In this timely episode of Big Law Redefined Podcast’s Immigration Insights Series, Kate Kalmykov and Jennifer Hermansky, Greenberg Traurig Immigration & Compliance Practice attorneys, break down the latest developments in the EB-5 immigrant investor program as of September 2025.

With the clock ticking toward the expiration of key grandfathering provisions under the Reform and Integrity Act (RIA), they discuss the rush to file, the importance of source of funds documentation, and pitfalls of incomplete or skeletal filings.

The episode explores significant changes in USCIS and State Department policies, including stricter scrutiny of Communist Party membership, retroactive review of lawful source of funds, and the impact of the new travel ban on investors from certain countries.

Kate and Jen share updates on EB-5 processing times, visa issuance delays, and strategies for maintaining lawful permanent residence, including reentry permits and SB-1 returning resident visas.

They provide insights into planning EB-5 filings amid uncertainty, navigating complex compliance requirements, and protecting family members under changing Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) rules.

Kate and Jen also address recent trends in adjustment of status filings, work and travel authorization, and the potential for visa retrogression.

Tune in to learn more about EB-5 information updates and fast-moving immigration policies in 2025.

Click here to listen to the full episode.

Why These Documents Matter for Employers

Until recently, U.S. employers faced some uncertainty about how the June 4, 2025, Presidential Proclamation restricting entry from 19 countries would be implemented. While the proclamation itself outlined broad restrictions and limited exceptions, it provided little detail about the practical processes, approval standards, or internal government priorities that would govern day-to-day visa adjudications. In late August 2025, Department of State (DOS) guidance cables were released providing employers with valuable insight into how these restrictions operate in practice. (See DOS Cables, “Demarche Points: Presidential Proclamation On Restricting,” June 8, 2025, AILA Doc. No. 25090200 (posted Sept. 2, 2025)). The cables provide specific procedural requirements for National Interest Exceptions (NIE), including exact approval authorities and workflow processes that were previously unknown. The guidance provides examples of what types of travel will and will not qualify for exceptions, along with DOS priorities and the “America First” framework guiding decisions. DOS also detailed processing instructions including refusal codes, annotation requirements, and documentation standards, while clarifying proclamation language through operational guidance. For employers, this guidance may eliminate guesswork about whether specific business needs qualify for exceptions and provides insight into the government’s interpretation of the proclamation’s terms.

Countries Affected

On June 4, 2025, President Donald Trump issued Presidential Proclamation 10949, which suspends the entry of nationals from 19 countries under Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The restrictions, which took effect on June 9, 2025, impose a full suspension of entry for nationals of 12 countries (Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen) and a partial suspension for nationals of seven additional countries (Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela). For the partial-suspension countries, visa categories widely used by employers, such as B-1/B-2 business visitors and F, M, and J student and exchange visitor visas, are blocked unless an exception applies. DOS confirms that the suspension applies only to foreign nationals who are outside the United States and do not hold a valid visa on the effective date. Importantly, no visas issued before June 9, 2025, were revoked because of the proclamation, providing some protection for employees currently holding valid documentation.

National Interest Exceptions (NIEs): Internal Guidance Reveals Limited Scope

DOS guidance provides details about NIE processing that was previously unknown. Specifically, DOS instructs consular officers that NIEs should be “used rarely” and the “relationship of travel to U.S. national interests should be exceptional in nature.” The guidance emphasizes a “significantly higher standard” than previous travel restrictions and directs officers to consider applications “from an America First perspective.” Most significantly for employers, the guidance states that “routine purposes of travel including visiting family members in the United States, routine business travel, employment, or study in the United States will typically not be considered to be advancing a U.S. national interest.”

The NIE Review Process

DOS also details the complete NIE workflow, which involves multiple layers of review and approval. An applicant must first qualify for the underlying visa and complete all standard processing before being refused under Section 212(f) using a specific refusal code. The interviewing consular officer must then prepare a detailed action memorandum that the chief of mission (COM) must personally approve and forward to Washington, D.C. Final approval requires sign-off from the assistant secretary for consular affairs or senior bureau official. If approved, the visa must be annotated with specific language: “NIE to PP on [date] Travel.” The guidance notes that, by requesting an NIE, “the COM is personally attesting that the visa applicant’s identity is not in question, and that the applicant does not represent a threat to U.S. national security or public safety.” This personal attestation requirement demonstrates the high level of scrutiny and oversight applied to NIE decisions.

