantly increased its use of Notices to Appear (NTAs) for individuals found to be no longer maintaining legal status. When a compliance violation from a prior employer is discovered during a change of employer petition, it may trigger NTA issuance even if:
Practical Implications:
Risk to Prior Employers: The compliance violations don’t disappear when an employee changes employers. Former employers remain exposed to liability when H-1B deficiencies are discovered during change of employer adjudications. Once a former employee learns that their previous H-1B petition was deficient due to an unreported address change with a higher prevailing wage, they may pursue backpay claims against their former employer. These claims can extend back several years and involve substantial amounts, particularly when the wage differential between geographic areas is significant. The former employer cannot cure the violation since the employee has already departed, leaving them fully exposed to the financial consequences of their compliance failure.
Current or former employees, competitors, or other third parties may report suspected violations to DOL or USCIS. The anonymous nature of many reporting mechanisms makes this an ongoing risk for noncompliant employers.
The key takeaway is that these violations are no longer hidden in administrative silos. Government agencies are increasingly sharing information and using sophisticated data matching techniques that make discovery more likely and more systematic than in the past.
While geographic-based prevailing wage violations represent a significant compliance risk, employers face additional exposure from incorrectly classifying the job classification and the wage level for H-1B positions. This issue, compounded with the address change problem, may create further liability.
The prevailing wage system classifies positions into four levels based on experience, education, and job complexity:
Many employers face two distinct types of classification errors that may result in significant compliance violations:
Employers may under-classify positions to reduce labor costs, selecting Level 1 or Level 2 wages when the position actually requires Level 3 or Level 4 compensation.
Beyond wage levels, employers often select incorrect job classifications entirely. The duties and responsibilities of different positions carry substantially different prevailing wages, even within similar fields. For example:
Bachelor’s Degree Requirement Violations: The H-1B category fundamentally requires that the proposed U.S. assignment necessitate at least a bachelor’s-level education. Selecting job classifications that require only an associate’s degree creates an immediate compliance concern. For example, selecting “Computer Network Support Specialists” for an employee performing bachelor’s-level work, even though DOL data indicates the position requires an associate’s degree, may result in:
These job classification errors may create several compounding problems.
Compounding Geographic Issues: When an employee moves to a higher-wage area and the employer has made both wage level and job classification errors, the underpayment exposure multiplies. An employee initially classified as a Level 1 “Computer Network Support Specialist” in Dallas who should have been a Level 4 “Software Engineer,” then moves to San Francisco, faces a triple violation (geographic change, incorrect wage level, and incorrect job classification) potentially creating enormous backpay liability.
Audit Vulnerability: DOL audits specifically examine whether both the job classification and wage level selection match the actual job requirements. Auditors review:
Systematic Violations: Unlike address changes that affect individual employees, both job classification and wage level misclassification often reflect company-wide practices, potentially affecting multiple H-1B employees simultaneously and creating backpay exposure across entire departments or job categories.
Wage level violations carry the same penalty structure as geographic wage violations under 20 CFR 655.810 (2025 penalty amounts as adjusted by Federal Register, Vol. 90, No. 8, Jan. 10, 2025):
When combined with multi-year underpayments across multiple employees, these penalties can reach seven figures for employers with systematic misclassification practices.
For employers with systemic, widespread violations, the DOL can impose the most severe penalty available: debarment from the H-1B program under INA § 212(n)(2). This sanction prohibits an employer from filing any H-1B petitions for up to three years.
Debarment Requirements: Under DOL Fact Sheet #62S, debarment requires formal enforcement proceedings with specific findings:
Additional Consequences:
Business Impact: For technology companies, consulting firms, health care organizations, and other employers that rely heavily on H-1B workers, debarment can be business-threatening. The consequences include:
No Workarounds: Unlike monetary penalties that can be paid, debarment cannot be cured through compliance efforts during the prohibition period. Employers facing debarment must demonstrate extraordinary circumstances to avoid or reduce the sanction period.
Inadequate documentation makes it difficult to defend wage level selections during audits and increases the likelihood of violations being classified as “willful” rather than technical.
Employers should consider taking the following steps to help address potential compliance gaps:
The intersection of remote work flexibility and immigration compliance creates challenges for U.S. employers. While remote work offers benefits, it also comes with legal obligations. Employers who proactively address these compliance requirements may avoid costly penalties while maintaining the flexibility that makes them competitive in today’s talent market.
A strategy for maintaining compliance is treating address changes as immigration events requiring immediate attention, not merely administrative updates. By implementing robust monitoring and reporting systems, employers may be able to harness the benefits of remote work while complying with their immigration and labor law obligations.
This article provides general guidance on immigration compliance matters. Employers should consult with experienced immigration counsel to address specific situations and ensure compliance with current regulations.
