State Department Restricts Third-Country Visa Processing.

DOS updated its worldwide visa-processing instructions. Nonimmigrant visa applicants are now expected to schedule interviews in their country of nationality or residence, and applicants relying on residence must be prepared to prove it. Those applying elsewhere may face substantially longer waits and greater difficulty qualifying; fees are nontransferable and nonrefundable. DOS issued a parallel policy for immigrant visas, generally requiring processing in the applicant’s consular district of residence or country of nationality, subject to limited exceptions. worldwide visa-processing instructions

This significantly reduces the usefulness of “third-country national” processing as a strategy for avoiding long appointment queues. Clients planning visa renewals should generally assume they will need to process at home or where they genuinely reside and build travel and processing delays into immigration planning.

DHS Rescinds the 2022 Public-Charge Framework.

USCIS/DHS published a final rule rescinding the 2022 Public Charge Final Rule and restoring considerably broader adjudicator discretion under INA §212(a)(4). DHS removed several regulatory definitions and the structured 2022 framework, stating that officers should be able to consider the statutory factors and other pertinent evidence under the totality of circumstances. The new rule takes effect September 18, 2026 and applies to adjustment applications filed on or after that date; pre-September 18 receipt of means-tested benefits is to be evaluated under the former 2022 regime. Public Charge Final Rule

Practical implications. Public-charge analysis is likely to become materially less predictable because applicants will have less benefit from the relatively defined 2022 safe framework. For potentially vulnerable adjustment applicants, the September 18 filing date matters, and financial resources, health insurance, employment history, household circumstances, Affidavit of Support evidence and any benefit history should be reviewed before filing.

TPS EAD One-Year Cap Litigation Changes Employment Authorization for Certain TPS Holders.

Litigation in Venezuelan Association of Massachusetts v. USCIS temporarily interrupted USCIS’s implementation of the statutory one-year cap on certain TPS employment authorization. A July 21 administrative stay temporarily preserved previously announced longer EAD extensions, but on August 5 the district court declined to continue that relief, permitting the one-year cap to apply to TPS EADs for, among others, qualifying beneficiaries from El Salvador, Sudan and Ukraine. The litigation separately produced relief concerning the Annual Asylum Fee discussed below. Venezuelan Association of Massachusetts v. USCIS court document

Employers should not rely exclusively on an older I-797 notice stating that an EAD received a 540-day extension; TPS work authorization must be checked against the beneficiary’s specific country, EAD category and the latest USCIS/court guidance. This has direct Form I-9 reverification consequences and can produce unexpectedly earlier employment-authorization expiration dates. TPS and parole status updates chart

First Circuit Leaves $100,000 Payment Vacatur in Place While DHS Proposes Separate $103,265 Cap-Subject Filing Fee.

Two separate developments have significantly affected the potential cost of H-1B sponsorship. First, in State of California v. Mullin, the First Circuit declined to stay the district court judgment vacating agency implementation of the $100,000 supplemental H-1B payment requirement associated with Presidential Proclamation 10973. As a result, employers are not currently required to pay that $100,000 charge while the litigation continues. First Circuit order Separately, on August 25, DHS published a proposed rule that would impose an additional $103,265 filing fee on cap-subject H-1B petitions, including petitions under the U.S. advanced-degree exemption. That proposal is legally distinct from the $100,000 proclamation payment and, as of the current date, has not been finalized and is not currently payable. DHS proposed rule

Employers should carefully distinguish the two measures: the earlier $100,000 payment is presently blocked by the courts, while the proposed $103,265 fee remains only a regulatory proposal. If DHS ultimately finalizes the latter substantially as proposed, it could dramatically change the economics of cap-subject H-1B hiring, encouraging employers to consider cap-exempt employment, alternative visa categories, overseas employment arrangements, and substantially more selective H-1B cap participation. For now, employers should continue filing under the existing fee structure while monitoring both the appellate litigation and the DHS rulemaking.

USCIS May Refer Affirmative Asylum Cases to Immigration Court Without an Asylum Interview.

DHS issued an interim final rule authorizing USCIS to refer certain affirmative Form I-589 cases directly to EOIR without first conducting an asylum-office interview. The mechanism can be used where the existing record establishes circumstances such as a statutory bar, discretionary basis for denial, or other basis for referral. USCIS still retains the ability to interview cases where necessary before granting or finally denying relief. The rule became effective July 28. interim final rule

Practical implications. An affirmative asylum filing can no longer safely be treated as merely the first stage before an opportunity to develop the record at an asylum interview. Initial I-589 packages should increasingly be prepared as potentially court-ready records, because some applicants may find themselves in removal proceedings without the traditional asylum-office interview.

Reports of ICE Arrests at Affirmative Asylum Interviews.

AILA reported receiving multiple accounts of DHS enforcement actions occurring at USCIS asylum offices, including arrests connected with scheduled affirmative asylum interviews. Some reportedly involved criminal histories, but AILA indicated that others did not present an obvious criminal trigger. USCIS’s existing Affirmative Asylum Procedures Manual confirms more generally that DHS officers can make arrests at asylum offices and that arrest decisions fall within ICE’s law-enforcement authority. AILA reports

Parties should no longer assume that attending an affirmative asylum interview is operationally insulated from ICE enforcement. Before an interview, practitioners should review the client’s full immigration history, prior removal orders, criminal contacts, aliases, entry history and potential enforcement exposure, and should plan for the possibility of detention where meaningful risk exists.

