Search TPS

The September 2026 Visa Bulletin states that EB-5 unreserved visa numbers are unavailable for Indian nationals for the remainder of FY2026.

For September 2026, the U.S. Department of State’s Final Action Dates chart lists EB-5 Unreserved as follows:

  • India: Unavailable
  • China: Dec. 1, 2016
  • All other countries, including Mexico and the Philippines: Current

The September 2026 Visa Bulletin also confirms that all three EB-5 set-aside categories for post-RIA investors —rural, high unemployment, and infrastructure — remain current for all countries, including India.

The distinction between unreserved EB-5 and the set-aside categories is important for Indian investors. An Indian investor with an unreserved EB-5 case cannot receive an immigrant visa or obtain adjustment of status based on an available EB-5 visa number during September while the category is listed as “U.” By contrast, qualifying investors in the rural, high unemployment, or infrastructure set-aside categories continue to have visa numbers available, subject to satisfaction of all other eligibility requirements.

Looking Ahead to October 2026

The September 2026 Visa Bulletin also includes a warning regarding EB-5 unreserved. Per the Department of State, increased demand and visa number usage could require further retrogression or make the category unavailable before the end of FY2026.

Visa numbers reset with the new FY2027 beginning Oct. 1, 2026. DOS projects 186,317 employment-based immigrant visas for FY2027, representing an increase of more than 36,000 employment-based numbers over FY2026. The availability of EB-5 numbers in FY2027 will depend on demand and the statutory allocation of employment-based immigrant visas.

Accordingly, EB-5 investors — particularly those chargeable to India — should monitor the October 2026 Visa Bulletin for the treatment of EB-5 unreserved numbers as FY2027 begins.

For investors considering an EB-5 investment, the September Visa Bulletin also underscores an important planning consideration: the visa availability analysis is not the same for all EB-5 investors. Country of chargeability, the EB-5 category selected, and whether the investment qualifies for a set-aside can materially affect visa availability and timing.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has launched the National Fraud Detection Center (NFDC), a prosecutor-led, multi-agency initiative designed to identify and investigate actors suspecting of defrauding various federal government programs. Though the formal announcement does not single out business immigration as an isolated enforcement target, the NFDC’s cross-agency architecture may have important implications for employers and participants in the employment-based immigration system.

A New Approach to Investigating Suspected Federal Fraud

In creating the NFDC, DOJ sought to address fragmented oversight, which it identified as a longstanding structural vulnerability across federal programs. Traditionally, fraud investigations have been divided among isolated agencies operating with separate databases, jurisdictions, and investigative protocols. These institutional barriers made it difficult to flag individuals and organizations across various programs and federal domains.

The NFDC bridges these gaps by unifying prosecutors, investigators, inspectors general, financial specialists, and data analysts into a coordinated operational structure. Its core objectives include combining analytical capabilities and directing investigative resources toward a whole-of-government approach to fraud elimination.

Key federal and state partners in the initiative include:

  • Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
  • Homeland Security Investigations (HSI)
  • Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI)
  • Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)
  • Department of the Treasury
  • Agency Offices of Inspector General (including the departments of Homeland Security and Labor)
  • State-level enforcement and regulatory agencies

The NFDC leverages shared technology and cross-agency data analytics to flag misconduct rapidly. Its enforcement priorities are intended to target schemes spanning multiple government programs, as well as suspected bad actors operating internationally.

Potential Impacts on Business Immigration

Importantly, the creation of the NFDC does not alter the underlying statutory or regulatory requirements for employment-based immigration filings. Instead, its impact may be operational; participating agencies now possess enhanced capabilities to cross-reference data and detect inconsistencies across distinct government repositories.

Business immigration filings inherently aggregate a vast amount of corporate and personal data, including details regarding:

  • Employer ownership, corporate structure, and financial health
  • Workforce size, job duties, wage rates, and physical worksites
  • Employee payroll records, tax filings, and historical immigration submissions
  • Operational details, including marketing analytics, short and long-term business plans, and financial pro forma

As a result, material inconsistencies between immigration filings and records held by other agencies — such as the IRS or Department of Labor — may receive heightened scrutiny. Areas of vulnerability may include identified inconsistencies in job descriptions, requirements, and compensation; discrepancies in academic or professional credentials, payroll reporting, or worksites; undisclosed third-party placements; and inaccurate corporate relationships. Furthermore, a perceived discrepancy in an immigration petition may trigger secondary reviews spanning labor, tax, financial, or criminal enforcement lines.

