Search results for: TPS

The landscape for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and humanitarian parole continues to change rapidly, creating uncertainty for hundreds of thousands of foreign nationals and posing significant compliance challenges for U.S. employers.

Recent developments involving Haiti, Venezuela, Ukraine, and other TPS-designated countries demonstrate that temporary immigration protections may change quickly due to government action, federal court decisions, and evolving agency guidance. Employers and foreign nationals should carefully evaluate how these developments might affect employment authorization, Form I-9 compliance obligations, and long-term immigration planning.

Haiti TPS: End of Protection Creates Urgent Need for Planning

One of the most significant recent developments involves the termination of Haiti’s TPS designation. Haiti TPS beneficiaries have relied on temporary protection and employment authorization for several years due to ongoing country conditions. However, DHS announced the termination of Haiti TPS, and after litigation-related delays, the termination process has moved forward. As a result, affected Haitian nationals may lose both protection from removal and employment authorization unless they qualify for another form of immigration relief.

For employers, Haiti TPS presents a significant Form I-9 compliance issue. Employees who previously relied on TPS-related Employment Authorization Documents may have received extensions or continued work authorization based on litigation or government notices. Employers may not rely on the expiration date printed on an EAD card without reviewing the applicable USCIS guidance and determining whether the employee continues to have valid work authorization. Affected individuals may also wish to evaluate whether they have alternative immigration options, including employment-based sponsorship, family-based immigration, asylum, or other available humanitarian pathways.

Venezuela TPS: Multiple Designations Create a Complicated Legal Landscape

Venezuelan nationals face one of the most complicated TPS situations because Venezuela has been designated for TPS twice, creating two different categories of beneficiaries with different eligibility timelines and employment authorization considerations.

DHS actions seeking to terminate Venezuelan TPS have been challenged through litigation, resulting in a shifting legal landscape. The status of Venezuelan TPS beneficiaries has depended on factors including the applicable designation, registration period, court decisions, and subsequent USCIS guidance. This means that Venezuelan TPS holders must not be evaluated as a single group. Two Venezuelan nationals with TPS may have different rights depending on when they registered, which designation applies to them, and whether their work authorization has been extended through agency action or court order.

Employers with Venezuelan TPS employees should carefully review each employee’s documentation and applicable Form I-9 guidance before taking any action based on an EAD expiration date. Similarly, Venezuelan nationals should consider whether they have options beyond TPS, including employment-based immigration, family-based options, asylum, or other forms of relief. The uncertainty surrounding Venezuelan TPS highlights the broader challenge with relying on temporary humanitarian protections as a long-term immigration strategy.

Ukraine: Humanitarian Parole Requires Long-Term Planning

Ukrainian nationals in the United States have largely relied on humanitarian parole programs, including Uniting for Ukraine, rather than TPS. Unlike TPS, humanitarian parole is inherently temporary and does not provide a direct path to permanent residence. Individuals who entered through parole may wish to track their parole expiration dates and determine whether they qualify for another immigration benefit before their authorized stay expires.

Depending on their circumstances, Ukrainian nationals may qualify for other options, including employment-based sponsorship, family-based immigration, asylum, or other humanitarian protections. However, continued reliance on parole alone may create uncertainty as parole periods approach expiration. Employers should also be aware that an employee who initially received work authorization through a humanitarian parole program may require careful review when employment authorization must be reverified.

Other TPS Designations Remain Uncertain

Beyond Haiti and Venezuela, several other TPS designations remain subject to changing government policy and litigation. Countries affected include Afghanistan, Burma (Myanmar), Cameroon, Ethiopia, Honduras, Nepal, Nicaragua, Somalia, South Sudan, and Yemen, among others. The result is a complex patchwork where protections may differ based on country, registration date, litigation status, and the specific government guidance currently in effect.

Employer Compliance Considerations

For employers, the current environment requires careful attention to Form I-9 compliance.

Employers may wish to:

  1. Review current USCIS guidance before reverifying employment authorization for TPS and humanitarian parole employees.
  2. Avoid making employment decisions based solely on an expired EAD without determining whether an extension applies.
  3. Maintain consistent procedures for employees whose work authorization depends on temporary programs.
  4. Monitor developments affecting countries represented in their workforce.

Employers should also consider conducting proactive reviews of their workforce to identify employees whose work authorization depends on TPS, parole, or other temporary programs.

Temporary Protection Requires Permanent Planning

TPS and humanitarian parole provide critical protection during periods of crisis, but they are temporary solutions. Recent developments involving Haiti, Venezuela, Ukraine, and other countries demonstrate the importance of evaluating longer-term immigration strategies. Foreign nationals relying on temporary protections should consider whether they qualify for permanent immigration options before their current status or work authorization expires. Employers may also want to take a proactive approach to immigration planning to minimize disruption and maintain compliance.

