Search results for: overstay

On June 4, 2025, following the terrorist attack in Boulder, Colorado, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced new measures – together with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) – to enhance the review of immigration records and address visa overstays. These efforts will include the following key actions:

  • USCIS, CBP, and ICE will more closely review immigration records to identify individuals who have overstayed their visas;
  • ICE will prioritize investigating and apprehending suspected visa overstays through stronger enforcement actions;
  • USCIS, CBP, and ICE will initiate expedited removal, apply legal penalties, and impose bars on future entry into the United States; and
  • USCIS will revise policies to tighten enforcement related to the issuance of visitor visas and the Visa Waiver Program to reduce overstay rates.

On April 22, President Trump, in a quick turn to interior immigration enforcement, issued a Presidential Memorandum (Memo) initiating a process to develop administration initiatives to address visa overstays in the United States. Last week, the Department of Homeland Security released the Fiscal Year 2018 Entry/Exit Overstay Report, stating a total overstay rate of 1.22%, or 666, 582 overstay events, among other metrics.

The Memo directs federal agencies to develop plans to address, mitigate, and enforce immigrations laws. The Memo deliverables include the following, among others:

  • Within 120 days of the date of this memorandum, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall provide to the president recommendations to reduce B-1 and B-2 nonimmigrant visa overstay rates from the identified countries.  With respect to any of the identified countries, the recommendations may include, as appropriate and to the extent consistent with applicable law, a proclamation, relying on authorities such as sections 212(f) and 215 of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a)), suspending or limiting entry of nationals of those countries who hold B-1 or B-2 visas; targeted suspension of visa issuance for certain nationals; limits to duration of admission, to be implemented by the Department of Homeland Security; and additional documentary requirements.
  • Within 180 days of the date of this memorandum, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide to the president a summary of the Department of Homeland Security’s ongoing efforts to reduce overstays from countries participating in the Visa Waiver Program, to include any recommendations for additional action necessary and appropriate to ensure the integrity and security of that Program.
  • Admission Bonds. The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall take steps to develop measures required for imposing admission bonds as a means for improving compliance with the terms and conditions of nonimmigrant visas. The secretaries shall provide a status report to the president within 120 days of the date of this memorandum.

Please see a previous post on the 2017 Entry/Exit Overstay Report and legislation addressing interior immigration enforcement in the last congress and the current congress (H.R. 2260, the ”E-bonding for Immigration Integrity Act of 2019”).

Please check back, as updates on this process and others will be posted as information becomes available.

For more on visa overstay policies, click here.

˘ Not admitted to the practice of law.

On Aug. 7, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released the Fiscal Year 2017 Entry/Exit Overstay Report (or Overstay Report). Visa Overstay Reports have been requested by Congress in recent fiscal years as a means to encourage development of a barometric Port of Entry visa checking system and to report on overstays that were identified as problematic in connection with the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States.

The 2017 Overstay Report calculated a total overstay rate of 1.33 percent, or 701,900 overstay events, versus an overstay rate of 1.25 percent (739,000 overstays) in FY 2016.

More FY 2017 Visa Overstay metrics from the release:

Visa Waiver Program (VWP) Country Overstay Rate This report separates Visa Waiver Program (VWP) country overstay figures from non–VWP country figures. For VWP countries, the FY 2017 Suspected In-Country Overstay rate was 0.51 percent of the 22,472,710 expected departures.

Non-Visa Waiver Program Participant Overstay Rate  For non-VWP countries, the FY 2017 Suspected In-Country Overstay rate is 1.91 percent of the 14,659,249 expected departures.

Student or Exchange Visitor Visa Overstay Rate For nonimmigrants who entered on a student or exchange visitor visa (F, M, or J visa), DHS has determined there were 1,662,369 students and exchange visitors scheduled to complete their program in the United States. However, 4.15 percent stayed beyond the authorized window for departure at the end of their program.

Canada and Mexico Overstay Rates  Unlike other countries, a majority of travelers from Canada and Mexico enter the United States by land. Figures pertaining to Canada and Mexico are presented separately from the other countries due to the fact that air and sea information represent a much smaller portion of the Canadian and Mexican travel population. For Canada, the FY 2017 Suspected In¬-Country Overstay rate for those traveling through air and sea POEs is 1.01 percent of 9,215,158 expected departures. For Mexico, the FY 2017 Suspected In-Country Overstay rate for those traveling through air and sea POEs is 1.63 percent of 2,916,430 expected departures. This represents only travel through air and sea POEs and does not include data on land border crossings. DHS is currently working to improve its monitoring capability for land POEs.

