Search results for: residence

On Oct. 16, 2025, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a final rule in the Federal Register establishing a new $1,000 immigration parole fee required by the H.R. 1 Reconciliation Act. That same day, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) confirmed immediate implementation for some individuals who are granted parole, re-parole, or parole in place on or after the effective date. This fee does not impact those individuals who have traveled briefly abroad on Advance Parole that was granted based on a pending I-485 Application.

Overview of Parole and Fee Application

Parole allows DHS to permit a noncitizen to enter or remain temporarily in the United States without being formally admitted, when justified by urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit. Parole is discretionary and temporary; it does not confer visa status or a path to permanent residence. The $1,000 fee applies when DHS grants parole, not when a request is filed, and it may also apply to individuals previously granted parole who are re-paroled or extended after Oct. 16, 2025. Individuals who already hold valid parole granted before that date are not charged retroactively. The fee attaches only when a new grant of parole is issued. As a result, DHS will not collect or bill for the fee on existing parole periods, though future extensions or re-paroles will trigger payment.

Frequency and Duration of the Fee

The fee is assessed each time parole is granted, including initial approval, re-parole, or extension. It covers the entire period authorized in a single grant and is not charged per entry while that parole remains valid. For example, if a parole document permits multiple entries during its validity, those re-entries are covered by the same fee. However, any new parole authorization or extension will require a new $1,000 payment. A family of four paroled under a humanitarian program would owe $4,000 upon approval, and another $4,000 if re-paroled later. The structure is per grant, not per household or lifetime.

Payment Procedures and Timing

The rule provides that the fee is due at the time parole is granted. USCIS will collect payment for parole and re-parole requests it adjudicates, typically those filed on Form I-131; U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will collect the fee at ports of entry; and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will collect it for individuals paroled from custody. Each agency will issue a conditional approval notice requiring payment before parole becomes effective. To date, USCIS has not indicated how long applicants will have to make payment after receiving a conditional approval. The Federal Register specifies only that the notice will “specify a date by which payment of the fee must be made.” Until DHS issues further guidance, applicants may expect a short payment window and plan accordingly.

Limited Exceptions and Employer Carve-Outs

DHS may waive the fee in limited cases where the applicant meets one of 10 statutory exceptions, including life-threatening medical emergencies, organ donation, accompanying parents or guardians of affected minors, urgent family visits or funerals, adopted children with critical medical needs, individuals paroled to attend immigration proceedings, certain Cuban or Haitian entrants defined in §501(e) of the Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980 (including participants in the Cuban and Haitian Family Reunification Parole programs), and those whose parole provides a significant public benefit such as law-enforcement cooperation.

The rule includes an exception for adjustment of status applicants (Form I-485) who travel briefly abroad and return to the United States on an advance parole. This category covers both employment-based and family-based green card applicants who are beneficiaries of I-140 or I-130 petitions. The rule expressly exempts them from the new $1,000 fee when re-entering on a valid advance parole associated with a pending adjustment application. However, DHS has not defined what constitutes a “brief” trip abroad for purposes of this exception, leaving some ambiguity as to the duration of travel that will preserve eligibility for the fee exemption.

Who Is Most Affected

The group most affected by the rule are humanitarian and discretionary parole recipients, including nationals of Afghanistan, Ukraine, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, among others, paroled under case-by-case or programmatic DHS initiatives. These individuals often must renew parole periodically to maintain lawful presence or employment authorization. For these individuals, the recurring $1,000 per-person fee represents a new cost consideration, particularly for families or sponsors who manage parole renewals every one to two years.

Implications for Employers and HR Teams

Although employer-sponsored green-card applicants remain exempt, the rule adds complexity for organizations supporting humanitarian, dependent, or discretionary parole cases. A $1,000 payment per grant is a material cost, and conditional approvals may require careful monitoring to avoid lapses.

HR and legal teams should consider:

  • Incorporating the new fee into global-mobility and immigration budgets,
  • Confirming payment timelines upon receipt of conditional approvals,
  • Educating affected employees about the requirement, and
  • Consulting counsel to determine if an exception applies and to prepare supporting documentation.

USCIS and DHS may release further guidance clarifying payment procedures, adjudication standards, and uniform deadlines in the coming weeks.

Conclusion

The $1,000 parole fee represents a policy shift in DHS’ parole framework. Employers might use the rule as an opportunity to plan, budget, and communicate with employees and better manage parole-based travel and compliance.

The U.S. Department of State’s National Visa Center (NVC) has issued updated guidance that impacts employment-based immigrant visa applicants, including EB-5 investors. This change is especially relevant for globally mobile professionals and investors residing outside their country of nationality.

Key Policy Changes

Applicants must now

  • Interview for the immigrant visa in their country of residence, or
  • Request to interview for the immigrant visa in their country of nationality, subject to approval.

To attend the immigrant visa interview at a consular post, applicants must submit proof of legal residence in the country where their case is assigned. This applies to all employment-based categories, including:

  • EB-1 (Executives, Researchers)
  • EB-2 (Advanced Degree Professionals, NIW)
  • EB-3 (Skilled Workers)
  • EB-5 (Investors)

Acceptable Proof of Residency Includes

  • Passport with a residency stamp,
  • Valid work or student visa,
  • Legal permanent resident card or landing document,
  • Refugee or humanitarian documentation, or
  • Other official documentation confirming lawful residence.

Importantly, having a visitor visa would not qualify an applicant to interview in a country; evidence of a longer-term visa or status is required.