Qualifying and Disqualifying Factors for NIEs

DOS provides specific examples that potentially qualify for NIE approval, including travel for or on behalf of the U.S. government, including training for U.S. government employees, and travel at the request of a U.S. government department for legitimate law enforcement, foreign policy, or national security purposes. International sports competitions at the professional level may qualify, as may business with international organizations designated under the International Organizations Immunities Act. Critical missions or Department priorities endorsed by a COM and urgent, nonroutine humanitarian medical treatment not possible outside the United States round out the categories that might receive approval.

The guidance, however, is explicit about what will definitively not qualify. DOS states that applicants traveling for education, work, or training in the United States, including continuing students or resuming employment, will not receive NIE approval. Travel that would cause financial hardship, personal hardship including emotional distress, educational hardship, or noncritical harm to an applicant’s health and well-being is also excluded. The guidance specifically notes that applicants traveling to help or aid U.S. citizen family members or for routine commercial or business purposes will not qualify. Finally, DOS clarifies that qualifying for a Priority Appointment Request “does NOT in and of itself indicate the applicant meets the bar for national interest necessary for an NIE,” eliminating another potential pathway that employers might have considered.

Other Exceptions: Protected Categories and Special Circumstances

DOS confirms several categories that do not require NIE approval, including lawful permanent residents of the United States, dual nationals traveling on passports from non-designated countries, and holders of various diplomatic visa classifications such as A-1, A-2, C-2, C-3, G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, and NATO categories. DOS also provides details on the sports exception, clarifying that it applies only to athletes, coaches, persons performing a necessary support role, and immediate relatives. The guidance explicitly states that accredited media and commercial partners do not benefit from this exception, despite their involvement in major sporting events.

Iranian Religious and Ethnic Minorities

For Iranian nationals specifically, the cables identify particular groups who qualify for the Iranian minority exception. These include Ahwazi Arabs, Azerbaijani Turks, Baha’i, Balouch, Christians, Jews, Kurds, Sabean-Mandaeans, Sufi Muslims, Sunni Muslims, Yarsans, and Zoroastrians. The guidance notes that ‘it is not necessary that an applicant have experienced individualized persecution,’ broadening the potential applicability of this exception beyond those with direct persecution experience.

Potential Implications for U.S. Employers

DOS makes clear that virtually all employment-related travel is excluded from NIE consideration. This includes not just new hires, but “continuing students or resuming employment,” meaning existing employees or students may not qualify based on their employment or educational status. This represents a shift from previous travel restrictions that frequently permitted business-critical personnel through exception processes. The guidance’s explicit exclusion of “routine commercial or business purposes” eliminates some business travel justifications that employers previously relied on. The exceptions for U.S. government business or international organizations will apply to few private-sector needs, leaving some employers without viable pathways for business-critical travel from the affected countries. Employees from affected countries who hold valid visas issued before June 9, 2025, may continue to travel, but the guidance makes clear that obtaining replacement visas may be difficult.

What the Cables Tell Us

DOS’ guidance provides employers with clarity about government priorities and processes in this area. While the NIE pathway requires meeting specific criteria and involves thorough review procedures, understanding these requirements enables employers to make informed decisions about international mobility strategies. The structured review process, with its 90-day and 180-day assessment intervals, provides a framework for potential policy adjustments as countries work to address identified security and vetting concerns. Armed with this guidance, employers may wish to develop more targeted approaches to workforce planning and international operations.

According to senior Biden administration officials, President Joe Biden will issue a new presidential proclamation to officially rescind the travel ban that restricted entry into the United States for individuals traveling from Botswana, Eswatini, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, and Zimbabwe. President Biden is expected to lift the ban effective 12:01am ET on Dec. 31, 2021, bringing to an end all of the travel bans into the United States. However, travelers will still need to abide by U.S. COVID-19 vaccination and testing requirements to travel to the United States.

On Jan. 18, 2021, President Trump issued a Presidential Proclamation terminating his previous Presidential Proclamations restricting travel from certain Schengen areas (Proclamation 9993), UK/Ireland (Proclamation 9996), and Brazil (Proclamation 10041). President Trump cites recent developments in the battle against COVID-19, including the CDC requiring negative COVID-19 tests for all air passengers entering the United States from a foreign country, and cooperation from the countries listed above. President Trump had also issued Presidential Proclamations banning travel from China and Iran, and the restrictions from those countries have not been lifted.