The Overstay Report continues to be an important accountability metric for Congress and has been used as the basis for oversight and new approaches to interior immigration enforcement such as H.R. 6089, the E-bonding for Immigration Integrity Act of 2018

Past Overstay Reports –

DHS Releases Fiscal Year 2016 Entry/Exit Overstay Report

Entry/Exit Overstay Report: Fiscal Year 2015 – Homeland Security

For more information on visa waiver programs click here.

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.

On May 21, 2026, USCIS issued Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199, outlining a change to the adjustment of status (AOS) process under Form I-485. The Policy Memorandum (PM) states that applicants for permanent residence should generally process for immigrant visas at U.S. embassies and consulates abroad following immigrant petition approval, except in limited circumstances. The PM reframes AOS as an “extraordinary discretionary benefit.”

AOS is the procedure for applying for permanent residence, commonly referred to as a “green card,” while physically in the United States. It is used by applicants who are in the U.S. and relies on a statutory framework outlining AOS eligibility criteria and the administrative process for adjudicating applications. For those outside the U.S., applicants for permanent residence go through a similar process at a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad, known as “consular processing.” The PM states that AOS is not an entitlement but a discretionary form of “administrative grace,” even where statutory eligibility is met. The PM characterizes AOS as an “extraordinary” remedy that allows applicants to “bypass” the immigrant visa process through consular processing, which the memo describes as the “normal” procedure that “the Congress generally expects aliens to follow.” The PM instructs officers to apply a case-by-case discretionary analysis, weighing positive and negative factors, including immigration violations, failure to maintain status, and failure to depart, as part of a totality of the circumstances assessment.

Who Does This Impact

The PM applies to all AOS applicants, including individuals with:

(1) pending or approved family-based immigrant petitions (Form I-130);
(2) pending or approved employment-based immigrant petitions (Form I-140); and
(3) pending or approved immigrant investor petitions (Form I-526/Form I-526E).

What Is New

The PM reframes AOS as secondary to consular processing. It characterizes AOS as an “extraordinary” form of relief, describes it as an exception that allows applicants to avoid consular processing and states that AOS should be granted sparingly.

What Is Important

The PM directs USCIS officers to evaluate whether an applicant should be granted AOS based on overall equities, including immigration compliance, moral character, family ties to the U.S., and conduct after admission as a nonimmigrant. Officers are instructed to conduct a totality of the circumstances analysis weighing positive against negative factors. The PM also confirms that discretionary denials must articulate why negative factors outweigh positive ones.

The PM elevates certain adverse factors, instructing officers to treat the following as “highly relevant”:

  • Failure to maintain nonimmigrant status;
  • Failure to depart after admission or parole;
  • Conduct inconsistent with the purpose of admission; or
  • Immigration violations or fraud.

The PM states that maintaining lawful nonimmigrant status in dual-intent categories (such as H-1B or L-1) does not automatically guarantee AOS approval; officers are still instructed to apply the totality of the circumstances test using the discretionary factors listed in the PM.

The current Administration has indefinitely suspended the issuance of immigrant visas via consular processing to nationals of 75 countries citing public charge concerns. Notably, the AOS process already includes public charge-related questions, while consular processing currently does not. A finding that an applicant does not warrant the “extraordinary measure” of AOS, combined with the immigrant visa suspension affecting nationals of those 75 countries, could leave a significant number of applicants unable to pursue permanent residence through either pathway. Such a broad suspension of immigrant visas raises questions regarding Congressional intent, given that Congress has statutorily authorized the issuance of 480,000 family-based green cards and 140,000 employment-based each year.

The U.S. embassies and consulates worldwide are also facing capacity constraints following staff reductions, and applicants pursuing consular processing may encounter lengthy wait times for immigrant visas. Applicants with unlawful presence or status violations may trigger a three- or 10-year bar to reentry if they travel abroad and may wish to carefully consider whether to depart and the potential impact on subsequent immigrant visa processing.

