Search results for: employers

Join Miriam C. Thompson, Greenberg Traurig Immigration & Compliance Shareholder, for the virtual CLE, “Global Talent, U.S. Compliance: Navigating Immigration and Mobility for Employers,” presented by the International Law Section of the State Bar of Georgia on Oct. 15.

The program will explore the employment-based immigration landscape, key employer compliance risks, and practical strategies for managing international mobility. Through real-world scenarios and interactive discussion, the panel will address how employers can sponsor, relocate and retain talent while aligning legal, HR and business priorities.

Register for the webinar.

During myLawCLE’s webinar, Greenberg Traurig shareholders Kate Kalmykov and Cole Heyer will present Preparing for an ICE Inspection: I-9 Self-Audits and Attorney-Client Privilege on Wednesday, Sept. 30 from 2:30 – 3:30 p.m. ET.  This session will focus on conducting an I-9 self-audit under attorney-client privilege in today’s evolving enforcement environment. Attendees will gain practical guidance on structuring and documenting an I-9 self-audit, addressing common compliance issues, and navigating recent enforcement developments. The program will also examine penalty considerations and strategies for avoiding common pitfalls, including overcorrection, backdating, document abuse, and re-verification errors. Participants will receive a practical framework for evaluating and strengthening their organization’s I-9 compliance processes.

Click here to register.

Use code I9ENF26 for complimentary webinar registration.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has issued an interim final rule establishing a framework under which the agency may require certain immigration benefit requests to be filed electronically. The rule, published on Aug. 11, 2026, took effect immediately.

The rule does not require applicants or petitioners to refile pending cases electronically, and it does not immediately eliminate paper filing for forms that currently permit or require paper submission. Instead, the rule creates the regulatory mechanism USCIS may use to transition particular forms — or specified categories within a form — from paper filing to mandatory online submission.

How Mandatory E-Filing Will Be Implemented

The Interim Final Rule permits USCIS to require certain immigration benefit requests to be submitted electronically. However, USCIS cannot immediately designate a form as mandatory for e-filing.

Before USCIS may require online filing for a specific form, two conditions generally must be met:

  1. The form must have been available for electronic filing for at least 180 days; and
  2. USCIS must then provide at least 60 days’ advance notice on its website identifying the affected form or filing category and the date on which the electronic-filing requirement will begin

USCIS may impose the requirement on an entire form or only on particular filing categories. Filers must review the applicable USCIS form page and instructions before each submission rather than assume that the same filing method applies to every use of a form.

Electronic filing may involve completing a form through a USCIS online account or uploading a PDF of the completed form, together with supporting evidence and other required documents. Once e-filing becomes mandatory for a particular request, USCIS may reject a paper filing that does not qualify for a waiver.

Waivers for Undue Hardship

The rule also establishes a waiver process for individuals who would experience undue hardship if required to file electronically. The availability of a waiver should not be treated as automatic. Individuals seeking an exception may need to follow a designated procedure and provide sufficient information supporting the request. USCIS must make the waiver form available before it begins mandating e-filing. The agency will issue additional instructions concerning the waiver procedure, required evidence, and applicable fee.

Practical Considerations

Mandatory electronic filing may ultimately create efficiencies, including faster intake, immediate submission confirmation, online payment, and easier access to case information. At the same time, the transition may present practical challenges for complex employment-based filings that include extensive supporting evidence, multiple related forms, premium-processing requests, or applications submitted concurrently. Employers may also need to revise internal review and signature procedures so that cases can be finalized and submitted through the USCIS online-account system without last-minute delays.

Although immediate filing procedures remain unchanged, employers may wish to begin preparing for a filing environment in which online submission may become mandatory on relatively short notice. Foreign nationals should monitor USCIS announcements, review online-account access and permissions, and evaluate whether existing document-collection and approval workflows can support electronic filing. Employers may also wish to utilize the electronic filing system proactively to build familiarity, as the setup and form completion processes can be complex and time-consuming. The rule signals USCIS’ continued effort to modernize benefit-request intake and adjudication, and it may eventually change how employers, foreign nationals, and their counsels prepare and submit immigration filings. USCIS is accepting public comments on the rule for 60 days following publication, which is Oct. 13, 2026.