The terminations for the three Proclamations will be effective at 12:01 a.m. EST on Jan. 26, 2021. There are, however, expectations that President-elect Joe Biden, once he takes office, will delay the termination for a few weeks until there is a better understanding from his administration on how the U.S. is faring vis-à-vis COVID-19.

Ian R. Macdonald and Kristen W. Ng were recently featured in an article on The LexBlog Network titled, “Third Time’s a Charm? Greenberg Traurig’s Team Breaks down Trump’s Latest Travel Ban.” In this Q&A, Macdonald and Ng explore the third version of the Trump Administration’s travel ban and what it means for employers and employees going forward, including next steps for those affected and a forecast on what’s to come. To read the entire interview, please click here.

 

On Tuesday, Oct. 10, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed an appeal in Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project (16-1436), one of the cases challenging a provision in a now-expired version of President Trump’s travel ban (Executive Order No. 13780).

Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court Dismisses Travel Ban Case

On June 26, 2017, the Supreme Court partially lifted the injunctions granted by the Fourth and Ninth Circuits on President Trump’s second Executive Order commanding a temporary travel ban. The Supreme Court narrowed the application of travel ban, which will now only apply to nationals from the six designated countries “who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”

Department of State (DOS), the agency responsible for issuing visas at U.S. consulates, has been responsible for drafting the majority of government guidance on implementation, and we anticipate the largest impact to be on those processing visas abroad.  DOS has now provided initial guidance on what they will consider to be a “bona fide relationship.”  For business ties the relationship must be “formal, documented and formed in the ordinary course rather than for the purpose of evading” the travel ban. For family ties “close ties” will include a parent, spouse, child, adult son or daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, or sibling in the United States.  Grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, fiancées, as well as additional extended family will not be considered “close.”

Guidance from Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the agency responsible for inspecting and admitting visa holders to the United States, directs implementation at the ports of entry begin at 8 p.m. Thursday, June 29 ; however, some airports have indicated they may begin implementation as early as 10:30 a.m. on Thursday, June 29.  All individuals currently in possession of valid visas will be permitted to travel.  Accordingly, CBP anticipates little impact at the ports of entry.

As previously reported, the Supreme Court of the United States lifted the injunctions that were granted by the Fourth and Ninth Circuits after President Trump issued his second Executive Order mandating a temporary travel ban. This means that the second Executive Order (EO) is now in effect as of June 29.

The injunctions for the travel ban were issued for three sections: 1) 90 day suspension of travel for nationals from the following six countries: Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen (Section 2(c)); 2) 120 day suspension of refugee admission into the United States (Section 6(a)), and 3) the reduction of the refugee cap (Section 6(b)).  Other parts of the EO were not addressed in the injunctions, but many were nevertheless effectively moot if those two sections were not in effect.

The Supreme Court, in lifting the injunctions on the EO, narrowed the scope of application for Sections 2(c), 6(a), and 6(b).  Specifically, those sections will only apply to nationals from the six designated countries “who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” This means that the travel ban and refugee admission sections will not apply to those who have a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. Specifically, the Supreme Court gave examples of what bona fide relationship means, which are the following:

  1. For individuals:  a close familial relationship.
  2. For entities:  a relationship that is formal, documented and formed in the ordinary course, and could include students and nonimmigrant workers.

The Supreme Court did not clarify how the bona fide relationship will be determined, by what entity it will be determined, and whether there will be any changes related to entry into the United States or the visa application process. The Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State have not yet issued any guidelines, but it is worth noting that the Supreme Court, in its analysis, references a waiver that a foreign national may apply for, on a case-by-case basis, if he or she can meet the criteria that denial of entry would: 1) cause undue hardship; 2) the entry would not pose a threat to national security, and 3) it would be in the  national interest for the person to enter the United States.

Commonly Asked Questions

Questions on International Travel/ Entry into the United States:

  • Who is affected?

Nationals from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen who do not hold green cards or other valid visas, and do not have a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States as of June 26, 2017.

  • What can you expect when traveling?

It is likely that there will be heightened security.  If you are traveling with a passport from one of the six countries, it is important to carry additional documents to prove your bona fide relationship to a person or entity in the United States.  Expected guidance from government agencies should be published shortly.