The U.S. Department of State has announced a new visa bond pilot program that, while currently limited in scope, may introduce new challenges to business travel starting Aug. 20, 2025. The program, published on Aug. 5, 2025, in the Federal Register, requires nationals from certain countries to post financial bonds before obtaining B-1/B-2 visitor visas.
Beginning Aug. 20, 2025, the program will apply to nationals of Malawi and Zambia, but the Department of State has explicitly reserved the right to add additional countries with 15 days’ notice. While this limited initial rollout applies to specific countries at present, the underlying legal framework and operational infrastructure are being tested for potential broader application.
The program requires affected visa applicants to post bonds of $5,000, $10,000, or $15,000 at the discretion of consular officers. These amounts represent financial hurdles that might prevent business travel for some employees or require employers to front costs.
The bond amounts were specifically calibrated based on the estimated $17,121 cost of immigration enforcement per individual, signaling the government’s intent to impose financial consequences for overstays. While bonds are refundable upon compliance with visa terms, the upfront cash requirement may create liquidity challenges.
Beyond the financial requirements, the program imposes logistical constraints that may complicate business travel planning:
These restrictions may limit flexibility for business travelers and may require companies to restructure travel plans around these three gateway airports, potentially increasing costs and reducing efficiency.
For employers with current employees or business relationships in affected countries:
Risk management strategies:
While currently limited to two countries, this program represents a policy shift toward using financial deterrents in visitor visa programs. The Department of State has identified three criteria for inclusion:
These categories may potentially encompass additional countries, particularly those offering economic citizenship programs or with higher than average overstay rates, according to DHS annual reports.
The program introduces administrative complexity, requiring coordination between multiple agencies (State, Treasury, and DHS) and new systems integration through Pay.gov. The Department has acknowledged this is primarily a feasibility study, suggesting that successful implementation may lead to expansion. The Arrival and Departure Information System (ADIS), which tracks compliance, sometimes contains errors, creating additional risks for bond forfeiture even for compliant travelers.
This 12-month pilot program, launching Aug. 20, 2025, and running through Aug. 5, 2026, is designed to assess operational feasibility for broader implementation. The Department of State has characterized it as a “diplomatic tool” to encourage foreign governments to address overstay rates and improve identity verification systems.
Employers should monitor developments, as the program’s success may lead to expansion to additional countries or different visa categories. The legal framework already exists for similar requirements on F-1 student visas, though the pilot is currently limited to B-1/B-2 visitors. With 14 days until implementation, companies with employees or business relationships in Malawi and Zambia may wish to begin preparations.
While the immediate impact will affect only travelers from Malawi and Zambia starting Aug. 20, 2025, the visa bond pilot program may establish new precedents for business travel. Companies have a 15-day window to prepare for these changes and should consider beginning to develop contingency plans, both for current affected relationships and potential future expansion of the program.
The combination of financial requirements, logistical restrictions, and administrative complexity may create new challenges that employers must navigate carefully. The 15-day notice period for adding new countries provides little time for adjustment once changes are announced.
This analysis is based on the Department of State’s Temporary Final Rule, published Aug. 5, 2025, and current guidance documents. Immigration law and policy can change rapidly, and specific situations may require individual legal consultation.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has submitted a proposed rule to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (a division of the Office of Management and Budget) that would replace the current H-1B lottery system with a weighted selection process. This regulatory development may have significant implications for U.S. employers, foreign students, and current H-1B workers.
On July 17, 2025, DHS-USCIS submitted for OMB review a proposed rule titled “Weighted Selection Process for Registrants and Petitioners Seeking To File Cap-Subject H-1B Petitions” (RIN 1615-AD01).
The H-1B program provides 85,000 annual visas for specialty occupation workers, including 20,000 reserved for advanced U.S. degree holders, and is currently subject to random lottery selection when demand exceeds supply.
While the specific provisions remain confidential pending Federal Register publication, the proposed rule is expected to implement selection criteria that may include wage levels, education qualifications, or other merit-based factors. Historical precedent suggests the rule could prioritize registrations based on prevailing wage levels corresponding to the Department of Labor’s four-tier wage structure.
The rule submission occurs as USCIS announced that sufficient registrations have been received to meet the FY 2026 cap, indicating continued high demand for H-1B visas among U.S. employers.
Hiring Strategy Adjustments: Employers may need to reassess compensation packages and position classifications to improve selection probability under a weighted system. Companies historically offering entry-level wages may face reduced selection rates.
Budget and Planning Implications: Organizations may need to increase salary offers to meet higher wage thresholds, potentially affecting budgets for international talent acquisition and workforce planning strategies.
Compliance Considerations: Employers will need to ensure accurate wage determinations and classifications align with any new selection criteria, requiring closer coordination between HR, legal, and compensation teams.