Designated Processing Posts for Countries Without US Consular Operations

Applicants from countries where the United States does not conduct routine visa services must attend interviews at designated alternate posts. Below is a summary of current assignments:

NationalityDesignated Location(s)
AfghanistanIslamabad
BelarusVilnius, Warsaw
ChadYaoundé
CubaGeorgetown
HaitiNassau
IranDubai
LibyaTunis
NigerOuagadougou
RussiaAstana, Warsaw
SomaliaNairobi
South SudanNairobi
SudanCairo
SyriaAmman
UkraineKrakow, Warsaw
VenezuelaBogotá
YemenRiyadh
ZimbabweJohannesburg

Important Takeaways

  • Third-country processing is not permitted unless special circumstances apply.
  • Traveling to another country solely to apply for a visa does not qualify as a special circumstance.
  • There may be delays if applicants do not provide sufficient proof of residence in the assigned country.
  • Existing appointments for nonimmigrant visas may not be canceled, but applicants may be refused under INA §214(b) if they cannot prove residence.

Considerations for Employers and Investors

  • Confirm assigned consular posts.
  • Gather and submit appropriate residency documentation.
  • Contact your immigration counsel to request a transfer or explain special circumstances, if needed.

It is critical for companies and EB-5 investors to prepare documentation and coordinate through counsel with the NVC to enhance timely and compliant visa processing.

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.

On Sept. 19, 2025, the Trump administration published additional details about the proposed Gold Card program. The https://trumpcard.gov/ website went live with new information, outlining three categories of programs:

  1. The Gold Card: Requires a USD $1 million contribution for permanent residency. The website states that the Gold Card is based on the individual’s ability to substantially benefit the United States. Notably there are no tax provisions; applicants would remain subject to worldwide income taxation.
  2. The Platinum Card: Requires a USD $5 million contribution and allows the holder to reside in the United States for up to 270 days per year without being subject to tax on non-U.S. income. This would replace other temporary visas.
  3. The Trump Corporate Gold Card: Allows a U.S. business to make a USD $2 million contribution to transfer an employee to the United States. This benefit may be transferable to another employee for a fee.

The website states that processing fees and background vetting will occur for all three card types, although no information about the fees or the process has been posted as of the date of this blog. The site also indicates that contributions will be made to the U.S. Department of Commerce, but no information is available about how those funds will be used by the U.S. government. Importantly, this contribution differs from the EB-5 program, where investors may eventually recover their investment funds depending on the success of the business. It also unclear whether the “vetting” will involve a background check, proof of the source of funds ( as required in the EB-5 program), or both. Moreover, there is no mention of dependent applicants or whether family members of the main applicable will receive benefits under the program.

Of particular interest is a statement on the website that a Gold Card will be either an EB-1 or EB-2 preference green card. These categories, and their underlying subcategories of permanent residence, are statutorily authorized by Congress and have specific visa number allocations. It is possible this designation could be challenged in court as outside the authority of the Executive Branch. Additionally, applicants born in Mainland China and India may face significant visa backlogs, as these delays already exist in the EB-1 and EB-2 preference categories.

At this time, it is unknown when the fees or application instructions will be released to the public. Based on the lack of information regarding requirements, fees, process, and timelines, it does not appear that applicants can apply yet.

In this episode of GT’s Big Law Redefined podcast, Immigration Insights series host Kate Kalmykov is joined by Ben Sheldrick, managing partner at McGrath and Sheldrick in London, to break down the evolving landscape of UK immigration.

Together, they explore how Brexit has reshaped the UK’s approach to immigration, from the end of EU free movement to the introduction of an updated points-based system.

Ben explains what employers need to know about sponsoring skilled workers, intercompany transfers, and business visitors, while highlighting the increasing costs and compliance requirements for companies.

The conversation covers the latest rules on permanent residence, digitized entry systems like the ETA, and special pathways for entrepreneurs, investors, and top global talent.

With practical comparisons to the U.S. immigration system and insights into navigating the complex regulatory environment, this episode is a must-listen for HR professionals, multinational businesses, and anyone interested in UK immigration policy.

Click here to listen to the full episode.

In an Aug. 15 policy memo, USCIS issued new guidance on how it will evaluate “good moral character” (GMC) for naturalization applicants.

USCIS is moving away from a checklist-style review toward a more rigorous, holistic, and comprehensive assessment. The goal is to ensure that applicants granted U.S. citizenship are not only free from disqualifying acts but also demonstrate positive attributes and contributions to society. 

Background

  • Pre-1990: GMC determinations considered both negative and positive factors, viewing legal bars as minimum disqualifiers. USCIS officers weighed evidence like community service, family responsibilities, and rehabilitation.
  • Post-1990: Changes in immigration law (including the expansion of “aggravated felony” definitions and fixed bars for certain offenses) led to a more mechanical, exclusionary approach, focusing mainly on the absence of statutory disqualifications.

Current Legal Standard

  • USCIS applies the “preponderance of the evidence” standard to N-400 applications. This means that applicants must demonstrate it is more likely than not that they have met all the naturalization requirements.
  • There are unconditional, permanent bars (e.g., murder, aggravated felonies, genocide) and conditional bars (e.g., controlled substance violations, repeated DUI, fraud).
  • USCIS officers consider all relevant evidence – positive and negative – when evaluating the applicant’s GMC.
  • GMC should reflect character “commensurate with the standards of average citizens” in the applicant’s community.