Impact on Pending AOS Applications

The PM does not address whether it applies to already pending or newly filed AOS applications. There is no stated effective date, and no specific changes have been made to the USCIS Policy Manual. Because USCIS may seek to apply the PM to pending applications, applicants may consider gathering evidence of positive discretionary factors, including U.S. employment, absence of immigration violations, family and community ties in the U.S., and U.S. investments (particularly for EB-5 investors). USCIS may issue Requests for Evidence (RFEs) seeking documentation to support the totality of the circumstances determination.

Impact on Travel and Work Authorization for AOS Applicants

The PM does not specifically address travel on an advance parole document (AP) or working pursuant to an employment authorization document (EAD) issued while an AOS applicant is pending with USCIS. However, applicants who use AP to travel internationally should be aware that if USCIS seeks to deny the AOS while they are abroad under this guidance, the applicant may face obstacles reentering the U.S. Travel on AP carries additional considerations considering the PM’s publication.

Travel on AP may also disrupt certain types of underlying nonimmigrant status, including B, E, F, J, H-1B1, and O status. Applicants may wish to remain in the U.S. and forego international travel on AP to preserve underlying nonimmigrant status where possible.

What’s Unclear

The PM is subject to a range of interpretations, and its practical application to specific nonimmigrant classifications, including long-term work-authorized categories (dual intent or otherwise), is presently unclear. The PM states that the current statutory framework and the validity of precedent appellate decisions remain unchanged; however, a number of the court decisions cited in the PM are dated or were decided in other contexts, such as removal proceedings and are not directly relevant to AOS applications.

Potential Court Challenges

The PM directs adjudicators to treat AOS as an extraordinary measure secondary to consular processing requiring a showing of “unusual or outstanding circumstances,” which represents a shift in agency practice. Both the statutory interpretation and the reading of case law cited in the PM may become subject to litigation, depending on how the agency’s adjudication practices change.

The AOS statute includes certain exceptions permitting individuals to apply for permanent residence even where they may have violated status, overstayed a visa, or worked without authorization. For example, an immediate relative (such as a spouse or parent of a U.S. citizen) may still apply for AOS without having maintained status or where unauthorized employment occurred. Similarly, the statute provides an exception for certain employment-based applicants who have had a period of unauthorized stay or unauthorized employment of fewer than 180 days. Some of the “negative” factors listed in the PM, including failure to maintain nonimmigrant status and failure to depart after admission or parole, appear to conflict with these statutory exceptions and could form the basis for legal challenge.

Congress has expressly passed the AOS statute permitting these applications. USCIS administers the AOS applications. U.S. federal courts interpret whether policies by USCIS, such as the PM, conflict with Congressional intent or the language of the statute passed by Congress. Litigation in the federal courts may focus on claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), including that the PM constitutes a rulemaking disguised as policy guidance (which would require public notice and comment procedures) and/or that the PM is not in accordance with the law (e.g. the “negative factors” listed in the PM conflict with statutory exceptions that still permit AOS approval).

From a policy standpoint, family reunification has been a longstanding principal of U.S. immigration law. Litigation may also focus on the PM’s expressed limitation of AOS as inconsistent with the statutory framework allowing AOS applications for family reunification, including in cases where an applicant violated status or accrued unlawful presence. For EB-5 applicants, Congress passed the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022 (RIA), which explicitly permits the concurrent filing of AOS applications. There may be potential litigation challenges asserting that the PM conflicts with the plain text and Congressional intent of the RIA.

Any forthcoming litigation will likely seek a temporary restraining order (TRO), which could pause the PM from taking effect and being applied to pending cases.

Practical Considerations

  1. Applicants may document positive discretionary factors in newly filed AOS applications, including family ties in the U.S., lawful employment, community involvement, and tax compliance.
  2. Applicants should maintain their underlying nonimmigrant status where possible and may wish to forego international travel on AP.
  3. Applicants with an approved immigrant petition (Form I-130, Form I-140 or Form I526/I-526E) may wish to file Form I-824 with USCIS to initiate an immigrant visa case with the National Visa Center, which may be used in the event of a subsequent AOS denial.
  4. USCIS may issue additional guidance or clarification on the PM. The PM states that USCIS may issue further guidance on certain AOS categories or discrete populations to aid officers in identifying which applications may or may not be affected. USCIS may also clarify its policy positions following further review of the impact on applicants.