As the legal and policy landscape continues to evolve, both employers and foreign nationals should closely monitor developments affecting TPS, humanitarian parole, employment authorization, and workplace compliance obligations.

As previously reported on Greenberg Traurig’s Inside Business Immigration blog, the Department of State (DOS) established a temporary Paid Expedite pilot program allowing certain B-1/B-2 visa applicants to pay an additional fee for expedited visa interview scheduling. DOS has now launched the pilot program, providing eligible applicants at designated U.S. consular posts with the opportunity to obtain earlier visa interview appointments.

The pilot program began on July 21, 2026, at Mission Mexico, which includes all U.S. consulates in Mexico. DOS has indicated that additional participating consular posts may be announced before the pilot concludes on Dec. 31, 2026.

Under the program, eligible applicants may pay an additional $750 fee, in addition to the standard $185 Machine Readable Visa (MRV) fee, to obtain a visa interview appointment within 10 business days, subject to availability.

Key Details of the Paid Expedite Program

The Paid Expedite program applies only to visa interview scheduling. Payment of the additional fee does not expedite the visa adjudication process or guarantee faster visa issuance.

Applicants remain subject to the same eligibility requirements, documentary requirements, and security screening procedures applicable to all visa applicants. The expedited fee does not:

  • Increase the likelihood of visa approval;
  • Waive any applicable visa requirements;
  • Expedite administrative processing or security checks; or
  • Accelerate visa issuance after the interview.

Applicants and employers should therefore understand that the program provides faster access to an interview appointment but does not alter the underlying visa adjudication process.

Eligibility and Program Limitations

The Paid Expedite option is available only at designated consular posts and only while expedited appointment capacity remains available. To participate, applicants must already have a scheduled visa interview appointment. Applicants applying through the interview waiver process are not eligible for the Paid Expedite option. Applicants who previously requested and were denied a traditional emergency appointment may still qualify for a Paid Expedite appointment if they meet the program requirements.

The program also includes several important restrictions:

  • Paid Expedite appointments may only be scheduled once.
  • Paid Expedite appointments cannot be rescheduled.
  • If an applicant cancels the expedited appointment, the $750 fee will be forfeited.

Practical Considerations for Applicants and Employers

The Paid Expedite option may be beneficial for individuals whose primary challenge is securing a timely visa interview appointment. This may include business travelers with urgent professional commitments, including client meetings, conferences, or other time-sensitive travel needs.

However, employers and applicants should carefully consider whether interview availability is the primary factor affecting the anticipated travel timeline. Cases requiring additional administrative processing, security review, or further documentation may continue to experience delays even when the interview occurs on an expedited basis.

Employers may wish to plan international travel well in advance and account for potential post-interview processing delays when coordinating employee travel.

Looking Ahead

DOS has described the Paid Expedite program as a temporary pilot designed to assess demand, operational impact, and the effectiveness of a fee-based expedited scheduling model.

Following the conclusion of the pilot on Dec. 31, 2026, DOS will evaluate whether to extend, expand, or modify the program. For now, applicants should view the Paid Expedite option as a mechanism to obtain earlier access to a visa interview appointment — not as an expedited visa adjudication or issuance process.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has denied the federal government’s request to stay a district court order blocking the administration’s H-1B measures, including the proposed $100,000 filing fee.

The litigation is ongoing, but the ruling means the lower court’s decision remains in effect, providing temporary relief for employers sponsoring H-1B workers.

What Did the Court Decide?

The First Circuit declined the government’s request to pause the district court’s injunction while the appeal proceeds. As a result, the lower court’s ruling invalidating the $100,000 H-1B filing fee remains in force, and the challenged H-1B entry restrictions associated with the rule are not currently enforceable.

Current Implications for Employers

At present:

• United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) cannot collect the proposed $100,000 H-1B filing fee. Instead, employers generally remain subject to the existing H-1B filing fee structure, which typically includes approximately $3,380 in mandatory government filing fees for most employers, depending on employer size and other applicable fees.

• Employers filing H-1B petitions are not subject to the challenged entry restrictions.

• The district court’s order remains in effect unless overturned by a higher court.

This provides temporary certainty for employers that delayed or reconsidered H-1B hiring due to the proposed fee increase.

Is This the Final Word?

No. The administration may seek emergency review from the U.S. Supreme Court. In addition, the underlying district court litigation remains ongoing and could result in further developments, including a different ruling from the district court or a reversal on appeal. If the Supreme Court grants relief or a higher court ultimately rules in the government’s favor, the legal landscape could change.

What to Expect Next

USCIS may issue updated guidance and filing instructions reflecting the First Circuit’s decision. Employers and practitioners may wish to monitor announcements regarding filing procedures and agency implementation in the coming days.

Until further guidance is issued, employers should continue preparing and filing H-1B petitions under the current fee structure, while remaining aware that additional litigation could affect the process.