What Are the Key Changes in Evaluating GMC?

  1. Totality of Circumstances:
    • USCIS officers must assess not only the absence of wrongdoing, but also positive behaviors and contributions.
    • The evaluation should be holistic, considering the applicant’s full history and current lifestyle.
  2. Emphasis on Positive Attributes:
    • Factors such as sustained community involvement, family responsibility, educational achievements, stable employment, lawful residence, and financial responsibility (including tax compliance) will be weighed favorably.
  1. Higher Scrutiny of Disqualifying Behavior:
    • Permanent and conditional bars are still enforced.
    • Officers will look for other social questionable behaviors contrary to community standards, even if technically lawful, such as habitual reckless driving, repeated traffic offenses, social misconduct, or harassment.
    • Documentation and questioning may be used to clarify circumstances of questionable acts.
  2. Consideration of Rehabilitation:
    • Evidence of genuine reform (e.g., fulfilling family obligations, complying with court orders, community testimony, mentoring, repaying debts or taxes) may support GMC findings and rebut repeated offenses.
    • Applicants are expected to present their “full story” to demonstrate alignment with community ethical standards.

USCIS is restoring a more nuanced, comprehensive GMC standard for naturalization. Officers will consider both adverse and favorable factors, giving greater weight to an applicant’s positive contributions and rehabilitation, not just the absence of disqualifying conduct. Applicants might expect more thorough background reviews that go beyond criminal record checks, as well as potential delays if the USCIS officer requires additional documentation to evaluate the applicant’s moral character.

Navigating Immigration and Employment Law Requirements in the Remote Work Era

The shift toward remote and hybrid work arrangements has created compliance challenges for U.S. employers sponsoring foreign workers under H-1B, E-3, and H-1B1 classifications. While remote work offers flexibility and expanded talent pools, it introduces complex legal obligations that, if overlooked, may result in substantial penalties and backpay awards, as well as possibly jeopardizing employees’ immigration status.

The Fundamental Requirement: Every Work Location Must Be Covered

Under U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) regulations, every location where an H-1B, E-3, or H-1B1 employee performs work must be listed on a Labor Condition Application (LCA) and covered by the underlying petition. This includes the employee’s home office when working remotely.

When an employee works from home, their residence becomes a “worksite” for immigration and labor law purposes. This means:

  • The home address must be listed as a worksite on the LCA
  • The prevailing wage determination must account for the geographic location of the home office
  • Public Access File requirements apply to the home location
  • LCA posting obligations are triggered

The Growing Challenge: Unreported Address Changes

A compliance gap may emerge if employees relocate during their H-1B validity period without informing their employer’s immigration team. This seemingly minor oversight may create cascading compliance complications.

When Employees Move Within the Same Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)

If an employee relocates within the same MSA as originally listed on their LCA:

Required Action: The employer must post a notice in two conspicuous places at the employee’s new residence, where they work remotely, for 10 business days and update the respective Public Access File.

Common Failure: HR teams update payroll records and internal systems but fail to notify immigration counsel, resulting in a lack of required postings at the new location and outdated, deficient Public Access File documentation.

Consequences:

  • DOL violations and potential civil fines
  • Wage and hour compliance deficiencies
  • Exposure to whistleblower complaints
  • Potential backpay obligations

When Employees Move Outside the Original MSA

If an employee relocates outside the MSA covered by their current LCA:

Required Action: File an amended H-1B petition with a new LCA covering the new geographic area before the employee begins work at the new location.

Common Failure: Employees relocate and continue working without the employer’s knowledge, creating an immediate status violation.

Consequences:

  • Employee is violating the terms of their H-1B status
  • Difficulty obtaining future extensions or renewals
  • Potential bars to future immigration benefits
  • Employer exposure to willful violator status
  • Potentially significant monetary penalties and backpay awards

Wage and Hour Compliance Risks

The DOL’s enforcement focus on prevailing wage compliance makes unreported address changes particularly precarious. Key risks include:

Prevailing Wage Violations

  • Different geographic areas have different prevailing wage rates that may differ greatly
  • Failure to obtain a new LCA containing a prevailing wage determination for the new location may result in underpayment
  • Backpay calculations may extend across multiple years

Record-Keeping Deficiencies

  • Public Access Files must be maintained and cover each worksite, including home office locations
  • Missing documentation for home office locations creates automatic violations
  • DOL and Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNS) audits often focus on remote work arrangements, including in-person visits

Case Study: The Hidden Costs of Poor Communication

Consider the following real-world scenario that illustrates the consequences of inadequate address change procedures:

The Situation: Sarah, a software engineer in H-1B status, was initially hired to work in Dallas, Texas, with a Level 4 prevailing wage determination of $156,998 annually. Her employer’s remote work policy allowed employees to work from home, and her LCA properly listed her Dallas residence as a worksite.

The Move: One year into her three-year H-1B validity period, Sarah relocated to San Francisco to be closer to family. She promptly informed HR and payroll of her address change, and her W-2 forms began reflecting California state taxes. However, the payroll team failed to notify the company’s immigration team about the relocation.

The Compliance Failure: Sarah’s move from Dallas to San Francisco represented a change to a different MSA with a substantially higher prevailing wage, approximately $213,512 for a Level 4 software engineer position in the San Francisco area, an annual difference of $56,514. Under DOL regulations, this required:

  • Filing a new LCA with the higher prevailing wage determination
  • Filing an amended H-1B petition before Sarah started working from her San Francisco residence
  • Adjusting Sarah’s salary to meet the new required wage (the higher of actual wage and prevailing wage level)

None of these steps were taken because the company’s immigration team was unaware of the move.