While not every data mismatch signals intentional fraud — corporate structures evolve, inter-agency terminology varies, and administrative errors happen — submitting inaccurate information may carry serious risks, including Requests for Evidence (RFEs) or Notices of Intent to Deny (NOIDs), unannounced site visits, federal audits, petition denials, revocations, or formal referrals for criminal investigation.

Preparing for Coordinated Enforcement

Employers should consider treating immigration compliance as a key component of their broader corporate compliance framework, rather than an isolated human resources task. Accordingly, employers may wish to confirm that immigration-related documents and records undergo careful review to support accuracy and consistency across public filings.

To help mitigate exposure in a unified enforcement environment, organizations may wish to take the following actions:   

  • Cross-File Reconciliation: Systematically compare new immigration filings against historical submissions made to the U.S. Department of Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Department of Labor, and the IRS to verify uniform data points.
  • Change Management Audits: Actively review material changes in employee job responsibilities, compensation packages, physical worksites, or internal reporting hierarchies, amending petitions where required.
  • Documentation Hygiene: Maintain robust, accessible records backing up the assertions, wage figures, and structural details included in petitions.
  • Site Visit Readiness: Train human resources personnel, reception staff, and management on appropriate protocols for responding to unannounced government site visits and agency inquiries.

The establishment of the NFDC underscores an important compliance maxim: data submitted to a federal agency may now be evaluated against an organization’s complete, government-wide footprint. Precise filings, documented internal controls, and timely remediation may help an organization manage risk in an era of coordinated government oversight.

Recent legislative, regulatory, and litigation developments have affected Temporary Protected Status (TPS)-related employment authorization, with implications for ongoing work authorization.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), signed into law July 4, 2025, includes a provision limiting TPS-based employment authorization documents (EADs) to a maximum validity period of one year, or the duration of an individual’s TPS status, whichever is shorter. The OBBBA also directly curtails the previously available 540-day automatic extensions that many TPS holders relied upon. An interim final rule from the Department of Homeland Security  issued Oct. 30, 2025, eliminated the regulatory basis for those 540-day automatic extensions going forward.

The Deadline for TPS EAD Extensions

For TPS beneficiaries who filed EAD renewal applications before July 22, 2025, and whose applications remained pending, automatic work authorization extensions expired on July 22, 2026, regardless of any later expiration date reflected on a Form I-797C receipt notice. This affected TPS holders from El Salvador, Sudan, Ukraine, and other designated countries that had been counting on extension end dates as late as October 2026.

The Court’s Decision Upholding the 1-Year EAD Cap

Litigation over these policies has produced mixed results. On July 21, 2026, a federal court in Massachusetts temporarily stayed certain United States Citizenship and Immigration Services policies, briefly preserving prior extension expiration dates. However, on Aug. 5, 2026, that same court largely sided with the government, upholding the one-year cap policy and rejecting arguments that it was procedurally flawed or impermissibly retroactive. The court confirmed that TPS beneficiaries from El Salvador, Sudan, and Ukraine are subject to the July 22, 2026, expiration of their 540-day extensions.

The court did grant limited relief on an unrelated policy involving consequences for asylum applicants who failed to pay the annual asylum fee, staying that provision pending further proceedings.

Employer Considerations: I-9 Reverification and E-Verify Compliance

Employers with TPS workers on their payroll may wish to take the following steps:

  • Audit I-9 records to identify EADs tied to TPS categories A12 or C19.
  • Verify whether those EADs were subject to a 540-day automatic extension that has now been cut short.
  • Complete I-9 reverification for any affected employees.
  • Monitor E-Verify for status updates reflecting the revised expiration dates.

A Note on Ongoing TPS Litigation for Other Designated Countries

Work authorization for TPS beneficiaries from certain other countries, including Burma (Myanmar), Ethiopia, Haiti, Somalia, South Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, may still be protected by separate court orders and pending litigation.

The Trump administration has directed U.S. embassies and consulates worldwide to temporarily pause and reschedule immigrant visa interviews while consular officers undergo mandatory training on enhanced screening procedures, including the public charge ground of inadmissibility. This development represents a significant change for individuals pursuing U.S. permanent residence through consular processing and may result in delays for family-based, employment-based, and other immigrant visa applicants around the world.