In May 2026, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued a policy memorandum signaling a shift in how employment-based permanent residence cases may be processed. The memorandum encourages adjudicators to deny adjustment of status (Form I-485) applications rather than issue requests for evidence (RFEs) in appropriate cases, with the expectation that many applicants could instead pursue immigrant visa processing abroad through U.S. consulates.

Considered alongside the current state of the Department of State (DOS), the policy raises an important question: can DOS realistically absorb an increase in these cases?

Recent reports suggest the answer is uncertain. Also see our June 2026 blog post on early implementation trends.

A Department Under Strain

A recent Financial Times article describes challenges facing the DOS. More than half of U.S. ambassadorial positions reportedly remain vacant, staffing has been reduced by more than 20%, and over 3,000 employees have departed. Career diplomats have been replaced at historically low rates, while consular sections – already managing high visa demand – are expected to operate with fewer personnel and reduced institutional experience.

Although embassies continue operating under Chargés d’Affaires, leadership vacancies and workforce reductions affect efficiency, consistency, and the DOS’ capacity to process complex immigration matters.

For years, employment-based applicants have generally viewed adjustment of status as the more predictable path to permanent residence because it allows them to remain in the United States while USCIS adjudicates the case. If a growing number of applicants are instead required to complete processing through U.S. consulates overseas, the operational realities at DOS become important.

What This Could Mean for Employment-Based Applicants

Longer Processing Times

Shifting cases from USCIS to DOS may transfer existing backlogs from one agency to another rather than reduce overall processing times.

Employment-based immigrant visa cases often require coordination across multiple government agencies, including the National Visa Center and the applicable U.S. embassy or consulate. Reduced staffing and fewer available interview appointments could lengthen the time required to complete permanent residence processing.

For employers planning workforce transitions or international recruitment, these delays may create uncertainty.

Greater Risk of Status Gaps

A key advantage of adjustment of status is that applicants may remain lawfully present in the United States while the application is pending.

Applicants pursuing consular processing, however, face a different set of challenges.

If an individual reaches the end of their underlying nonimmigrant status before an immigrant visa interview becomes available, questions may arise regarding whether they can lawfully remain in the United States while waiting for overseas processing. Depending on the facts of the case, applicants may need to maintain an independent nonimmigrant status for a longer period than originally anticipated.

This is particularly important for employees whose H-1B, L-1, E-2, TN, or other temporary status may be approaching expiration.

Employment Authorization May No Longer Be Available

Applicants adjusting status in the United States generally become eligible to obtain employment authorization documents (EADs) and advance parole while their Form I-485 is pending.

Applicants pursuing immigrant visa processing abroad generally do not receive these interim benefits.

As a result, employers may need to rely on extensions of underlying work-authorized status. Where extensions are unavailable, interruptions in employment authorization are a possibility worth planning for.

Travel and Mobility Challenges

Adjustment applicants typically receive advance parole allowing international travel while their green card application is pending.

Consular processing requires applicants to coordinate travel, visa interviews, medical examinations, and international logistics. Delays in visa issuance following an interview can result in employees remaining abroad for an extended period, disrupting business operations and personal obligations.

Variability in Visa Adjudications

Reduced staffing may also affect consistency.

Officers handling complex employment-based immigrant visa cases with less experience may produce greater variation in adjudications. Applicants and employers should anticipate more detailed interview preparation and more comprehensive supporting documentation.

Practical Considerations for Employers

Employers sponsoring permanent residence should evaluate whether employees have a viable strategy for maintaining work authorization if processing extends beyond original expectations.

Considerations include:

  • Reviewing expiration dates for underlying nonimmigrant status.
  • Identifying employees who may require additional H-1B, L-1, or other status extensions.
  • Preparing for longer overseas processing timelines.
  • Assessing business continuity if key personnel must remain abroad pending visa issuance.
  • Building additional time into onboarding and workforce planning.

Looking at the Broader Picture

These developments may represent more than a temporary adjustment.

If USCIS increasingly directs applicants toward consular processing while DOS continues operating with reduced staffing and leadership vacancies, employment-based immigration processing may experience changes affecting where cases are adjudicated and the timing of permanent residence processing.

Immigration strategies that assumed adjustment of status as the default path warrant review, with greater attention to maintaining nonimmigrant status, preserving uninterrupted work authorization, and preparing for longer and more complex consular processing.

As federal immigration agencies continue to evolve, permanent residence planning will benefit from evaluating how the immigration system functions as an interconnected whole rather than focusing on any single agency’s policy change in isolation.

In this episode of the Immigration Insights Podcast, co-chairs of Greenberg Traurig’s Global Immigration & Compliance Practice Kate Kalmykov and Courtney Brooks discuss how artificial intelligence is transforming USCIS adjudications and what employers and applicants need to know to stay ahead of an increasingly demanding compliance environment.