The PM may result in increased difficulty in obtaining a green card through the AOS process, particularly for applicants with prior immigration violations or those holding purely nonimmigrant intent visa categories (B-1/B-2, E-1/E-2/E-3, F-1, J-1, TN, H-1B1, and O-1). While the PM signals potential changes to the AOS process, the underlying statute remains unchanged and the PM may be subject to court challenge.

The U.S. Department of State has expanded its visa bond pilot program for B1/B2 visitor visas, affecting nationals from dozens of countries around the world. This development represents a shift in how the government requires certain visa applicants to demonstrate their intent to comply with the terms of their U.S. entry.

Background

The visa bond requirement is rooted in Section 221(g)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and was established through a Temporary Final Rule (TFR) creating the pilot program. The program targets nationals from countries with elevated B1/B2 visa overstay rates, as measured by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)’s Entry/Exit Overstay Report. The underlying policy rationale is straightforward: by requiring an upfront financial commitment, the government aims to incentivize compliance with visa terms, particularly the requirement to depart the United States before the authorized period of stay expires.

Which Countries Are Affected?

The program has grown since its initial rollout. The Department of State’s most recent list, updated as of March 18, 2026, now includes nationals from more than 50 countries across Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, Latin America, and the Pacific. Nationals from these countries are subject to the requirement as of varying implementation dates:

Among the earliest additions (August and October 2025):

  • Aug. 20, 2025: Malawi and Zambia
  • Oct. 11, 2025: Gambia
  • Oct. 23, 2025: Mauritania, Sao Tome and Principe, and Tanzania

Added Jan. 1, 2026: Bhutan, Botswana, Central African Republic, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Namibia, and Turkmenistan.

Added Jan. 21, 2026: Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bangladesh, Benin, Burundi, Cabo Verde, Cote D’Ivoire, Cuba, Djibouti, Dominica, Fiji, Gabon, Kyrgyz Republic, Nepal, Nigeria, Senegal, Tajikistan, Togo, Tonga, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe, among others.

Effective April 2, 2026: The most recent expansion adds Cambodia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Grenada, Lesotho, Mauritius, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Papua New Guinea, Seychelles, and Tunisia.

How Much Is the Bond?

Any citizen or national traveling on a passport issued by one of the listed countries who is otherwise found eligible for a B1/B2 visa must post a bond in the amount of $5,000, $10,000, or $15,000. The specific amount is determined by the consular officer at the time of the applicant’s visa interview. Applicants should not attempt to pay a bond amount until they are specifically directed to do so by a consular officer.

How Does the Process Work?

The process involves several steps and specific requirements:

  1. Form I-352: Applicants must submit a DHS Form I-352, the Immigration Bond form.
  2. Payment through Pay.gov: Applicants must agree to the bond terms and make payment exclusively through the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s online platform, Pay.gov. The use of any third-party website is strictly prohibited, and the U.S. government will not be responsible for any funds paid outside of its official systems.
  3. Consular Direction Required: Applicants must wait for a direct link from the consular officer before submitting the form or payment. Fees paid without consular direction will not be refunded.
  4. No Guarantee of Issuance: Posting a bond does not guarantee that a visa will be issued.

Port of Entry Requirements

As a condition of the bond, visa holders who have posted a bond must enter and exit the United States exclusively through designated ports of entry. Currently, only commercial airports of entry are permitted, including U.S. Customs and Border Protection preclearance locations. Bond holders may not use charter air, general aviation, land, or seaports of entry. Failure to comply with this requirement may result in a denied entry or a departure that is not properly recorded.

When Is the Bond Returned?

The government will automatically cancel the bond and return the applicant’s money in the following circumstances:

  • DHS records the visa holder’s departure from the United States on or before the authorized period of stay expires;
  • The visa holder does not travel to the United States before the visa expires; or
  • The visa holder is denied admission at a U.S. port of entry.

What Constitutes a Bond Breach?

Cases where a visa holder may have violated the bond terms will be referred to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for a breach determination. Situations that may constitute a breach include:

  • Departing the United States after the authorized period of stay has expired;
  • Remaining in the United States beyond the authorized period without departing; or
  • Applying to adjust status out of nonimmigrant status, including filing for asylum.