The Pause Applies to Immigrant Visa Interviews

This pause should not be confused with a suspension of all U.S. visa interviews. Based on information currently available from the State Department, the directive applies to immigrant visa interviews – meaning, to family-sponsored and employment-based applicants seeking to obtain U.S. permanent residence through U.S. embassies and consulates. Nonimmigrant visa categories — including B-1/B-2 visitors, F-1 students, H-1B workers, L-1 intracompany transferees, and E-2 treaty investors — are not presently included in the worldwide interview pause. Applicants should nevertheless continue to monitor communications from the U.S. consular post or embassy handling their specific case, as appointment practices may vary by post.

New Training Focuses on Public Charge Review

The U.S. Department of State reportedly instituted a temporary immigrant visa interview pause to provide consular officers with additional training on screening immigrant visa applicants, with particular attention to the public charge ground of inadmissibility. Under Section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, certain applicants may be found inadmissible if the government determines that they are likely at any time to become a public charge.

Public charge determinations involve considering an applicant’s overall circumstances, including financial resources, age, health, education, skills, family circumstances, and other relevant factors, as applicable under governing law and policy. The emphasis on additional officer training might be related to the recent DHS announcement of a new final rule surrounding public charge determinations and suggests that immigrant visa applicants may encounter heightened scrutiny of financial circumstances and self-sufficiency once interviews resume.

Accordingly, the significance of the current development may extend beyond the temporary rescheduling of interviews. GT will continue to track this development, including any adjudication trends noted after consular officers complete the new training.

How Long Will the Pause Last?

The State Department has not announced a firm date by which immigrant visa interviews will resume normal operations. Reports indicate that applicants with affected appointments may have their interviews postponed or rescheduled and should receive further instructions regarding new interview dates. Some reporting suggests that the interruptions may continue into September, although applicants may not want to rely on a particular date unless confirmed by the U.S. consular post where their interview is scheduled. Individuals with upcoming immigrant visa appointments should carefully monitor their email, the relevant embassy or consulate website, and any communications received through the visa processing portal. Applicants might also avoid making non-refundable travel arrangements based solely on an existing interview date without confirming that the appointment remains scheduled. The State Department urges applicants to avoid securing U.S. travel arrangements until such time that their immigrant visa applications have been approved.

The Announcement Follows a Significant Federal Court Decision

The timing of the worldwide interview pause is particularly notable, as this directive follows closely after a federal court struck down a separate Trump administration policy that had suspended immigrant visa issuance for nationals of 75 countries. However, the two developments should not be conflated. The earlier policy imposed restrictions based on nationality, while the new interview pause is broader geographically and is being characterized as a temporary operational measure designed to allow the State Department to train consular officers on enhanced adjudication standards. Nevertheless, the developments collectively reflect the administration’s continuing effort to impose greater scrutiny on immigrant visa adjudications and legal immigration overall.

Considerations for Immigrant Visa Applicants

Applicants pursuing permanent residence through consular processing may wish to be particularly vigilant during this period.

Those applicants who previously received immigrant visa interview notifications may wish to confirm whether their appointments remain scheduled, as well as closely monitor communications from the relevant consular post. Applicants who receive notification of interview postponement should preserve all notices and follow the post’s rescheduling instructions. Applicants may also wish to use any additional time to review the financial and other documentation required in support of their applications. Given the administration’s increased focus on public charge inadmissibility, applicants should be prepared to address questions concerning their financial circumstances and ability to support themselves in the United States.

Employment-based applicants and their employers should also consider whether a prolonged consular delay might affect employment start dates, existing nonimmigrant status, international travel, or other immigration planning.

What Comes Next May Be More Important Than the Pause

While the immediate concern is the interruption of immigrant visa interviews, the longer-term significance of the announcement may be the adjudication environment applicants encounter when interviews resume. Mandatory worldwide training is an indication that the State Department expects consular officers to apply its screening policies more consistently — and potentially more rigorously — across U.S. consular posts. Applicants should consider preparing not only for a rescheduled interview, but potentially for a more demanding immigrant visa adjudication process once interviews resume. Given the rapidly evolving immigration environment, immigrant visa applicants should continue monitoring all State Department announcements and guidance from the U.S. embassy or consulate handling their cases.

On Aug. 21, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a decision in Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC), et al. v. Rubio, striking down a Department of State policy that suspended immigrant visa issuance to nationals of 75 countries based on generalized public charge concerns and vacated the policy.