  • What if I am traveling with a passport from one of the six countries, but I have a valid visa stamp?

You may be permitted to travel into the United States, but CBP may want to see documents to prove your bona fide relationship to a person or entity in the United States.

  • What if you are a dual national?

The EO specifically states that dual nationals using a passport that is not from one of the six countries will not be affected, though you may be subject to additional scrutiny.

  • Should I apply for Global Entry?

You may use global entry or sign up if you are eligible.

  • Are Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs) affected?

They will not be affected by the travel ban.

  • Is this Permanent?

The EO has been reinstated as of June 29, for a period of 90 days for the ban relating to nationals of the six listed countries and 120 days for refugees.  It can either then expire, or be extended per the president. The Supreme Court will hear arguments on the Ninth and Fourth Circuit cases in October, if the cases are not then deemed to be moot.

  • What if you are traveling to the United States from one of the six countries but not a national?

Be prepared for additional screening.

  • Will the list expand?

Possibly. The EO gives authority to add and remove countries.

Questions on Visa Issuance:

  • May I apply for a visa stamp?

Yes, if you are not using the passport of one of the six countries.

  • What if I do not have a second nationality? Will I qualify for a waiver?

The Department of State has not yet issued guidance, but we expect that guidance will be issued to allow an applicant who is a national of one of the six countries to prove a bona-fide relationship as of  June 26 to an individual or entity in the US.

  • What can I expect from my visa interview appointment if I have traveled to one of the six countries or have a second passport from one of the six countries?

Additional screening procedures are forthcoming.

  • Will I still qualify for a visa interview waiver if I am extending my visa?

Various consulates are still utilizing the drop-box option for those who qualify.

  • How do I know what each U.S. Consulate requires or if procedures are different?

You may check with each individual consulate website.

GT will continue to provide updates as more information becomes available.

On Monday, June 26, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States partially revived part of President Trump’s second Executive Order (EO-2)  mandating a temporary travel ban from six Muslim-majority countries for 90 days, which will be in effect on June 29, 2017. EO-2 also sought to suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program and limit the number of refugees in this fiscal year.  The Supreme Court also granted certiorari to review the lower court decisions of the Fourth and Ninth Circuits that issued injunctions prohibiting the implementation of President Trump’s EO-2 beginning March 26, 2017.  Oral arguments are scheduled to take place in the Fall of 2017, when the Supreme Court’s next term begins.

President Trump issued EO-2 on March 6, 2017, which, among other things, restricts entry of nationals from six designated countries—Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen—for a temporary period of 90 days.  Iraq, which appeared in President Trump’s first Executive Order (EO-1), was removed from EO-2 because Iraq agreed to provide additional information about visa applicants to the United States, and accept the return of Iraqi nationals who were ordered removed from the United States. EO-2’s 90-day temporary travel ban was originally set to begin on March 16, 2017, and expire on June 14, 2017.  On June 14, President Trump issued a memorandum to Executive Branch officials declaring the effective date of EO-2 to be the date on which the lower courts’ injunctions are lifted or stayed.

At issue in the Supreme Court’s decision today are Sections 2(c) and 6 of EO-2.  Section 2(c) calls for the 90-day temporary travel ban prohibiting the entry of nationals from the six-Muslim majority nations to the United States. In EO-2, President Trump determined that the temporary travel ban of nationals from these six countries was necessary to ensure that dangerous individuals did not enter the United States while the United States developed “adequate standards” for applicants who are seeking visas to enter the United States. Section 6 freezes the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program and prohibits the admission of refugees into the United States.

In today’s decision, the Supreme Court held that President Trump can enforce the 90-day temporary travel ban that prohibits entry of nationals from the six designated countries “who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” The Supreme Court limited Section 2(c)’s scope, stating that this section “may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” The Supreme Court held that the same standard should be applied to Section 6, which bars refugees from entering the United States. Specifically, Section 6 “may not be enforced against an individual seeking admission as a refugee who can credibly claim a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”

The Supreme Court did not exhaustively list what sorts of credible claims of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States qualifies to be removed from EO-2’s purview, but noted that the relationships at issue in the present cases qualified. Specifically, the Supreme Court noted that individuals who were subject to the travel ban of EO-2 must have a close familial relationship with a person in the United States. “A foreign national who wishes to enter the United States to live with or visit a family member . . . clearly has such a relationship.” For entities, the individual must have a “formal, documented” relationship with the entity that was not formed simply to evade the EO-2’s reach. Foreign nationals who were accepted into a college or university, or accepted an offer of employment from an American company would qualify as a credible claim of a bona fide relationship according to the Supreme Court. Section 2(c)’s 90-day temporary travel ban begins today, June 29, 2017, and will expire on Sept. 27, 2017.