Key Takeaways for Travelers and Practitioners

The expansion of the B visa bond pilot program holds potential financial and procedural consequences for affected nationals. Travelers from the listed countries should consider the following:

  • Check whether their country of nationality is on the list before applying for a B1/B2 visa.
  • Be prepared for the possibility of a bond requirement ranging from $5,000 to $15,000.
  • Follow all procedural requirements carefully, including using only official government payment channels.
  • Plan travel to ensure you depart the United States on time and through a qualifying commercial airport of entry.
  • Understand that applying for a change of status or asylum while in the United States on a bonded visa may trigger a breach determination.

Immigration counsel should consider advising clients from affected countries on these requirements well in advance of any visa application or travel planning.

On Dec. 16, 2025, the White House issued a presidential proclamation expanding restrictions on the entry of foreign nationals into the United States, advancing a policy framework rooted in national security considerations and data-driven assessments of vetting infrastructure in foreign countries. This development represents an extension of earlier travel and entry limitation policies, including Proclamation 10949, issued on June 4, 2025, which established broad entry restrictions on nationals from 19 countries.

Policy Scope and Expansion

Under the December 2025 proclamation, the United States continues and enhances entry limitations on some nations, based on criteria such as deficient civil documentation systems, lack of reliable law-enforcement cooperation, high visa overstay rates, and ongoing security challenges in certain countries. The expanded restrictions include the following elements:

  1. Continuation of full entry restrictions: The proclamation reaffirms and continues full restrictions on nationals from the 12 high-risk countries identified under Proclamation 10949: Afghanistan, Burma (Myanmar), Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. These designations reflect long-standing concerns regarding screening deficiencies, security risks, and limited government cooperation with U.S. authorities.
  1. Addition of new countries under full restrictions: The December proclamation subjects nationals of five additional countries—Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger, South Sudan, and Syria—to full entry restrictions, based on updated assessments of civil documentation challenges, terrorist activity, and overstay data. The new proclamation also subjects individuals holding Palestinian-Authority-issued travel documents to full entry limitations, an expansion which reflects security concerns in areas with compromised vetting capacity.
  1. Transition from partial to full restrictions: The new proclamation sees nationals of two countries formerly under partial restrictions—Laos and Sierra Leone—subject to full suspension of entry, based overstay data and other considerations.
  1. Partial restrictions on additional countries: The updated proclamation imposes partial entry restrictions on 15 additional countries, including Angola, Benin, Cote d’Ivoire, Gabon, Nigeria, Senegal, Tanzania, Zambia, and others. Partial restrictions generally limit specific categories of visas (e.g., tourist or student visas), while preserving discretionary adjudications and case-by-case assessments for other categories.
  1. Retention and adjustment of prior restrictions: Several countries originally under partial restrictions—Burundi, Cuba, Togo, and Venezuela—remain subject to limited entry provisions. The White House lifted non-immigrant visa limits on Turkmenistan, previously under partial restrictions, due to productive engagement; still, immigrant entry remains suspended for Turkmen nationals.

Exceptions and Waivers

The proclamation includes specified exceptions for U.S. lawful permanent residents, holders of valid visas issued prior to effective dates, diplomats, certain categories of essential travelers (including athletes), and individuals whose entry is clearly in the national interest. Additionally, case-by-case waivers remain available for extraordinary circumstances, though family-based immigrant visa exceptions have been narrowed to address concerns about fraud risk.

Rationale and Administration Perspective

The White House frames the expanded entry restrictions as necessary to “protect the security of the United States” by preventing the admission of foreign nationals whose identities and backgrounds cannot be reliably verified due to systemic deficiencies in civil documentation, overstay trends, and limited information-sharing mechanisms from foreign governments. The proclamation notes that these measures and others may be a path forward for foreign cooperation on vetting and security protocols, while safeguarding domestic security interests.

Contextual Developments

This proclamation follows policy measures from earlier in the year. Those measures tightened vetting and suspended asylum and certain benefit processing for nationals from high-risk countries, following security incidents involving foreign nationals. The policies, taken together, may represent a broader strategy aimed at integrating national security considerations directly into immigration policy and adjudicatory practices across agencies.