Background

In January 2026, the Department of State announced a policy directing U.S. consular officers to refuse immigrant visas to nationals of 75 designated countries. The policy was based on concerns that individuals from those countries were more likely to rely on public benefits in the United States. As a result, applicants could be denied immigrant visas regardless of their personal circumstances or whether they were otherwise eligible for visa issuance.

Countries Affected by the Immigrant Visa Ban

The ban applied to nationals of the following 75 countries: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burma, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Colombia, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Republic of the Congo (Congo-Brazzaville), Democratic Republic of the Congo (Congo-Kinshasa), Dominica, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, The Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Pakistan, Russia, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, and Yemen. 

The policy was based on an individual’s nationality rather than their country of residence. As a result, a citizen of one of the listed countries might be subject to the ban even if they reside permanently in another country or apply for a visa from a third country.

The Court’s Decision and Its Impact on Applicants

The court found that the policy was inconsistent with U.S. immigration law because it exceeded the secretary of state’s statutory and regulatory authority, and imposed a blanket nationality-based restriction rather than requiring the individualized review of each applicant’s eligibility. The court held that visa applicants must be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that the Department of State exceeded its authority by categorically denying visas based solely on nationality. Accordingly, the court vacated the policy and directed the Department of State to restore individualized processing of visa applications.

This decision reaffirms that immigrant visa applications must be evaluated based on each applicant’s individual circumstances rather than broad assumptions tied to nationality. However, the ruling does not eliminate public charge screening or other visa eligibility requirements, and applicants must still satisfy all applicable requirements for immigrant visa issuance.

The government may appeal the decision.

Key Takeaways and Practical Considerations for Immigrants and Petitioners

  1. Applicants whose immigrant visa cases were affected by this policy might consider consulting with immigration counsel to determine whether the court’s decision may impact their cases or provide a basis for further action.
  2. Applicants may wish to continue preparing for consular processing, confirming that all required civil documents, police certificates, and financial records are up to date, complete, and readily available for review.
  3. The court’s decision does not eliminate public charge screening. Rather, it requires that applicants be assessed on an individual basis under existing immigration laws. Applicants should continue maintaining evidence of their financial stability, income, assets, and other means of support.
  4. The ruling does not guarantee visa issuance. Applicants must continue to meet all requirements for their immigrant visa category and successfully complete the consular process. The decision reinforces that visa eligibility must be determined on a case-by-case basis, not through broad nationality-based restrictions.
  5. Stay informed about further developments as the government may appeal the decision, and future litigation might affect visa processing procedures.

In this episode of Greenberg Traurig’s Immigration Insights Podcast, host Kate Kalmykov invites fellow GT Shareholder Cole Heyer to discuss the evolving state of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and its implications for employers and foreign nationals.

The hosts provide a country-by-country review of TPS program statuses as of August 2026, examining how the current administration’s efforts to terminate multiple TPS designations have triggered a wave of federal litigation that has created an unpredictable compliance environment. Using Haiti TPS as a prime example, Kate and Cole illustrate how competing court orders have forced employers to repeatedly toggle workers on and off payroll, and how the complexity of automatic EAD extensions has created significant risk of I-9 compliance errors and inadvertent discrimination claims.

Their conversation also covers best practices for employers, including HR training, monitoring USCIS and E-Verify resources, and tracking litigation developments. They address the heightened risks of travel for TPS beneficiaries in the current enforcement climate, and survey the alternative immigration pathways available to affected workers, including H-1B sponsorship, employment-based green card sponsorship, asylum, family-based immigration, and self-sponsored categories such as extraordinary ability and national interest waivers.

The episode closes with a look ahead at upcoming TPS expiration dates for El Salvador and Ukraine, and the legal and geopolitical factors that could be impactful.

Only days after the U.S. Department of State (DOS) made its B-1/B-2 visa bond program permanent, the agency has opened a second, more expensive front in its use of financial guarantees. On Aug. 5, 2026, DOS announced the Immigrant Visa Public Charge Bond Pilot Program, which allows consular officers to invite certain immigrant visa applicants found inadmissible on public charge grounds to post a bond as a condition of visa issuance. Reports indicate the pilot is beginning at the U.S. Embassy in Santo Domingo.