The hosts explain that Requests for Evidence (RFEs) have surged across all visa categories and are now broader, more detailed, and informed by data pulled from external sources including government databases, business registries, and social media. AI is enabling officers to cross-reference filings with a speed and thoroughness that was not previously possible, making consistency across filings, organizations, and time a critical concern.

Kate and Courtney walk through the key visa categories most affected including H-1B, L-1, O-1 and EB-1A petitions. National Interest Waiver denials and RFEs have risen sharply, with officers pressing for measurable, demonstrable impact.

On the I-9 compliance front, enforcement has intensified, penalties have increased, and AI is being used to map related corporate entities and extend audits across them. Unprecedented cross-agency coordination among USCIS, ICE, DOL, IRS, SSA, and CBP means that tax, payroll, and other records are now readily accessible to adjudicators across contexts.

The hosts close with practical takeaways: to centralize and standardize immigration filings, conduct proactive internal audits, use AI tools to anticipate what the government may find, prepare thorough documentation upfront, and communicate transparently with employees about the current climate. Both agree that AI-driven adjudication is here to stay and that organization, consistency, and preparation are the keys to navigating it successfully.

As discussed elsewhere on this blog, DHS has finalized a new rule governing F-1 status, scheduled to take effect on Sept. 15, 2026. The rule’s core change is to eliminate Duration of Status (D/S) for F-1 students, J exchange visitors, and I foreign media representatives, replacing it with fixed admission periods and requiring extensions of stay where additional time is needed.

Key Changes to F-1 Status and Day One CPT Under the New Rule

That change matters to Day One Curricular Practical Training (CPT) because it operates within the broader F-1 status framework. Even where the Day One CPT rules themselves remain intact, the shift from open-ended status to fixed admission periods might change how employers assess Day One CPT as an option for employees whose Optional Practical Training (OPT) or STEM OPT is expiring, whose H-1B registration is not selected, or whose H-1B strategy needs more time. To be clear, the new F-1 rule does not eliminate Day One CPT and does not make substantive changes to CPT eligibility or the DSO’s role in authorizing CPT. But it does change the planning environment around Day One CPT in ways that may matter for hiring, retention, I-9 reverification, and immigration contingency planning.

The principal change is to the surrounding compliance framework. Because the rule replaces open-ended duration of status for F-1 students with fixed admission periods, if a student needs more time to complete a program, begin a new higher-level program, or continue authorized practical training beyond the current fixed period, the student may need to file an extension of stay with USCIS. Depending on the employee’s I-94 expiration date, travel history, transition-rule posture, and new Form I-20 program dates, moving from F-1 OPT or STEM OPT into a new CPT-eligible program may require a Form I-539 extension-of-stay filing.

Work Authorization, I-94 Expiration, and Extension of Stay: Employer Compliance Considerations

Employers relying on Day One CPT may therefore need to track more than the CPT dates on Form I-20. Under the fixed-period framework, the employee’s Form I-94 expiration date, the I-20 program end date, the 30-day grace period, the DSO-authorized CPT end date, and any timely filed Form I-539 receipt might all matter. This may lead to a major shift for workforce planning. Under the prior D/S model, employers often focused solely on the I-20 CPT authorization dates. Under the new fixed-period framework, while the I-20 is still essential, it is no longer the only timing document that matters. A CPT endorsement that runs beyond the employee’s I-94 expiration date may not be enough by itself. If an extension of stay is required, the employee must file it on time, and the employer must understand what documentation supports continued work authorization.

The new rule also restricts some enrollment strategies historically used for Day One CPT planning. F-1 students below the graduate level generally cannot transfer schools or change educational objectives during the first academic year unless the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) authorizes an exception. Graduate-level students generally cannot change educational objectives during the program and cannot transfer during the program unless SEVP authorizes an exception for extenuating circumstances. The rule also limits use of F-1 status for another program at the same or lower educational level after a student completes a program following the rule’s effective date. This is particularly important because some employees have pursued a second master’s program to obtain Day One CPT after OPT or STEM OPT, or after H-1B lottery non-selection.

Transition Periods, Transfers, and Second-Degree Restrictions for F-1 Students

Employers should also be aware of the transition period to the new rules. F and J nonimmigrants who were admitted for D/S and are properly maintaining status on Sept. 15, 2026, generally may remain in the United States without filing an extension of stay until the program end date or EAD expiration date valid on the effective date, subject to an outside transition limit. For F nonimmigrants, the rule identifies Nov. 14, 2030, as the outside date for this transition period. Certain F-1 students admitted for D/S who timely file post-completion OPT or STEM OPT employment authorization applications on or before March 18, 2027, are not required to file Form I-539 for that requested OPT or STEM OPT period, although travel and readmission under a fixed admission period may change the analysis. Employers might not assume that every current F-1 employee would immediately need a Form I-539 on Sept. 15, 2026, but may wish to review each affected employee’s I-94, I-20, EAD, travel plans, and practical-training timeline.