U.S. immigration agencies have issued a series of rules, proclamations, and guidance over the past year that impact visa processing and travel for foreign nationals. One such measure began as an experiment and has now become an important piece of U.S. visa processing. On Aug. 3, 2026, the U.S. Department of State (DOS) published a final rule, “Visas: Visa Bond Program,” making the visa bond framework DOS began piloting in August 2025 permanent. The final rule took effect the same day it was published.

For companies that send personnel to the United States for meetings, conferences, training, and short-term projects — and for the individuals who make those trips — the shift from pilot to permanent program is more than a bureaucratic footnote. Refundable cash bonds of up to $20,000 are now an enduring feature of the B-1/B-2 landscape for travelers from designated countries, which raises planning considerations that employers should consider building into their global mobility strategies.

From Pilot to Permanent Program

DOS’ authority for the program is not new. Section 221(g)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) has long authorized consular officers to require a visitor visa applicant who is otherwise eligible for a visa to post a bond to help confirm that the traveler maintains status and departs the United States as required. For decades, as a matter of policy, consular officers were not instructed to exercise that authority. The 2025 temporary final rule launched a 12-month pilot to test whether a bond requirement could be administered at scale and whether it would meaningfully affect compliance.

DOS concluded that it could and did. According to the final rule, the pilot generated data suggesting that visa bonds are an effective tool for encouraging compliance, and DOS has determined that a permanent program is operationally feasible. The rule amends 22 CFR Part 41 to institutionalize the program and situates it within the broader enforcement priorities articulated in Executive Order 14159, which directs the Treasury Department, working with DOS and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), to establish a system for administering bonds required under the INA. In short, what was a one-year test has become a standing rule.

Who May Be Required to Post a Bond

The program reaches a defined population. It applies to applicants for B-1 (business visitor) and B-2 (tourist) visas who are nationals of countries DOS has designated based on a combination of factors: high visa overstay rates, deficient information sharing, insufficient identity verification and criminal-records infrastructure, and shortcomings in screening, vetting, and the security of travel and civil documents. Countries participating in the Visa Waiver Program are not included, and designation is not automatic even when a country meets the stated criteria — DOS has reserved flexibility over which countries it lists.

Notably, although the underlying statute would also permit bonds for certain student (F) visa applicants, DOS has limited the permanent program to B-1/B-2 applicants. Its stated rationale is that the authorized period of stay for visitors is fixed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) at the port of entry and is comparatively short, which makes the bond mechanism easier to administer and monitor. Still, employers may wish to treat that limitation as a current design choice rather than a permanent boundary, particularly given that DOS has the authority to adjust the program’s contours over time.

The list of covered countries lives on DOS’ site, rather than in the regulation itself. DOS will announce covered countries at least 15 days before the program takes effect in a given country, and it may revise the list on a rolling basis — additions carry a 15-day lead time, while removals take effect immediately. Nationals who were already subject to a bond requirement under the pilot continue to be subject to it under the permanent program as of the effective date, so there is no gap or reset for travelers already included on the pilot list.

How Much, and How the Amount Is Set

Under the permanent program, a covered applicant may be required to post a bond of up to $20,000, with the consular officer selecting from three fixed levels — $10,000, $15,000, or $20,000 — based on the applicant’s individual circumstances. These amounts are higher than they were during the pilot.

The rule gives consular officers a default and a framework rather than open-ended discretion. Officers are expected to set the bond at $15,000 in ordinary cases. The amount drops to $10,000 where the officer believes the applicant could not afford $15,000 yet would remain able to fund the intended trip, and it rises to $20,000 where the applicant’s circumstances — including the nature and extent of the applicant’s ties to the United States — suggest that $15,000 would not be sufficient to ensure a timely departure. DOS also built in an inflation mechanism: beginning Oct. 1, 2027, and every seven years thereafter, the $20,000 ceiling will adjust automatically based on the Consumer Price Index, rounded up to the nearest $1,000.