Where the permanent nonimmigrant program caps bonds at $20,000 for business visitors and tourists, this pilot reaches would-be permanent residents and, according to public reporting, contemplates bonds from roughly $100,000 to as much as $250,000. For families pursuing immigrant visas, and the sponsors behind them, it injects a potential six-figure requirement into a process some assumed would depend on the Affidavit of Support alone.

A Bond, Not a Waiver: The Legal Foundation

The legal foundation is longstanding. Section 213 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) has for more than a century authorized the admission of a noncitizen who is otherwise inadmissible as likely to become a public charge upon the posting of a suitable and proper bond, with regulations at 8 CFR 213.1 and 103.6. What has changed is not the authority but the decision to use it at scale in the immigrant visa context, where it has rarely been exercised in the modern era.

The bond is an additional remedy layered on top of, not a substitute for, the Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA (Form I-864). When Congress amended INA 213 in 1996, it clarified that a bond may be requested in addition to, not in lieu of, a sufficient Form I-864. Nor is the bond a waiver of the public charge ground; it does not erase the officer’s finding but offers a conditional path to a visa despite it.

Who May Be Affected

The pilot reaches a narrow, specifically identified population. It applies only after a consular officer finds an applicant inadmissible under INA Section 212(a)(4) as likely to become a public charge, a determination made under the totality of the circumstances, weighing factors such as age, health, family status, finances, education, and skills. An applicant cannot request the option; the officer decides whether to offer it, and the applicant is notified.

Being offered a bond is not a guarantee of approval; it opens a route around a denial, but the officer retains discretion and the applicant must still be otherwise admissible. The pilot also does not affect immigrant visas already issued, which remain valid; it concerns applicants still in process. Family-based applicants, routinely subject to the public charge assessment, fall within its scope; humanitarian categories generally do not.

Why Santo Domingo Went First

DOS selected the Dominican Republic because of the scope and scale of immigrant visa operations at the U.S. Embassy in Santo Domingo, one of the highest-volume posts in the world, letting it test the machinery, including moving large sums into Treasury-held accounts. The choice is also practical: the Dominican Republic is not among the countries covered by the immigrant visa issuance pause DOS imposed earlier in 2026, so launching there avoids entangling the bond in that litigation. DOS has signaled the program may expand, so Santo Domingo appears to be a starting point, not a boundary.

That broader pause has since run into trouble. On Jan. 14, 2026, DOS announced it would suspend immigrant visa issuance for nationals of 75 countries deemed at high risk of becoming a public charge. On Aug. 21, 2026, U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas of the Southern District of New York struck that policy down, holding in a 61-page decision that it was contrary to law and exceeded the secretary of state’s authority by categorically refusing visas based on nationality and displacing consular officers’ individualized public charge determinations. The bond pilot is a separate mechanism and does not rise or fall with that ruling, but the decision underscores that public charge findings must rest on the individualized statutory factors rather than blanket, nationality-based bars. The government may appeal.

Bond Amounts and How They Are Posted

Public reporting places bond amounts between $100,000 and $250,000, with the exact figure set by the consular officer’s assessment, far above the historical minimums. The mechanics run on the established Form I-945 framework.

An applicant may post a bond only after being invited to do so and must include the government’s invitation when submitting Form I-945, Public Charge Bond. The bond may be cash, secured by a deposit of the full-face value or a surety bond. USCIS administers it, with funds held in a U.S. Treasury account. Cash deposits accrue interest at the Treasury rate; on cancellation, USCIS refunds the deposit plus interest, but on breach the principal is forfeited and only the interest is remitted.

Cancellation, Breach, and Refunds

A public charge bond is not open-ended, but it does not cancel automatically, either. Under INA 213 and 8 CFR 103.6, it may be cancelled when the noncitizen dies, permanently departs, naturalizes, or reaches the fifth anniversary of becoming a lawful permanent resident, provided in that last case the individual did not receive public cash assistance for income maintenance or long-term institutionalization at government expense. It may also be cancelled earlier if USCIS determines the individual is not likely to become a public charge.

Cancellation must be requested. The obligor, an agent or co-obligor, or the noncitizen or their representative may file Form I-356, Request for Cancellation of Public Charge Bond, which USCIS adjudicates. If USCIS denies cancellation, it states the reasons and the right to appeal under 8 CFR part 103, subpart A. A breach, such as receipt of the specified public benefits in violation of the bond’s conditions, forfeits the principal, subject to the administrative process before any demand for payment becomes final.