The Discovery: Two years later, when Sarah’s employer filed her H-1B extension petition, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued a Request for Evidence (RFE). USCIS had cross-referenced Sarah’s petition against her California state tax records and identified the discrepancy between her approved work location (Dallas) and her actual work location (San Francisco).

The Consequences: The RFE created multiple serious problems:

  • Immediate Status Risk: Sarah’s continued work in San Francisco without proper LCA coverage violates the terms of her H-1B status
  • Wage Violations: Sarah had been underpaid by approximately $56,514 annually for two years relative to the San Francisco prevailing wage
  • Extension Jeopardy: The extension petition faced potential denial due to the compliance violations
  • Backpay Exposure: The employer faced potential liability of $113,028 in prevailing wage underpayments
  • Future Petition Risk: The violation could impact Sarah’s ability to obtain future H-1B extensions or to adjust status to permanent residence

The Resolution Costs: To address the violation, the employer had to:

  • Engage specialized immigration counsel for RFE response preparation
  • File corrective amended petitions and LCAs
  • Pay prevailing wage backpay to Sarah
  • Implement enhanced compliance procedures company-wide
  • Face increased scrutiny from authorities on its immigration program

This case demonstrates how a simple communication breakdown can escalate into a six-figure compliance problem with lasting immigration consequences.

How These Violations Are Discovered

The increasing sophistication of government enforcement mechanisms means that address change violations are more likely to be detected than ever before. Employers should be aware of the following discovery methods:

FDNS Site Visits

The FDNS unit conducts unannounced site visits to verify petition information. During these visits, inspecting officers may discover that employees have relocated to new addresses without proper LCA amendments or H-1B petition updates. FDNS officers are specifically trained to identify compliance gaps and will document any discrepancies between approved work locations and actual employee residences.

USCIS Cross-Referencing During Petition Adjudication

As demonstrated in the software engineer case study above, USCIS increasingly cross-references employee state tax filings against residential addresses on record during the adjudication of new H-1B filings, including amendments and extensions. This data matching has become more sophisticated and systematic, making it more likely that geographic discrepancies will be identified during routine petition processing.

Biometric RFEs and Address Verification

USCIS is issuing RFEs requiring H-1B employees to complete biometrics appointments across multiple petition types, but mostly on H-1B petitions and I-140 immigrant petitions, even though these cases do not typically require biometric collection. During these appointments, USCIS captures current address information and cross-references it against the approved petition locations. This enforcement mechanism allows USCIS to identify address changes that were never reported to immigration authorities, creating an additional layer of compliance verification that employers may not be unprepared for.

The expansion of biometric RFEs to I-140 immigrant petitions demonstrates that USCIS is using address verification as a compliance tool across the entire immigration continuum. Employees who may have had compliant H-1B petitions initially but developed violations during the validity period may find their permanent residence applications jeopardized when USCIS discovers unreported address changes during I-140 adjudication.

ICE I-9 Audits

During Form I-9 compliance audits, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) may identify H-1B deficiencies when reviewing employee documentation. While this discovery method is currently less common, employers should anticipate increased scrutiny as compliance enforcement becomes stricter and more integrated across agencies. ICE auditors are trained to spot immigration status violations that may not be immediately apparent from I-9 documentation alone.

Employee Self-Reporting

H-1B employees who become aware of prevailing wage requirements may file complaints when they realize they are being underpaid due to their employer’s failure to update LCAs for new work locations. These complaints may trigger DOL wage and hour investigations and result in significant penalties. Educated employees increasingly understand their rights and may seek legal counsel when they suspect wage violations.

Department of State Referrals

During consular visa interviews for visa renewals or family member applications, consular officers may identify discrepancies between an employee’s stated residential address and the work location listed on their H-1B petition. While currently uncommon, this discovery method may become more frequent as consular officers receive enhanced training on H-1B compliance issues and as information sharing between agencies improves.

H-1B Change of Employer Petition Complications

Another discovery method involves H-1B change of employer petitions (portability cases). When an employee transfers to a new employer, USCIS may identify prior compliance violations during the adjudication process by cross-referencing the employee’s state tax filings against the previous employer’s H-1B petition.

The Problem for New Employers: This situation creates an impossible burden for new employers because they typically do not have access to the prior employer’s complete H-1B petition file. The new employer cannot reasonably identify potential compliance issues before filing their change of employer petition, yet they may face petition denials or RFEs based on the prior employer’s failures.

Heightened Risk During Grace Periods: This issue is particularly acute for employees in the 60-day grace period following termination. USCIS has significantly increased its use of Notices to Appear (NTAs) for individuals found to be no longer maintaining legal status. When a compliance violation from a prior employer is discovered during a change of employer petition, it may trigger NTA issuance even if:

  • The current employee had little to no control over the prior employer’s compliance failures
  • The new employer performed reasonable due diligence but could not access the relevant information
  • The violation may have occurred years earlier and remained undetected

Practical Implications:

  • New employers may unknowingly inherit compliance problems caused by an employee’s prior employer
  • Employees face increased risk of removal proceedings for violations beyond their control
  • The traditional assumption that change of employer petitions are routine filings no longer holds
  • Employers should consider enhancing due diligence and vetting processes despite limited access to prior petition information

Risk to Prior Employers: The compliance violations don’t disappear when an employee changes employers. Former employers remain exposed to liability when H-1B deficiencies are discovered during change of employer adjudications. Once a former employee learns that their previous H-1B petition was deficient due to an unreported address change with a higher prevailing wage, they may pursue backpay claims against their former employer. These claims can extend back several years and involve substantial amounts, particularly when the wage differential between geographic areas is significant. The former employer cannot cure the violation since the employee has already departed, leaving them fully exposed to the financial consequences of their compliance failure.