Payment, Travel Limits, and Refunds

Bonds are administered through a Treasury-operated payment platform, with funds held at a U.S. financial institution acting as the government’s agent. Payment must be made electronically and in U.S. dollars for the full amount. The applicant bears any exchange costs, card-processing fees, or cross-border transfer limitations — practical frictions that may matter when a five-figure sum must clear from abroad on a compressed timeline. No interest accrues on a posted bond.

A visa issued to a bonded traveler carries an annotation reflecting the bond and comes with meaningful limits. Depending on visa reciprocity, the visa may be valid for three months single entry, three months multiple entry, or up to 12 months multiple entry. Notably, a bonded traveler may only enter and depart the United States through commercial airports of entry, including CBP Preclearance locations — land and sea ports are off limits. Travel to a contiguous territory after admission is possible under the automatic revalidation rules, but the traveler’s ultimate departure abroad must occur through a commercial U.S. airport so the system can confirm the departure.

The bond is fully refundable when the traveler complies. In general terms, the bond is cancelled and the principal returned when the traveler departs on time through a commercial airport and otherwise satisfies the conditions of the visa, or when the visa expires without the traveler having arrived in the United States. Refunds go back to the original form of payment, without interest, and may be subject to offset through the Treasury Offset Program for unrelated debts.

Breach and Forfeiture

Travelers may find themselves surprised at the provisions governing forfeiture. A bonded traveler forfeits the entire bond amount upon a substantial violation of its terms. Beyond the obvious trigger — remaining in the United States past the authorized period of stay — the rule identifies several others that may warrant close attention. Filing an untimely request to extend or change status is a violation, as is failing to depart within 10 days after a timely extension or change-of-status request is denied. Additionally, filing for asylum or another form of humanitarian protection on Form I-589 is expressly treated as a breach that forfeits the bond.

Equally important is a subtler point about extension and change-of-status filings. While filing a timely extension or change-of-status request is not itself a breach, the rule states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may treat the existence of a visa bond as a negative discretionary factor when it adjudicates that request. In practice, a bonded B-1/B-2 traveler who hopes to change status after arriving in the United States may face both a financial cliff if a filing is untimely and a discretionary headwind even when it is timely.

The mechanics of enforcement run through DHS. An automated review may flag a preliminary finding of noncompliance, but DHS will make the final breach determination under 8 CFR 103.6(c)(3) and notify the obligor in writing. Appeal rights are governed by 8 CFR 103.3 and the associated bond forms.

Waivers

The final rule does not create a formal waiver application, and travelers may be unable to count on one. Because DOS assumes every applicant would prefer not to post a bond, there is no process to request a waiver on an individual basis. Consular officers may recommend a waiver only in narrow circumstances — such as travel by U.S. government employees or urgent humanitarian needs — and the Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs (or a designee) retains discretion to waive the requirement for an individual, a category of applicants, or an entire country where doing so would not be contrary to the national interest.

Practical Considerations for Employers and Travelers

For global employers, the permanent program reframes routine visitor travel from designated countries as a matter that requires advance planning and budgeting. Companies that rely on B-1 business visitors from affected countries may wish to confirm each traveler’s nationality against the current DOS list prior to scheduling a consular appointment. Impacted employers should also consider setting aside a five-figure cash outlay per traveler and accounting for the time it takes to fund and clear an electronic payment from abroad. Where short-term visitor travel is business-critical, employers may wish to evaluate whether an alternative visa classification is a better fit than a bonded B-1 for the individual and the assignment.

Travelers themselves should understand the compliance stakes before they board a flight. The refund depends on strict adherence to the visa’s terms, departure through a commercial airport, and — above all — timely departure or a properly filed, timely extension. The provisions treating an untimely filing, a post-denial overstay, or an asylum application as forfeiture events mean that decisions made after arrival might cost the full bond.

The Bigger Picture

The Visa Bond Program is part of a broader enforcement posture taking shape across DOS, DHS, CBP, and USCIS through rulemaking, proclamations, policy memoranda, and adjudication practice. The country list may change; the bond ceiling will rise with inflation; and DOS has left itself room to adjust the program’s scope. Employers and foreign nationals should therefore consider treating global mobility planning as dynamic. Accordingly, they may wish to revisit relevant travel strategies as designations shift and should consider building the possibility of a bond requirement into timelines and budgets, rather than confronting it at the consular window.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Recent weeks have provided a reminder of just how quickly the U.S. immigration landscape can change.