Practical Implications for Stakeholders

  • Travelers: Nationals of fully restricted countries may face suspension of both immigrant and non-immigrant entry unless they qualify under specific exceptions or obtain waivers. Those from partially restricted countries may encounter heightened scrutiny and limited visa validity.
  • Employers and Educational Institutions: Organizations hiring or hosting foreign nationals may wish to reassess timelines for visa processing and international mobility planning, particularly for student, work, and exchange visitor categories.
  • Compliance and Legal Advisers: Immigration counsel and compliance professionals may need to update internal policies and client advisories to reflect the expanded scope of restrictions and emerging guidance from the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State on implementation.

Conclusion

The December 2025 expansion of U.S. entry restrictions represents a shift in the intersection between immigration policy and national security enforcement. By broadening the list of fully and partially restricted countries and refining exceptions, the administration seeks to reduce security risk exposures while preserving targeted avenues for essential travel. Organizations and individuals affected by these changes should seek up-to-date guidance to help facilitate compliance and effective planning in a rapidly evolving regulatory landscape.

The U.S. government is rapidly expanding its use of AI across immigration and visa adjudications. While much of the public discussion focuses on efficiency and enforcement, these developments carry concrete and immediate implications for employers sponsoring foreign talent and investors pursuing U.S. immigration pathways, including EB-5, E-2, L-1, H-1B, O-1, and employment-based green cards.

AI-driven systems such as StateChat, ImmigrationOS, and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)’s Evidence Classifier are reshaping how immigration agencies review petitions, assess credibility, detect inconsistencies, and prioritize cases. As a result, employers and investors may assume that filings are increasingly scrutinized not only by human adjudicators, but also by automated tools trained to flag anomalies across large data sets.

StateChat: Faster Policy Interpretation, Less Adjudicator Discretion

The Department of State’s generative AI platform, StateChat, is designed to help consular officers and staff rapidly interpret internal policy guidance, draft communications, and analyze cables. Now widely deployed across the agency, the tool accelerates decision-making and reduces reliance on individualized judgment.

For employers and investors, this might mean:

  • Consular officers may apply policy guidance uniformly and rigidly, with less tolerance for creative or borderline arguments.
  • Inconsistent explanations across petitions, applications, or prior filings may be identified more quickly.
  • Novel fact patterns—common in emerging business models, startup structures, or complex investment vehicles—may face heightened scrutiny if they do not map cleanly onto existing policy frameworks.

Well-documented, policy-aligned submissions are becoming more critical, particularly for treaty investor visas, multinational executive transfers, and investor-backed enterprises.

ImmigrationOS: Expanded Data Integration and Risk Profiling

U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement’s ImmigrationOS platform aggregates data from multiple government and commercial sources to identify visa overstays, compliance gaps, and enforcement priorities. While positioned as a tool focused on high-risk individuals, its breadth has implications beyond enforcement actions.

For employers, ImmigrationOS underscores the importance of:

  • Maintaining accurate, consistent records across immigration filings, I-9s, payroll, and public-facing business information.
  • Ensuring that changes in job duties, worksite location, compensation, or corporate structure are properly reflected in amended or new filings.
  • Understanding that discrepancies may be detected algorithmically, not just during audits or site visits.

For investors, particularly EB-5 and E-2 applicants:

  • Source-of-funds narratives, business ownership records, and financial histories must align precisely across filings and databases.
  • Prior visa applications, travel histories, and business registrations may be cross-referenced in ways that were not previously routine.
  • Errors that once went unnoticed may now trigger delays, requests for evidence, or referrals for further review.

USCIS Evidence Classifier: Faster Review, Less Margin for Error

USCIS’s Evidence Classifier uses machine learning to automatically categorize and tag documents submitted with petitions. While intended to increase efficiency, it also standardizes how evidence is surfaced to adjudicators.

For petitioners, this might mean:

  • Disorganized, poorly labeled, or inconsistently presented evidence may be misunderstood or deprioritized.
  • Key documents that do not clearly align with expected categories may receive less attention.
  • Adjudications may move faster, leaving less opportunity to cure deficiencies through discretionary review.

Employers filing high-volume cases or investors submitting document-intensive petitions should consider precision in document organization, naming conventions, and explanatory exhibits.