Whistleblower Reports

Current or former employees, competitors, or other third parties may report suspected violations to DOL or USCIS. The anonymous nature of many reporting mechanisms makes this an ongoing risk for noncompliant employers.

The key takeaway is that these violations are no longer hidden in administrative silos. Government agencies are increasingly sharing information and using sophisticated data matching techniques that make discovery more likely and more systematic than in the past.

Beyond Geography: Wage Level Classification Risks

While geographic-based prevailing wage violations represent a significant compliance risk, employers face additional exposure from incorrectly classifying the job classification and the wage level for H-1B positions. This issue, compounded with the address change problem, may create further liability.

The Four-Level System Challenge

The prevailing wage system classifies positions into four levels based on experience, education, and job complexity:

  • Level 1: Entry-level positions requiring basic understanding
  • Level 2: Qualified positions requiring sound understanding
  • Level 3: Experienced positions requiring good understanding
  • Level 4: Fully competent positions requiring excellent understanding

Common Misclassification Scenarios

Many employers face two distinct types of classification errors that may result in significant compliance violations:

Wage Level Misclassification

Employers may under-classify positions to reduce labor costs, selecting Level 1 or Level 2 wages when the position actually requires Level 3 or Level 4 compensation.

Job Classification Misclassification

Beyond wage levels, employers often select incorrect job classifications entirely. The duties and responsibilities of different positions carry substantially different prevailing wages, even within similar fields. For example:

Similar but Distinct Classifications:

  • A “Systems Analyst” classification carries a lower prevailing wage than a “Software Engineer” classification, despite overlapping responsibilities
  • “Computer Programmer” wages differ significantly from “Software Developer” wages
  • “Database Administrator” and “Computer Systems Analyst” have different wage requirements

Bachelor’s Degree Requirement Violations: The H-1B category fundamentally requires that the proposed U.S. assignment necessitate at least a bachelor’s-level education. Selecting job classifications that require only an associate’s degree creates an immediate compliance concern. For example, selecting “Computer Network Support Specialists” for an employee performing bachelor’s-level work, even though DOL data indicates the position requires an associate’s degree, may result in:

  • Denial of the H-1B petition for failing to meet specialty occupation requirements
  • Significant backpay awards if the misclassification is discovered during employment
  • Potential willful violator findings if the pattern is systemic
  • Review of an employer’s entire immigration program

These job classification errors may create several compounding problems.

Compounding Geographic Issues: When an employee moves to a higher-wage area and the employer has made both wage level and job classification errors, the underpayment exposure multiplies. An employee initially classified as a Level 1 “Computer Network Support Specialist” in Dallas who should have been a Level 4 “Software Engineer,” then moves to San Francisco, faces a triple violation (geographic change, incorrect wage level, and incorrect job classification) potentially creating enormous backpay liability.

Audit Vulnerability: DOL audits specifically examine whether both the job classification and wage level selection match the actual job requirements. Auditors review:

  • Job descriptions and actual duties performed against standard occupational classifications
  • Required qualifications versus employee credentials and degree requirements
  • Supervision levels and decision-making authority
  • Comparison with similar positions at the employer and industry standards

Systematic Violations: Unlike address changes that affect individual employees, both job classification and wage level misclassification often reflect company-wide practices, potentially affecting multiple H-1B employees simultaneously and creating backpay exposure across entire departments or job categories.

Civil Penalty Exposure

Wage level violations carry the same penalty structure as geographic wage violations under 20 CFR 655.810 (2025 penalty amounts as adjusted by Federal Register, Vol. 90, No. 8, Jan. 10, 2025):

  • Willful Violations: Up to $67,367 per violation plus backpay
  • Substantial Failure: Up to $9,624 per violation plus backpay
  • Technical Violations: Up to $2,364 per violation plus backpay

When combined with multi-year underpayments across multiple employees, these penalties can reach seven figures for employers with systematic misclassification practices.

Program Debarment

For employers with systemic, widespread violations, the DOL can impose the most severe penalty available: debarment from the H-1B program under INA § 212(n)(2). This sanction prohibits an employer from filing any H-1B petitions for up to three years.

Debarment Requirements: Under DOL Fact Sheet #62S, debarment requires formal enforcement proceedings with specific findings:

  • A finding of violation must be entered in either a DOL proceeding under INA §212(n)(2) or a Department of Justice proceeding under INA §212(n)(5)
  • The agency must find that the employer committed either a willful failure or misrepresentation of material fact involving at least two Labor Condition Application attestations
  • The violation must have occurred after Oct. 21, 1998

Additional Consequences:

  • Debarred employers are subject to random DOL investigations for up to five years from the date of willful violator determination
  • Complete prohibition on filing new H-1B petitions during the debarment period

Business Impact: For technology companies, consulting firms, health care organizations, and other employers that rely heavily on H-1B workers, debarment can be business-threatening. The consequences include:

  • Complete inability to hire new international talent
  • Loss of competitive advantage in global talent acquisition
  • Potential departure of existing H-1B employees who cannot obtain extensions
  • Damage to employer brand and reputation in international markets
  • Disruption of long-term business planning and growth strategies

No Workarounds: Unlike monetary penalties that can be paid, debarment cannot be cured through compliance efforts during the prohibition period. Employers facing debarment must demonstrate extraordinary circumstances to avoid or reduce the sanction period.