The rule also creates a limited safety valve for certain timely filed extensions. If USCIS receives the F-1 student’s extension-of-stay application before the start of the 30-day F-1 grace period, current CPT may continue while the extension is pending, for up to 240 days, but only through the CPT end date reflected on the DSO-endorsed Form I-20 and only until USCIS adjudicates the extension. For I-9 purposes, the employee’s I-94, combined with a USCIS receipt notice for the extension-of-stay application and the DSO-endorsed CPT I-20, may be treated as unexpired only within those limits. If the student files during the 30-day grace period, the student may be able to remain and study while the extension is pending but cannot continue or begin CPT employment until the extension is approved. For employers, that distinction is critical. A grace-period filing would create an immediate work stoppage for an existing employee or require a waiting period until USCIS approval to begin work.

In short, Day One CPT does not disappear, but it is no longer a casual bridge strategy. The new F-1 rule turns timing, documentation, degree progression, and extension-of-stay planning into central workforce planning issues. Employers that rely on international talent should identify affected employees now and build earlier decision points into immigration calendars. As a practical matter, employers might calendar review points well in advance of an I-94 expiration date, separately track the start of the 30-day grace period, the CPT end date, the Form I-539 receipt date, the 240th day after the relevant expiration trigger, and the extension-of-stay decision date.

The chart below summarizes key differences between the prior D/S framework and the new fixed-period framework as they relate to Day One CPT.

Day One CPT ElementPrior D/S Framework for Day One CPTNew Fixed-Period Framework for Day One CPT
Admission periodI-94 generally issued for duration of status while the student maintained F-1 status and had a valid SEVIS/Form I-20 basis for study or practical training.I-94 will reflect a fixed expiration date, generally tied to the I-20 program length and capped at four years, plus the 30-day grace period. OPT and STEM OPT timing may be tied to the EAD or DSO-recommended employment dates, depending on posture.
Work authorization timingEmployers typically focused on the DSO-endorsed Form I-20 CPT authorization dates, along with ordinary I-9 documentation.Employers must track the DSO-endorsed CPT dates, I-94 expiration dates, the start of the 30-day grace period, any Form I-539 receipt, the 240-day automatic-extension outside date, and the extension-of-stay decision.
Extension of stay procedureA DSO-issued or updated Form I-20 generally supported continued F-1 stay without a separate USCIS extension-of-stay filing, assuming the student maintained status.Form I-539 may be required if the student needs time beyond the current I-94 expiration date. To avoid a CPT work stoppage, USCIS should receive the extension-of-stay application before the 30-day departure period begins.
EOS filed during 30-day departure periodGenerally not applicable in the same way under D/S; most F-1 program extensions did not require a routine Form I-539 extension-of-stay filing.The filing may be timely for purposes of remaining and studying while pending, but the student may not begin or continue CPT or other employment while the extension is pending. Work may resume only if the extension is approved.
Transfers and program changesPotentially greater flexibility to transfer schools or change programs, subject to ordinary F-1, CPT, and SEVIS requirements.Below the graduate level, first-year transfers and changes in educational objectives are restricted absent an SEVP exception. Graduate-level students generally cannot change educational objectives or transfer during the program unless SEVP authorizes a narrow exception.
Same-level degreeA second same-level program might sometimes support continued F-1 study and CPT if the program and CPT independently satisfied F-1 and CPT requirements.After completing a program after the rule’s effective date, a student generally may not maintain, be admitted, or otherwise be provided F-1 status for another program at the same or lower educational level.

Recent news reports regarding the erroneous registration of noncitizens to vote serve as an important reminder of a broader issue that immigration practitioners encounter with increasing frequency: the disconnect between state administrative systems and the federal immigration system.

While these incidents often generate discussion about election administration, they also highlight an equally important concern — the potentially severe immigration consequences that may arise when noncitizens unknowingly rely on inaccurate information or actions taken by a government agency.

For many noncitizens, a routine interaction with a state agency may become a significant immigration issue years later. Unfortunately, because state and federal agencies often operate independently, the consequences of an administrative error may not become apparent until an individual applies for an immigration benefit or is otherwise reviewed by federal immigration authorities.

A Disconnect Between State and Federal Systems

Some people assume that federal immigration agencies and state agencies communicate seamlessly. In reality, they often operate independently, with different responsibilities and limited coordination.

State agencies responsible for driver’s licenses, voter registration, and jury administration generally do not have direct access to federal immigration systems to verify an individual’s immigration status. Likewise, federal immigration agencies — including U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Department of State — may not become aware of a state administrative action until years later, when an individual applies for lawful permanent residence, naturalization, a visa, or another immigration benefit.