Strategic Takeaways for Employers and Investors

As AI becomes embedded in immigration adjudications, the practical impact is clear:

  • Consistency matters more than ever—across filings, agencies, and years.
  • Data hygiene is critical—errors, omissions, or informal practices may create risk.
  • Policy-aligned narratives might outperform creative ones, particularly in adjudications automated tools influence.
  • Preparation should anticipate machine review, not just human judgment.

AI may speed adjudications, but it also reduces tolerance for ambiguity. Employers and investors who approach immigration strategy with rigor, documentation discipline, and forward-looking compliance planning may be best positioned to navigate this evolving landscape. The future of U.S. immigration adjudications is not just digital—it is algorithmic. Understanding that shift is now a business and investment imperative.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is expanding its use of facial recognition technology to airports, pursuant to a final rule published on Oct. 24, 2025, which it says will help address national security concerns related to terrorism, as well as document fraud and visa overstays. CBP, which already utilizes facial recognition technology at sea and land border crossings, plans to deploy facial comparison upon arrival via its Simplified Arrival program, and will rely on partnership with airlines for departures. The plan is for a full biometric entry and exit system to be implemented in the next three to five years.

CBP says the technology will access facial images for travelers by using data already available to CBP via passport, visa, and immigration applications. CBP will then compare live photographs against its records to verify travelers’ identities.

The public may submit comments for the next 30 days, but the facial recognition technology may go live at airports on Dec. 26, 2025.

The U.S. Department of State (DOS) has added additional countries to the list of nationals subject to the visa-bond pilot program (as reported in our previous blog pieces on Zambia and the Gambia). Beginning Oct. 23, 2025, nationals of Mali, Mauritania, São Tomé and Príncipe, and Tanzania will be required to post a refundable bond of USD $5,000, $10,000, or $15,000 when applying for new B-1/B-2 (business/pleasure) visas. The DOS announcement was made on Aug. 5, 2025, and the pilot originally commenced Aug. 20, 2025, covering two countries. It now covers seven countries.

Countries Designated and Effective Dates

  • Nationals of Malawi and Zambia are subject to the bond requirement as of Aug. 20, 2025.
  • Nationals of the Gambia will be subject to the bond requirement as of Oct. 11, 2025.
  • Nationals of Mali, Mauritania, São Tomé and Príncipe, and Tanzania will be subject to the bond requirement as of Oct. 23, 2025.

Operational Highlights (see prior articles for full background)

  • At the visa interview, a consular officer will determine whether a bond is required and set the amount at $5,000, $10,000, or $15,000.
  • Applicants must submit DHS Form I-352 and pay via the U.S. Treasury’s Pay.gov system.
  • Visas issued under the pilot will generally allow single entry and must be used within three months of issuance; the authorized stay may be limited (commonly to 30 days) for applicants subject to the bond.
  • The bond is refundable if the visa holder departs timely and maintains status; it is forfeited if the individual overstays or violates visa terms.
  • The requirement applies only to new B-1/B-2 visa applications from nationals of the designated countries during the pilot; existing valid B-1/B-2 visas are not impacted.
  • The pilot runs for approximately 12 months, ending around Aug. 5, 2026, though any bonds posted will remain in effect until they are cancelled or breached.

Business-Travel and Compliance Implications

With the expanded country list, global mobility teams and in-house immigration counsel may wish to update their flagged-nationality matrices to include Malawi, Zambia, the Gambia, Mali, Mauritania, São Tomé and Príncipe, and Tanzania. Employers may anticipate increased travel costs, and consider building in lead-time for visa appointment, bond payment, and deployment schedules under single-entry/three-month constraints and tracking departure and compliance to avoid forfeiture risk.

Consideration should be given to alternate models such as relocating training, board meetings, or business-travel functions to regional hubs or using remote formats for nationals of the newly listed countries. Firms should review and update travel-policy triggers, vendor communication protocols, and pre-assignment checklists given the dynamic nature of the designated-country list.

Multinational employers may wish to notify in-country entities and third-party vendors in the newly affected countries about the bond requirement change. While the rule currently applies only to B-1/B-2 visas, senior executives or investors from the designated countries who travel as business visitors should be evaluated for potential impact and alternate visa-category routing should be assessed.