Inadequate documentation makes it difficult to defend wage level selections during audits and increases the likelihood of violations being classified as “willful” rather than technical.

Additional Compliance Considerations for Employers

Establish Clear Policies

  • Require employees to report any address changes immediately
  • Include address change obligations in employment agreements and handbook policies
  • Create specific procedures for remote work approvals

Implement Monitoring Systems

  • Regular audits of employee addresses across HR, payroll, and immigration systems
  • Quarterly compliance reviews to identify discrepancies
  • Technology solutions to flag address changes automatically

Coordinate Across Departments

  • Ensure HR, payroll, immigration, and legal teams communicate regularly
  • Designate a point person responsible for address change compliance
  • Create checklists and workflows for processing address changes

Proactive LCA Management

  • File LCAs for anticipated remote work locations before employees relocate
  • Consider broader geographic coverage in initial LCA filings where appropriate
  • Maintain updated prevailing wage determinations for common relocation areas

Employee Education

  • Train employees on their reporting obligations
  • Explain the serious consequences of unreported moves
  • Provide clear instructions on how to report address changes

Immediate Actions

Employers should consider taking the following steps to help address potential compliance gaps:

  1. Conduct an Audit: Review current employee addresses across all systems to identify discrepancies
  2. Implement Reporting Procedures: Establish clear processes for employees to report address changes
  3. Update Policies: Revise employment agreements and handbooks to include specific address change obligations
  4. Train Teams: Educate HR, payroll, and management on immigration compliance requirements for remote work
  5. Engage Immigration Counsel: Work with experienced immigration attorneys to assess current compliance and develop remediation strategies where necessary

Conclusion

The intersection of remote work flexibility and immigration compliance creates challenges for U.S. employers. While remote work offers benefits, it also comes with legal obligations. Employers who proactively address these compliance requirements may avoid costly penalties while maintaining the flexibility that makes them competitive in today’s talent market.

A strategy for maintaining compliance is treating address changes as immigration events requiring immediate attention, not merely administrative updates. By implementing robust monitoring and reporting systems, employers may be able to harness the benefits of remote work while complying with their immigration and labor law obligations.

This article provides general guidance on immigration compliance matters. Employers should consult with experienced immigration counsel to address specific situations and ensure compliance with current regulations.

The U.S. Department of State (DOS) announced July 25, 2025, a significant change to its interview waiver policy effective Sept. 2, 2025. This policy revision will require most nonimmigrant visa applicants to attend in-person consular interviews, altering the visa processing landscape for HR departments and legal teams. This change arrives following a rollback that began in February 2025, when DOS reduced the interview waiver window from 48 months to 12 months, and reflects a broader policy shift toward more rigorous screening and vetting of visa applicants at U.S. consulates abroad.

Interview Waivers Eliminated for Most Business Visa Categories

Under the new policy, interview waivers will be eliminated for virtually all business/employment visa categories, including:

  • H-1B specialty occupation workers
  • L-1 intracompany transferees
  • E-1/E-2 treaty traders and investors
  • O-1 individuals with extraordinary ability
  • F-1 students
  • J-1 exchange visitors
  • All other nonimmigrant visa categories not specifically exempted

The policy eliminates the age-based exemptions that previously allowed applicants under 14 and over 79 to skip interviews. These populations will now face mandatory in-person interview requirements.

The policy also eliminates interview waivers for renewal applicants, meaning that foreign nationals with previously successful visa applications will need to appear for interviews when seeking renewals.

Remaining Interview Waiver Eligibility

The revised policy preserves interview waivers for a limited set of circumstances:

Diplomatic and Official Categories: Applicants for A-1, A-2, certain C-3, G-1 through G-4, NATO-1 through NATO-6, and TECRO E-1 visas, as well as other diplomatic or official-type visas.

B-1/B-2 Renewals with Strict Conditions: Tourist and business visitor visa renewals remain eligible for interview waivers, but only if the applicant meets all the following criteria:

  • Renewing within 12 months of the prior visa’s expiration
  • Applicant was at least 18 years old when the prior visa was issued
  • Applying in their country of nationality or residence
  • Has never been refused a visa (unless the refusal was overcome or waived)
  • Has no apparent or potential ineligibility

Applicants who meet all waiver criteria remain subject to consular discretion, meaning officers may still require an in-person interview if they feel one is necessary. This discretionary authority means that no waiver is guaranteed.

Additional Procedural Changes

The interview waiver rollback is occurring alongside other significant procedural changes that may further complicate visa processing:

Enhanced Vetting Requirements: As of June 2025, F, M, and J visa applicants must set their social media accounts to “public” to facilitate government vetting processes, adding a layer of complexity to student and exchange visitor applications.

DS-160 Timing Requirements: New rules require that DS-160 forms be submitted at least two business days before scheduled visa interviews, with exact barcode-matching requirements that could lead to appointment cancellations for noncompliance.

No Transition Period: Unlike many policy changes that include grace periods, these restrictions are being implemented with little to no advance warning, so foreign national employees and employers should keep abreast of visa processing changes.

Operational Impact for U.S. Employers: Planning Considerations

These policy changes will create operational considerations for U.S. employers who rely on foreign talent.