F-1 Students: Recent graduates may face increased competition for positions meeting higher selection criteria. Students in STEM fields with advanced degrees may have advantages, while those seeking entry-level positions could encounter greater challenges transitioning from student to work status.
Current H-1B Workers: Extension and transfer petitions may be affected depending on wage levels and position classifications. Workers in lower wage categories may need to seek promotions or position changes to maintain competitiveness in future selections.
Career Planning: Foreign nationals may need to adjust career trajectories and salary expectations to align with weighted selection criteria, potentially affecting decisions about educational investments and job market entry strategies.
A similar wage-based selection rule was finalized in January 2021 but was subsequently vacated by a federal court and withdrawn by the succeeding administration. That rule would have prioritized selections based on the highest Occupational Employment Statistics prevailing wage levels for relevant Standard Occupational Classification codes and employment areas.
The current regulatory landscape includes the beneficiary-centric selection process implemented in March 2024, which selects registrations by unique beneficiary rather than by individual registration. The interaction between this existing framework and the proposed weighted selection system will require careful analysis upon rule publication.
OMB Review: The proposed rule is currently under Office of Management and Budget review, which typically takes up to 90 days but may vary based on rule complexity and stakeholder input.
Public Comment Period: Following OMB clearance, the rule will be published in the Federal Register with a public comment period, typically lasting 60 days.
Final Rule Development: DHS must review and respond to public comments before issuing a final rule, with implementation dates typically 30-60 days after final publication.
For Employers:
For Immigration Practitioners:
For Foreign Workers:
The proposed rule, if implemented, may affect H-1B registration and petition filing strategies, requiring adjustments to employer practices and expectations. Organizations should consider preparing for potential changes to selection probability calculations and developing contingency plans for workforce planning under modified selection criteria.
On June 27, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published an interim final rule that compresses the civil penalty timeline under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Although the text focuses on fines against non-citizens, the new procedure may reshape the enforcement framework that U.S. employers encounter whenever Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) reviews Form I-9 records, H-1B program files, or other immigration-related activities. Coupled with the higher penalty amounts that took effect earlier this year, the rule may increase both the speed and the financial consequences of non-compliance.
The dollar amounts below were adjusted for inflation on Jan. 2, 2025, and remain in force under the procedures introduced on June 27.
These amounts apply to penalties assessed after Jan. 2, 2025, for conduct that occurred on or after Nov. 2, 2015.
There are several proactive measures U.S. employers may consider to prepare themselves in the event of a government audit. These include:
On June 4, 2025, the president published the Presidential Proclamation: Restricting The Entry Of Foreign Nationals To Protect The United States From Foreign Terrorists And Other National Security And Public Safety Threats. Effective June 9, 2025, the proclamation restricts entry into the United States for nationals of 19 countries based on national security concerns, with a number of exceptions.
A. Countries Subject to a Full Entry Ban (Immigrant and Nonimmigrant Visas, Subject to Exceptions)
Nationals of the following 12 countries are barred from entering the United States under all visa categories, including both temporary (nonimmigrant) and permanent (immigrant) visas:
This includes business and tourist visas (B-1/B-2), employment-based visas (e.g., H-1B, L-1), student and exchange visas (F, J, M), and immigrant visa applications. Individuals from these countries will not be eligible for any U.S. visa, unless an exception applies.
B. Countries Subject to a Partial Entry Ban (Certain Visa Types Restricted, Subject to Exceptions)
For the following seven countries, entry is suspended under specific nonimmigrant visa categories, and in some cases, visa validity will be shortened, with consular officers instructed to “reduce the validity for any other nonimmigrant visa issued”:
The affected visa categories include:
In addition, the Department of State will update visa reciprocity schedules to reflect shortened visa validity for certain classifications and nationals of these countries.
C. Exemptions and Clarifications
The following categories of individuals are not subject to the restrictions:
Employer Considerations
Stay Informed: Additional guidance from the Departments of State and Homeland Security, including waiver procedures and updates to visa reciprocity tables, may be forthcoming.
According to an internal State Department cable dated May 27, 2025, all consular interviews for the F, M, and J visa applicants are to be temporarily paused. This is only until new vetting procedures are published in the next several business days.
The cable cites Executive Orders 14161 and 14188, known respectively as Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats and Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism. The goal is to prepare for expanded social media vetting of all student and exchange visitor (FMJ) visa applicants.
The cable states “effective immediately…consular sections should not add any additional student or exchange visitor (F, M, or J) visa appointment capacity until further guidance is issued, which we anticipate in the coming days.”
The cable says that scheduled appointments can proceed under current guidelines, however if this new vetting policy comes into being soon, all of the existing appointments may be subject to additional vetting.
The cable does leave some opportunity for new appointments. It says that if a consular section desires to seek new appointments for FMJ applicants during this period, the consular section must consult with the Visa Office to do so.