How It Differs From the B-1/B-2 Visa Bond Program

Though similarly named, the two programs rest on different foundations. The nonimmigrant program rests on INA Section 221(g)(3), reaches B-1/B-2 applicants from designated countries, caps bonds at $20,000, and runs through the consular and DHS bond process. This pilot rests on INA Section 213, reaches immigrant visa applicants found inadmissible on public charge grounds, runs through USCIS on Form I-945, and contemplates larger bonds. The nonimmigrant program is now a permanent regulation; the immigrant program is, for now, a discretionary pilot at a single post. The two programs are easy to confuse but they differ in who selects the applicant, which agency holds the funds, and what conduct triggers forfeiture.

Practical Steps for Petitioners, Sponsors, and Applicants

For families with immigrant visa cases at Santo Domingo, the pilot makes early attention to the public charge assessment essential. Because the bond is offered only after a Section 212(a)(4) finding, the best strategy may be to avoid that finding altogether, through a sufficient Form I-864, a well-qualified sponsor, and documentation of the applicant’s assets, income, education, and skills before the interview. Where a bond is offered, applicants and sponsors might prepare for a possible six-figure cash requirement, the time needed to move funds into a Treasury-held account, and the risk to the principal if the bond’s conditions are later breached.

Employers that sponsor employees for permanent residence, or support relocating key personnel and their families, may wish to weigh how a potential bond might affect timelines, budgets, and relocation planning, and to involve counsel early to strengthen the record against a public charge finding.

Public Charge Is Reshaping the Landscape

Taken together, these developments show public charge moving to the center of U.S. immigration policy. In a matter of months, the concept has driven a permanent bond program for business visitors and tourists, this six-figure bond pilot for immigrant visa applicants, the rescission of the 2022 public charge rule, and the now-enjoined suspension of immigrant visa issuance for 75 countries, alongside stepped-up consular vetting for potential public benefit use. A ground once rarely invoked has become a primary lever over who receives a visa, and the bonds attached to it carry real stakes for families and their U.S. sponsors.

Public charge is also only one front. The same period has brought new fees, tighter adjudication standards, and travel and processing limits across DOS, DHS, and USCIS, with rules, guidance, and litigation shifting the ground almost weekly. Employers, sponsors, and families may wish to plan accordingly: treating immigration planning as dynamic, building the possibility of a bond or other new requirement into timelines and budgets, strengthening the financial record well before an interview, and staying alert to where these programs expand next.

Greenberg Traurig Immigration & Compliance Practice Co-Chairs Courtney Brooks and Kate Kalmykov will present a webinar on Thursday, Sept. 17, 2026, from 1:00–3:10 p.m. ET. This program will examine the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2026 decision in Blanche v. Lau and its implications for employers whose lawful permanent resident employees travel internationally.

Attendees will gain practical guidance on developing pre-travel screening protocols to identify potentially at-risk employees before departure, facilitate coordination between immigration and criminal defense counsel when necessary, and address considerations arising from U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s expanded biometric entry-exit program, which took effect in December 2025.

Click here to register.

Complimentary registration code: GreenCard26

When U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued updated guidance on Aug. 5, 2026, regarding evidentiary standards, Requests for Evidence (RFEs), and Notices of Intent to Deny (NOIDs), much of the immediate attention focused on the agency’s renewed emphasis on complete filings and its discretion to deny certain cases without first issuing an RFE or NOID.

Only weeks into implementation, however, another aspect of the policy is becoming increasingly important for employers, foreign nationals, and immigration practitioners: significantly shorter RFE response periods.

We are now seeing RFEs issued under the new framework that provide 30 days to respond, rather than the 84-day response period practitioners have commonly received in cases.

That is a meaningful operational change.

What Changed on Aug. 5?

The Aug. 5 policy guidance outlined several principles that substantially increase the importance of preparing a complete and well-documented filing from the outset. USCIS emphasized that applicants and petitioners bear the burden of establishing eligibility at the time of filing and must remain eligible through adjudication. The agency also restored broader discretion to deny a benefit request without first issuing an RFE or NOID where required initial evidence is missing or the evidence submitted does not establish eligibility.

The policy applies to benefit requests pending or filed on or after Aug. 5, 2026, unless otherwise provided by regulation or USCIS policy. But the guidance also addressed something that received comparatively less attention: how much time USCIS gives applicants and petitioners to respond when it does elect to issue an RFE.