Extended Processing Times: Employers may expect longer visa processing times as consulates worldwide prepare for increased interview volumes. Popular business immigration posts, such as those in India, China, Mexico, and Canada, that previously processed many applications without interviews, may face backlogs. Some consulates are already experiencing lengthy wait times, which may worsen.

Immediate Disruption for Pending Applications: Reports indicate that some applicants who were previously approved for interview waivers but haven’t yet received their visas are being turned away and required to reapply for in-person appointments. DOS has not clarified whether visa application fees will be reimbursed in such cases, creating additional uncertainty and potential costs.

Recruitment and Project Timeline Adjustments: Companies may need to incorporate additional time into their hiring and project timelines to account for extended visa processing. Processing times that previously took weeks may now require months, particularly during peak application periods.

Cost and Complexity Considerations: The mandatory interview requirement will increase costs for both employers and employees, as foreign nationals may need to travel to reach the nearest U.S. consulate. For companies with employees in remote locations or countries with limited consular services, this may require additional budget planning.

Strategic Planning: Employers may need to be more strategic about visa application timing, particularly for time-sensitive business needs.

Consular Capacity Considerations: Many U.S. consulates are currently operating with staffing constraints that impact processing capacity. The increase in required interviews will affect resources that are already managing high application volumes, potentially creating extended processing timelines.

Impact on Foreign National Employees

Foreign national employees will face new requirements under this policy:

Scheduling and Travel Requirements: Employees will need to schedule and attend in-person interviews, which may require travel time and expense, particularly for those in countries with few U.S. consulates or limited appointment availability.

Family Considerations: The elimination of age-based waivers means that the elderly and children will need to attend interviews, adding complexity to family-based applications and potentially affecting families with members who have difficulty traveling.

Process Predictability: The interview requirement reintroduces variability in routine renewals, as each application will undergo individual consular officer review. This may affect employees with established work authorization who previously experienced predictable renewal processes.

Geographic Limitations: The requirement that B-1/B-2 waiver-eligible applicants apply in their country of nationality or residence may reduce flexibility for business travelers and limit “consular shopping” opportunities.

Critical Travel Risks: Foreign nationals currently in the United States on valid status but holding expired visas, or whose most recent visa was in a different classification than their current status, may face risks. These individuals will no longer be eligible for interview waivers and must attend in-person interviews abroad before re-entering the United States. Given appointment backlogs and processing uncertainties, these individuals may wish to avoid non-essential international travel until more predictable timelines resume.

Considerations for HR and Legal Teams

Companies should consider:

  • Workforce Analysis: Reviewing their foreign national workforce, identifying employees with upcoming visa renewals, and beginning to incorporate extended processing times into workforce planning.
  • Policy Updates: Updating internal policies and employee communications to reflect the coming changes and encouraging early visa renewal applications before the Sept. 2 effective date.
  • Budget Planning: Factoring additional costs and time delays into project planning and budgets for international assignments and hiring.
  • Legal Coordination: Working with immigration counsel to develop strategies for managing the transition and minimizing operational disruptions.
  • Global Conditions: Monitoring wait times at consulates.

Understanding the Broader Policy Context

This policy represents a departure from visa-processing flexibilities during the COVID-19-era . The DOS is prioritizing security concerns and returning to a traditional model where most visa applicants are required to appear in person before a consular officer, reflecting a broader policy shift toward heightened scrutiny of visa applicants.

For guidance on how these changes may affect your organization or immigration status, consult with experienced immigration counsel.

In recent days, interest has increased around a proposed new immigration initiative known as the “Trump Gold Card” or “Trump Card Visa,” announced by President Donald Trump and promoted via his campaign platforms and a newly launched website. However, although there is a website, there has been no official legal action taken, either administratively or legislatively, to implement a “Trump Gold Card” or “Trump Card Visa” program.

Gold Card Website and Registration Form

The recently launched site, trumpcard.gov, allows individuals, businesses, and others to register their interest in the Gold Card concept. The site collects basic information—such as your name, geographic region, and whether you are signing up for yourself or someone else—and promises to notify registrants “the moment access opens.”

Importantly, this is not an application for a visa, but rather a mailing list to track interest. The site does not provide a legal framework or guidance regarding immigration eligibility, processing timelines, or the legal status of the proposed visa.

New Visa Process Would Require Legislation

While Trump has suggested that the Gold Card could provide benefits similar to those of a green card, including a path to permanent residence, creating a new immigrant visa category would require an act of Congress. At this time, no legislation has been introduced that would authorize the Gold Card or define its requirements, benefits, or limitations.

The Trump administration has suggested that the program might expedite or enhance pathways for wealthy individuals who are willing to invest heavily in the United States. However, offering immigration benefits—particularly exemptions from global tax obligations or expedited citizenship—without Congressional action would likely face legal challenges.

Potential Impact of the Gold Card on EB-5

Speculation has arisen that the Gold Card could replace or supplement the existing EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program, which currently allows foreign nationals to obtain green cards by investing between $800,000 and $1.05 million into U.S. job-creating projects. However, significantly revising or replacing the EB-5 program would require new legislation, regulatory guidance, and agency implementation, and it may be too soon to speculate on the Gold Card’s future.