While it is not clear how U.S. Department of State and U.S. Customs and Border Protection will interpret and enforce the Supreme Court’s decision today, employers should note that a foreign-national employee from one of the six designated countries may be refused an employment visa or admission into the United States if the foreign national does not have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a U.S-based person or an American entity. It is important for impacted foreign-national employees who plan to travel internationally during the next 90 days to carry with them evidence of their employment relationship, which can include a signed offer of employment, employment verification letter, and recent pay statements, among other documents. Foreign-national students who plan to travel internationally may also carry with them their Form I-20 and a letter of enrollment issued by the academic institution. Finally, in light of this decision, for impacted individuals to secure a visa at a U.S. Consulate abroad or gain admission into the United States it is important to be able to document a close familial relationship with an individual in the United States. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security confirmed today in a statement that it will release additional details, particularly to potentially impacted nationals, on implementing EO-2 after consulting with the U.S. Departments of State and Justice.

Greenberg Traurig will continue to monitor events surrounding the Supreme Court’s decision and provide updates relating to relevant agencies in connection with the now revived EO-2.

The heavily anticipated new Executive Order (EO), “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” banning nationals from six countries from entering the United States, was signed by President Donald Trump on March 6, 2017 with an effective date 10 days following on March 16, 2017. This new EO revokes and replaces the previous EO 13769 signed on Jan. 27, 2017. The replacement EO provides additional clarification that stemmed from judicial review. For a summary of EO 13769, and a history of events that transpired, please visit.

Highlights of changes in the new EO include:

  • The six countries under the travel ban are Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.  Iraq has been lifted from the travel ban.
  • Clarification has been given that lawful permanent residents are not subject to the travel ban, and dual nationals may use another passport (that is not from one of the six countries) to enter the United States.
  • Waivers may be granted to individuals applying for a visa who are subject to the travel ban if: 1) denying entry during this period would cause undue hardship, 2) the entry would not pose a threat to national security, and 3) it would be in the national interest of the United States. Examples were provided of situations where a waiver would be appropriate.
  • Entry under the U.S. Refugee Admission Program will be halted for 120 days from March 16, 2017. Notably, the blanket halt on Syrian refugees has been removed.
  • The Visa Interview Waiver Program is suspended until further guidance from the Department of State.
  • Those who are in the United States will not have their visas revoked.

The new EO provides an explanation for some components of EO 13769 that are now rescinded, amended, or clarified in this Order. A section-by-section analysis is below:

Section 2:  Suspension of Visa Issuance- Iraq Removed

The text of this EO calls for the suspension of issuance of visas to nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, or Yemen, except in case-by-case waivers, for 90 days from the effective date of the EO (March 16, 2017), while an ongoing assessment of the countries for terrorist threats is conducted. Notably, Iraq has been removed as one of the original countries subject to the travel ban. The reason cited is that the United States has been closely working with the Iraqi government and because of the military presence in Iraq, and Iraq’s commitment to fight ISIS, removing this country from the travel ban is justified.

In addition, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, will conduct a worldwide review to identify additional information, if necessary, from any country to ensure that the individual applying for a visa benefit is not a security threat. Within 20 days of March 16, 2017, a required report will be submitted to the President on the results of the worldwide review. Copies of this report will also be given to the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Director of National Intelligence.

Once the report has been submitted to all parties, the Secretary of State shall request the foreign governments to provide the information needed within 50 days of notification. After the 50 day period has expired, the Secretary of Homeland Security, with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, will submit to the President a list of countries where certain categories of foreign nationals should be prohibited from visa issuance because they have not provided the information. Additional countries may also be submitted for consideration to be added to the list of countries where restrictions or limitations are deemed necessary to protect the United States. In the same way, countries may be recommended for removal from the list as well.

Four reports, each submitted within 30 days of the effective date of the Order (March 16, 2017) to President Trump, are required to document the progress. Continue Reading New Travel Ban Order to Temporarily Halt Entry for Those Seeking New Visas from 6 Muslim-Majority Countries