In early June 2026, a federal court decision struck down the $100,000 fee imposed on certain H-1B petitions. Within days, however, the federal government appealed the decision and obtained a temporary stay, creating renewed uncertainty about whether the fee would remain in place while the litigation proceeds.

While the legal battle over the fee continues, the broader lesson extends beyond the H-1B program: immigration planning calls for employers and foreign nationals to prepare for continued policy shifts, litigation-driven uncertainty, and changing compliance obligations.

The $100,000 H-1B Fee: A Brief Overview

The $100,000 fee originated from a September 2025 presidential proclamation and applied to certain new H-1B petitions involving beneficiaries outside of the United States who would require consular processing. The stated purpose was to discourage perceived abuse of the H-1B program and protect U.S. workers. On June 8, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts invalidated the fee, concluding that:

  • The fee functioned as a tax rather than a regulatory filing fee;
  • The executive branch lacked authority to impose such a tax without congressional approval; and
  • The implementing agencies exceeded their authority and violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

The court vacated the policy in its entirety, providing immediate relief for employers facing additional costs associated with H-1B sponsorship.

Temporary Relief

The federal government quickly appealed the Massachusetts court’s decision, seeking a stay pending review by the First Circuit Court of Appeals. The Circuit Court granted a temporary stay, effectively allowing the government to continue enforcing the fee while the appellate process unfolds.

As a result, employers face uncertainty regarding filing strategies, workforce planning, and immigration budgets. A policy that appeared invalid one week was back in effect the next.

This sequence of events highlights a recurring trend in today’s immigration environment: policy developments often do not end with a district court ruling. Appeals, injunctions, stays, and conflicting court decisions sometimes alter the practical impact of a decision within days.

For employers, the litigation illustrates the potential benefits of building flexibility into immigration budgets, hiring timelines, and global mobility planning.

Considerations for Employers

Employers should evaluate whether particular H-1B filings may be affected by the fee, especially where the beneficiary is outside the United States or the petition requires consular notification. At the same time, companies may wish to avoid making long-term workforce decisions based solely on a single court ruling or headline. Appeals, stays, and further agency action may change the practical effect of a decision quickly.

Organizations that rely on temporary visa programs may wish to monitor litigation developments and assess budget exposure for affected cases.

Potential Implications for Foreign Nationals

For foreign nationals, the case underscores the potential benefits of maintaining flexibility and planning. Some nonimmigrant visa holders depend on a series of immigration benefits — petition approvals, visa appointments, extensions, status maintenance, and travel authorization — to remain in and work in the United States. Policy changes affecting any one of those stages may create delays and uncertainty.

The recent litigation involving both the H-1B fee and other challenged immigration policies demonstrates that even seemingly favorable court rulings may not produce long-term certainty. Appeals may prolong uncertainty for months or even years.

One question raised by the government’s decision to appeal is why further litigation is necessary if the fee was originally implemented for a limited period and is reportedly scheduled to expire in September 2026. While the government has not publicly articulated all of its reasons, the appeal may reflect broader institutional interests that extend beyond the collection of the fee itself. For example, the administration may seek to preserve the underlying legal authority asserted in the presidential proclamation, avoid creating judicial precedent that could limit future immigration-related actions, or maintain the ability to collect the fee during the remaining period in which it is authorized. Whatever its motivation, the government’s appeal may signal that it considers the legal issues important notwithstanding the fee’s potentially limited remaining lifespan.

Looking Ahead

Further appellate review — and, potentially, additional litigation — may determine the fate of the $100,000 H-1B fee. For now, employers and foreign nationals should monitor developments and consider seeking case-specific immigration guidance before making filing, hiring, budgeting, or travel decisions.

Regardless of its outcome, the litigation surrounding the H-1B fee highlights a broader reality of modern immigration practice: policy shifts can occur rapidly, and immigration planning may benefit from proactive strategies rather than reactive responses.