By that point, what began as a routine interaction with a state agency may require a detailed legal analysis under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

How These Situations Might Arise

Many states offer voter registration during driver’s license applications or renewals pursuant to the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (Motor Voter Act), 52 U.S.C. §§ 20501 et seq. While the law was designed to increase voter participation, it also means that routine DMV transactions may inadvertently create immigration issues when citizenship is not accurately verified.

Mistakes might occur for many reasons, including:

  • Misunderstanding an applicant’s immigration status;
  • Incorrectly recording citizenship information;
  • Processing voter registration despite an applicant declining it;
  • Applicants inadvertently signing electronic forms; or
  • Language barriers that prevent applicants from fully understanding the forms they are completing or the legal significance of what they are signing.

Some noncitizens might assume that if a government employee offers voter registration or processes an application, they must be eligible. Others receive official correspondence from a government agency and may believe it must be accurate. What appears to be a routine administrative process may have profound immigration consequences.

Jury Summonses Present Similar Challenges

Voter registration is not the only example.

Noncitizens occasionally receive jury summonses because their names are drawn from driver’s license records, voter registration databases, or other state records that incorrectly identify them as eligible for jury service.

Receiving a jury summons does not necessarily mean an individual is legally qualified to serve. However, recipients might assume that because the notice came from a government agency, they are expected — or even required — to comply. Others may disregard the summons without understanding the procedures for requesting disqualification.

In some cases, individuals do not consult immigration counsel because they view the matter as a routine administrative issue rather than one with potential immigration implications.

These examples illustrate how disconnected government systems might create confusion for individuals who are attempting to comply with official government instructions.

Immigration Consequences May Be Significant

The immigration consequences of erroneous voter registration, voting by a noncitizen, or falsely claiming U.S. citizenship can be severe.

False Claims to US Citizenship

One of the most significant concerns is whether an individual is found to have falsely represented himself or herself to be a U.S. citizen for a purpose or benefit under federal or state law.

INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) renders inadmissible any noncitizen who falsely represents himself or herself to be a U.S. citizen for any purpose or benefit under the INA or any federal or state law. A corresponding ground of deportability appears in INA § 237(a)(3)(D).

Unlike other immigration violations, a false claim to U.S. citizenship often carries permanent immigration consequences, and for some individuals there is no general waiver available.

Whether a false claim occurred depends on the specific facts, including what representations were made, what documents were signed, and whether the statutory elements have been satisfied. Even where an individual acted without fraudulent intent or relied on a government error, the issue may still require careful legal analysis.

Voting by a Noncitizen

Federal immigration law separately addresses unlawful voting.

INA § 237(a)(6) provides that a noncitizen who has voted in violation of any federal, state, or local constitutional provision, statute, ordinance, or regulation is removable.

In addition, voter registration or unlawful voting may become relevant during applications for naturalization, where USCIS evaluates whether an applicant has established the required good moral character under INA §§ 101(f) and 316(a).

Whether these provisions ultimately apply depends upon the specific facts, the applicable federal and state laws, and the statutory requirements governing each ground of inadmissibility or removability. Every case requires an individualized legal analysis.

These Issues May Surface Years Later

One of the most challenging aspects of these cases is timing.

The issue might not arise until years after the original DMV visit or receipt of a government notice. It may first be identified during:

  • A naturalization interview;
  • An adjustment of status application;
  • Consular visa processing;
  • Removal proceedings; or
  • Another immigration adjudication involving a review of the individual’s history.

By then, records may be difficult to obtain, memories may have faded, and reconstructing the circumstances surrounding the original event can be challenging.

Government Error Does Not End the Analysis

The fact that a government agency made the initial mistake does not necessarily resolve the immigration analysis.

Federal immigration authorities may still examine:

  • What representations were made;
  • What documents were signed;
  • Whether the individual ultimately registered or voted;
  • Whether the statutory requirements have been met; and
  • Whether any statutory exceptions or defenses apply.

USCIS may review voter registration records, DMV documentation, signed applications, and other evidence when adjudicating immigration benefits. As a result, an administrative error that initially appeared inconsequential may become the subject of detailed scrutiny years later.

Each situation must therefore be evaluated on its own facts and under the applicable provisions of the INA.

Practical Considerations

Noncitizens may wish to exercise particular caution when interacting with state agencies. They should consider:

  • Carefully reviewing all documents before signing them, even if they appear to be routine DMV paperwork.
  • Avoiding assumptions about eligibility for rights or benefits reserved for U.S. citizens simply because it is offered or processed by a government employee.
  • Asking for clarification or an interpreter before signing documents that reference citizenship or voter registration if English is not their primary language.
  • Promptly contacting the appropriate election authority to determine their registration status and, where appropriate, request cancellation if they unexpectedly receive voter registration cards.
  • Following the court’s procedures for notifying it that they are not eligible to serve if they receive jury summons.
  • Consulting experienced immigration counsel before taking action if they receive any government notice involving voting, jury service, or another right or obligation that may depend upon U.S. citizenship. What appears to be a routine administrative matter may carry significant immigration consequences.