Those interested in being included in the Gold Card interest database or exploring other established investor visa options should consult with experienced legal counsel.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS)’s Alien Registration Requirement, effective April 11, 2025, requires most noncitizens aged 14 and older who remain in the United States for over 30 days, to register and complete biometrics. Parents or guardians are responsible for registering minors under 14, and individuals turning 14 must re-register within 30 days of their birthday. The registration can be completed by filing Form G-325R through an individual USCIS online account. This registration does not grant any immigrant or nonimmigrant status. Once an individual has registered and completes fingerprinting, DHS will issue the proof of registration, which anyone over the age of 18 will be required to carry and keep in their personal possession at all times.

However, many individuals are already considered registered and not required to register, including:

  1. lawful permanent residents;
  2. individuals paroled into the United States under INA 212(d)(5) for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefits, even if the period of parole has expired;
  3. individuals admitted to the United States as nonimmigrants who were issued Form I-94 or I-94W (paper or electronic), even if the period of admission has expired;
  4. all individuals present in the United States who were issued immigrant or nonimmigrant visas in their passports at the U.S. consular posts abroad before their last date of arrival;
  5. individuals placed into removal proceedings;
  6. individuals issued an employment authorization document;
  7. individuals who have applied for lawful permanent residence using Forms I-485, I-687, I-691, I-698, I-700, and provided fingerprints (unless waived), even if the applications were denied; and
  8. individuals issued border crossing cards.

For additional information about the Alien Registration Requirement, please refer to the Q&A section below. According to USCIS:

Q: What is “alien registration”?

A: Alien registration is a federal legal requirement under Section 262 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). It requires most noncitizens who remain in the United States for more than 30 days to register with DHS, provide biometric information (like fingerprints), and carry evidence of registration at all times if age 18 or older.

Q: Why is this being enforced now?

A: On Jan. 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14159, directing DHS to ensure that noncitizens comply with the registration requirement and to treat failure to register as a civil and criminal enforcement priority. As of April 11, 2025, DHS began enforcing this process and introduced the online registration process.

Q: Who must register?

A: Anyone who falls into “not registered” category, if:

  1. you are aged 14 or older and have not registered and fingerprinted when applying for a visa to enter the United States and remain in the United States for 30 days or longer;
  2. you entered the United States without inspection or parole;
  3. you were not fingerprinted during your visa application or entry;
  4. you are the parent or guardian of a child under 14 who has not been registered; or
  5. you are a child who just turned 14 and were previously registered by a parent

Q: Who is considered “Not Registered”?

A: 

  1. Individuals present in the United States without inspection and admission OR inspection and parole and who have not otherwise registered.
  2. Canadian visitors who entered the United States at land ports of entry and were not issued evidence of registration.
  3. Individuals who were not fingerprinted during a visa application or entry.
  4. Individuals who submitted applications for deferred action or TPS who were not issued evidence of registration.

Q: Who is exempt from registration?

A: You are exempt if you are:

  1. a holder of an A or G visa (diplomatic or international representatives); or
  2. a nonimmigrant who DHS waived from fingerprinting (e.g., diplomats, certain short-term visitors under reciprocal arrangements).

Q: How do I know if I’ve already registered?

A: Anyone who has been issued one of the documents designated as evidence of registration is considered “already registered,” including:

  1. lawful permanent residents;
  2. you filed a qualifying form such as:
    • Form I-485 (adjustment of status),
  1. you were fingerprinted (biometrics) by USCIS; or
  2. you were issued any of the following:
    • I-94/I-94W
    • Green card (I-551)
    • Employment authorization document (I-766)
    • Notice to appear (I-862) or other DHS-issued removal notices
    • Border crossing card (I-185/I-186)

Q: What does not count as registration?

A: The following documents are not considered evidence of registration:

  1. a state driver’s license or ID;
  2. an application for TPS, DACA, or asylum without an approved registration form or DHS fingerprinting; and
  3. entering via land border as a Canadian or Mexican national without receiving DHS documentation.

Q: How do I register if I haven’t already?

A: To register properly, follow these steps:

  1. Create a USCIS online account at https://my.uscis.gov, if not already created. If you are registering a minor child, create an account on their behalf.
  2. Complete Form G-325R (Biographic Information – Registration) online through your USCIS account.
  3. Biometrics Appointment: After submitting the form, you will receive a biometrics appointment notice.
  4. Attend your biometrics appointment at an USCIS Application Support Center.
  5. Download Proof of Registration: Once processed, download your proof of alien registration PDF from your USCIS account.

Note: If you are 18 or older, you must carry this registration at all times.

Q: Is there a fee to register?

A: Currently, there is no fee. The registration is free, including the biometric appointment. DHS is considering a $30 biometric services fee in the future.

Q. What happens if I don’t register?

A: Failure to comply with the register requirement or carry proof of registration may result in:

  1. a misdemeanor charge;
  2. fines up to $5,000;
  3. imprisonment for up to 30 days; and
  4. deportation proceedings under INA § 237 unless an individual can prove that a failure was reasonable, excusable, or was not willful.

Note: False statements during registration may also lead to criminal prosecution and deportation.

Q: What happens if I change my address?

A: You must report a change if address to USCIS within 10 days of moving. This can be completed through your USCIS account by completing Form AR-11 online.

Q: After registering, what else do I need to do?

A: You must:

  1. carry your registration document at all times if you are 18 or older;
  2. file AR-11 with USCIS within 10 days of any address change; and
  3. re-register if you were registered as a child and just turned 14.

Q: Can I use the registration document for work or immigration benefits?

A: No. Alien registration is not an immigration status, does not create an immigration status, establish employment authorization, or provide any other rights, public benefits, or protection from removal.