The 84-Day Response Period May No Longer Be Assumed

USCIS regulations establish a maximum, rather than a guaranteed, response period for RFEs. An RFE may provide a response period determined by USCIS, but that period cannot exceed 12 weeks.  Historically, practitioners became accustomed in many case types to receiving the maximum 12-week — or 84-day — response period. That time was particularly important when an RFE required extensive documentation, expert opinions, corporate records, financial evidence, or information from multiple third parties.

Under the new guidance, USCIS has made clear that officers may establish case-specific response periods shorter than the regulatory maximum. We are now seeing that authority exercised in practice, with RFEs providing approximately 30 days to prepare and submit a complete response. The distinction is important: USCIS has not adopted a universal 30-day RFE deadline. Rather, the agency is exercising its existing authority to provide shorter response periods. The practical result for applicants and petitioners may nevertheless be significant.

Thirty Days Can Pass Quickly

A 30-day deadline may be challenging even for a relatively straightforward RFE. For more complex employment-based or investment-based matters, an RFE may require coordination among employers, employees, investors, accountants, economists, business-plan writers, regional centers, project developers, educational institutions, foreign banks, or other third parties. Documents may need to be obtained from overseas. Foreign-language materials may require certified translations. Corporate or financial records may need to be assembled and analyzed. Expert reports may need to be prepared or updated.

The difference between 84 days and 30 days may therefore materially affect how an RFE response must be managed. Moreover, USCIS generally does not grant extensions of an RFE response deadline. The response must be submitted within the period provided in the notice. The new policy also makes partial responses particularly risky. USCIS guidance provides that submitting only some of the requested evidence may be treated as a request for the agency to decide the case on the existing record.

The Broader Message: Front-End Preparation Matters More Than Ever

The shortened RFE periods reinforce the larger message of USCIS’s Aug. 5 policy change: applicants and petitioners should not view the RFE process as an opportunity to complete or substantially supplement a filing that was not fully developed when submitted. 

This has several practical implications. First, applicants may wish to prepare filings as though USCIS will adjudicate them based entirely on the initial submission. Applicants may want to include required initial evidence and proactively address foreseeable eligibility issues. 

Second, applicants, petitioners, and employers should consider preserving the supporting records underlying the filing so they can be accessed quickly if USCIS raises questions. Third, when an RFE is received, it should be reviewed immediately. Under the prior practice, parties sometimes had sufficient time to spend several weeks gathering documents before beginning substantive preparation of the response. A 30-day deadline leaves little room for delay.

Finally, cases involving third-party documentation deserve particular attention. If evidence may later need to be obtained from banks, former employers, universities, foreign government agencies, corporate affiliates, investors, or other outside sources, identifying those potential evidentiary needs before filing might substantially reduce risk.

What Employers and Foreign Nationals Should Consider Now

The first weeks following implementation of the Aug. 5 guidance suggest that the change is not merely theoretical. USCIS has signaled a more demanding approach to evidentiary sufficiency while simultaneously giving adjudicators greater discretion both to deny cases without first requesting additional evidence and, where an RFE is issued, to provide a shorter period in which to respond. For employers, investors, and foreign nationals, the practical takeaway is straightforward: the margin for correcting or supplementing a filing after submission may be shrinking. Petitions and applications should therefore be prepared as comprehensively as possible at filing, and any RFE or NOID received after Aug. 5 should be treated as immediately time sensitive. Applicants and petitioners should carefully review the deadline stated on the notice rather than assume that the traditional 84-day RFE response period applies. As USCIS continues implementing the new policy, stakeholders should also watch closely to determine whether 30-day RFE response periods become more widespread across particular case types or adjudicating offices.

GT’s Immigration & Compliance Practice is recognized by The Best Lawyers in America® & Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America 2027 Editions! Shareholder Jennifer Hermansky was named Best Lawyers® 2027 Immigration Law “Lawyer of the Year” in Philadelphia.


Congratulations to Courtney Brooks, Linnea Porter, Kristen Burke, Ian Macdonald, Laura Reiff, Rebecca Schechter, Kate Kalmykov, Jennifer Hermansky, Nataliya Rymer, Caterina Cappellari, Faraz Qaisrani, and Agnes Cha Rudinsky.

Click here to read the full press release.