A Need for Better Coordination

These situations underscore the challenges that arise when state administrative systems and the federal immigration system operate independently.

Greater coordination between federal and state agencies, improved training for government employees, clearer guidance regarding citizenship verification, and increased public education may help prevent administrative errors from evolving into significant immigration issues years later.

Until greater safeguards are in place, noncitizens should recognize that even routine interactions with state agencies may have important immigration implications. Careful review of government forms, an understanding of eligibility requirements, and timely legal advice might help avoid unintended consequences that may not become apparent until much later in the immigration process.

For immigration practitioners, these cases serve as an important reminder that a seemingly minor administrative error today may become a complex legal issue years later. As immigration enforcement and benefit adjudications continue to rely on information collected across multiple levels of government, ensuring that individuals understand the distinction between what a state agency permits and what federal immigration law allows has never been more important.

On July 17, 2026, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a final rule that will impact how F-1 students, J-1 exchange visitors, and I media representatives are admitted and maintained in the United States. The rule eliminates the long-standing “duration of status” (D/S) framework and replaces it with admission for a fixed period.

The regulation may increase government oversight of nonimmigrant status maintenance. The rule is scheduled to take effect on Sept. 15, 2026, subject to congressional review requirements.

What Is Changing?

For nearly 50 years, most F-1 students, J-1 exchange visitors, and I media representatives have been admitted to the United States for “duration of status,” rather than a fixed expiration date. Under that system, individuals generally remain in status if they continue to comply with the terms of their program and maintain valid Student & Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) records.

Under the new rule, DHS will instead admit certain nonimmigrants for a specific period, as reflected on their I-94 admission record. Once that period expires, the individual generally will be required to either:

  • Depart the United States;
  • Obtain an approved extension of stay from USCIS; or
  • Change to another valid immigration status.

According to DHS, the change is intended to provide greater oversight and allow the government to more effectively monitor whether individuals continue to qualify for their nonimmigrant classification.

Increased USCIS Involvement

The rule creates a formal extension-of-stay process for individuals who need additional time to complete their studies, exchange programs, or authorized activities.

Historically, many program extensions were handled through school officials or exchange program sponsors within SEVIS. Under the new framework, additional government adjudication by USCIS will be required in many circumstances.

This means affected individuals may face:

  • Additional filing fees;
  • Longer planning timelines;
  • Potential processing delays;
  • Additional vetting and background review; and
  • Increased compliance obligations.

Impact on F-1 Students

DHS states that F-1 students will generally be admitted for the length of their academic program, subject to maximum admission limits established by the rule. Students who need additional time to complete a degree program, dissertation, research project, or other educational requirements may need to obtain a USCIS-approved extension before their admission period expires. The rule will also reduce certain grace periods available after completion of studies and impose new restrictions relating to program changes and status maintenance.

Impact on J-1 Exchange Visitors

J-1 exchange visitors and their sponsors may also see increased compliance requirements.

Some J-1 participants currently rely on program extensions managed through exchange sponsors. The final rule introduces a more formalized process with greater federal oversight, potentially requiring USCIS involvement for extensions beyond the authorized admission period. Organizations that host researchers, trainees, interns, physicians, professors, and other exchange visitors should consider evaluating how the new requirements may affect program timelines and future planning.

Impact on Employers

While the new rule primarily targets students, exchange visitors, and media representatives, employers may feel collateral impacts. Companies employing F-1 students pursuant to OPT or STEM OPT programs may see:

  • More frequent status monitoring;
  • Additional extension filings;
  • Potential work authorization disruptions if extension requests are delayed; and
  • Greater need for immigration compliance tracking.

Employers that hire international graduates may wish to review onboarding and workforce planning processes to address the new admission structure.

What About Individuals Already in the United States in D/S Status?

An important question for employers is whether the rule will immediately affect F-1 students and J-1 exchange visitors who are already in the United States under the current duration of status (D/S) framework. Based on the transition provisions, many individuals already in D/S status will not need to depart the United States or obtain a new admission period solely because the rule takes effect. However, the practical impact may be most evident when they travel internationally, seek a new admission, begin a new program, require additional time beyond their current authorization, or otherwise interact with the immigration system after the effective date.

For employers that hire F-1 students on OPT or STEM OPT, the rule’s most practical impact may be less likely to involve current employees than future hires, as well as employees who travel abroad, require extensions, or otherwise need renewed immigration authorization after the rule takes effect.

Potential Unlawful Presence Consequences for Individuals Already Out of Status

The rule may have consequences for certain F, J, and I nonimmigrants who have already completed or otherwise ceased participating in their authorized program but have remained in the United States while benefiting from the current D/S framework. Under existing policy, individuals admitted in D/S generally do not begin accruing unlawful presence solely because they fall out of status; unlawful presence typically begins only after a formal status violation finding or other triggering event. Under the final rule, however, such individuals may begin accruing unlawful presence as of the rule’s Sept. 15, 2026, effective date if they remain in the United States without a valid immigration status or other authorization. As a result, foreign nationals who have remained in the United States following completion or termination of their program should consider evaluating their immigration situation before the rule takes effect, as the accrual of unlawful presence may lead to immigration consequences, including three-year and ten-year bars to reentry after departure from the United States.

Why DHS Made the Change

DHS stated that the purpose of the regulation is to provide additional protections, increase oversight, and allow the government to better evaluate whether F, J, and I nonimmigrants continue to maintain lawful status while in the United States. The agency also cited concerns that the duration-of-status system made it more difficult to monitor compliance and identify individuals who remained in the United States beyond the period intended by their immigration classification.

Takeaways

The elimination of D/S marks a shift in U.S. immigration policy, affecting international students, exchange visitors, educational institutions, sponsors, and employers alike.

Organizations may wish to prepare by:

  • Reviewing populations currently holding F, J, and I status;
  • Developing systems to track I-94 expiration dates;
  • Anticipating additional extension filings;
  • Budgeting for increased filing costs and processing times; and
  • Providing proactive guidance to affected foreign nationals.

Although the rule does not become effective immediately, its implementation may require adjustments from both institutions and individuals that have long operated under the duration-of-status framework. Stakeholders should monitor additional DHS and USCIS guidance as implementation approaches.

On July 18, 2026, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that it received sufficient H-1B petitions to reach both the 65,000 regular H-1B cap and the 20,000-U.S. advanced degree exemption (master’s cap) for fiscal year 2027.

Because the statutory cap has been met, USCIS will not conduct an additional H-1B lottery this FY.

No Second H-1B Lottery for FY2027

In prior years, USCIS conducted additional H-1B selection rounds when an insufficient number of initially selected beneficiaries filed petitions to meet the annual cap. Those supplemental lotteries provided another opportunity for registrants not selected in the initial lottery.

This year, however, USCIS confirmed that it received enough petitions to satisfy both the regular cap and the master’s cap.

What This Means for Individuals Not Selected

Individuals whose registrations were not selected in the initial FY2027 lottery will not have another opportunity to be selected this FY. They will need to wait until the FY2028 H-1B registration period, which is expected to open in early 2027, provided they remain eligible and have a sponsoring employer prepared to submit a new registration.

The announcement also highlights the continued competitiveness of the H-1B program. Demand for H-1B visas continues to far exceed the number of visas available under the annual statutory cap.

Planning Ahead

Employers that were unable to secure H-1B selection should evaluate alternative immigration options as early as possible. Depending on the employee’s qualifications and circumstances, potential alternatives may include:

  • Cap-exempt H-1B employment through qualifying institutions.
  • O-1 classification for individuals with extraordinary ability.
  • L-1 intracompany transferee visas for multinational employers.
  • TN status for eligible Canadian and Mexican professionals.
  • E-3 visas for qualifying Australian nationals.
  • Other employment-based immigration options suited to the individual’s circumstances.

Employers may also wish to begin planning for the FY2028 H-1B registration season by assessing future hiring needs and identifying prospective candidates in advance of the registration period.

In this episode of the Immigration Insights Podcast, host Kate Kalmykov and her colleague Jennifer Hermansky, both members of Greenberg Traurig’s Global Immigration & Compliance Practice, break down the most pressing developments in the EB-5 regional center program as a critical deadline approaches.

The discussion opens with a detailed explanation of the Sept. 30 grandfathering deadline established under the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act (RIA). Investors who file their I-526E petition before that date will be protected in their immigration journey regardless of whether Congress reauthorizes the EB-5 program beyond its current sunset date of Sep. 30, 2027.

The hosts explain what grandfathering does and does not protect, including the anticipated inflation-based investment amount adjustment coming in January 2027, the continued applicability of the Child Status Protection Act, and the potential for Congress to introduce new program requirements upon reauthorization.

Kate and Jen offer practical guidance for investors seeking to file before the deadline, emphasizing the importance of early preparation, thorough source of funds documentation, and avoiding last-minute filings.

A significant portion of the episode is also devoted to a series of favorable Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) decisions overturning USCIS denials in cases involving partial investments.

The episode concludes with breaking news: on the day of recording, July 1, USCIS released its long-awaited Notice of Proposed Rulemaking implementing the RIA more than four years after the law’s enactment. Kate and Jen note that there will be follow-up podcast and detailed analysis once they have completed their review!