State Department Expands Use of Visa Bonds for Both B-1/B-2 and Immigrant Visa Applicants.

The Department of State has expanded the use of financial bonds as an immigration-control tool in both nonimmigrant and immigrant visa processing. First, DOS finalized a permanent Visa Bond Program authorizing consular officers to require certain B-1/B-2 applicants to post a bond of up to $20,000 as a condition of visa issuance, principally where additional assurance of compliance with the terms of admission is considered appropriate. Visa Bond Program

Separately, DOS introduced a public-charge bond procedure for immigrant visa applicants refused under INA §212(a)(4). Under that process, a consular officer may direct an otherwise eligible immigrant visa applicant to seek a Public Charge Bond through USCIS as a means of overcoming the public-charge ground of inadmissibility. Applicants cannot elect to post such a bond on their own; the procedure becomes available only when directed by the government. public-charge bond procedure

Practical implications. The two programs reflect broader use of financial guarantees to address different immigration risks: overstay/compliance concerns in the B-1/B-2 context and public-charge concerns in immigrant visa processing. Neither type of bond independently establishes visa eligibility or guarantees issuance. Applicants should therefore continue to develop the underlying eligibility record fully and should not post or seek a bond unless instructed to do so by the consular officer.

USCIS Restores Broader Authority to Deny Filings Without an RFE or NOID.

USCIS Policy Alert PA-2026-05 restored officer discretion to deny applications and petitions lacking required initial evidence without first issuing an RFE or NOID. USCIS also moved away from routinely allowing the maximum evidentiary response periods and aligned response times more closely with applicable regulations and case circumstances. USCIS Policy Alert PA-2026-05

The longstanding practical assumption that a marginal filing can simply be “fixed at the RFE stage” is substantially less safe. Petitions and applications should be prepared as approval-ready at filing, particularly where a statutory eligibility element or required initial document can be established from the outset.

USCIS Establishes a Framework for Mandatory Electronic filing.

USCIS’s August 11 interim final rule creates the regulatory architecture under which the agency may require particular immigration benefit requests to be submitted electronically, with hardship-waiver mechanisms. It does not automatically make every form for which USCIS has an online option mandatory; individual filing requirements must still be checked. mandatory electronic filing interim final rule

Law firms and employers should begin treating electronic filing as the default direction of USCIS operations and adapt signature, payment, document-retention and quality-control systems accordingly. Until USCIS activates mandatory filing for a particular form, practitioners should continue following that form’s current instructions.

Court Ends 75-Country Suspension While DOS Temporarily Pauses Interviews Worldwide.

Two separate developments have significantly affected immigrant visa processing. First, on August 21, 2026, the Southern District of New York vacated the State Department’s policy suspending immigrant visa issuance to nationals of 75 countries based on public-charge concerns. DOS subsequently updated its public guidance on August 28 and confirmed that the January 2026 issuance pause was no longer in effect. The ruling means that nationality on the former 75-country list, standing alone, may no longer serve as the basis for the blanket suspension, although ordinary public-charge analysis, other inadmissibility grounds, and applicable travel restrictions continue to apply. Southern District of New York ruling

Separately, beginning around August 26, DOS reportedly instituted a temporary worldwide pause in immigrant visa interviews while consular officers receive additional public-charge training. Scheduled interviews have reportedly been cancelled or postponed, although the pause does not appear to extend to nonimmigrant visa interviews or USCIS adjustment-of-status adjudications. Importantly, the worldwide interview pause is operationally and legally distinct from the now-vacated 75-country issuance suspension: the former affects the scheduling and conduct of immigrant visa interviews generally, whereas the latter targeted issuance to nationals of specified countries. report on the immigrant visa interview pause

Applicants from the former 75-country list should no longer be subject to a categorical immigrant-visa issuance suspension solely because of nationality, and cases previously affected by that policy may be eligible to resume adjudication. At the same time, immigrant visa applicants worldwide may face appointment cancellations and processing delays while the separate interview pause remains in effect. Applicants should therefore monitor NVC and consular communications closely and be prepared to refresh time-sensitive documents, including medical examinations and financial evidence, if delays become prolonged.

DOS Reportedly Begins Identifying B-1/B-2 Visa Holders Who Later Applied for Asylum.

According to State Department/White House statements reported by Fragomen and the press, DOS and DHS are reviewing B-1/B-2 visas issued between 2016 and 2026 to identify people who entered as visitors and subsequently filed asylum applications, with the intention of revoking qualifying visitor visas on a rolling basis. As of August 30, I have not located a formal DOS regulation, public cable or detailed written policy specifying the precise scope, exceptions or implementation standards. Fragomen report

For a person already in the United States with a properly pending asylum application, revocation of the visa foil generally does not by itself terminate the person’s current status or asylum application; its immediate practical effect is primarily that the visa can no longer be used for future admission. Nevertheless, asylum applicants who originally entered in B status should assume that subsequent travel and attempted B-visa reuse will receive intensive scrutiny.

OIRA Completes Review of Proposed Elimination of the 60-day Nonimmigrant Grace Period.

OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs completed review on August 27 of USCIS’s proposed rule titled “Eliminating the Discretionary 60-day Grace Period,” RIN 1615-AD22, returning it as “Consistent with Change.” This means the proposal has cleared White House regulatory review and can move toward Federal Register publication. Critically, however, the text has not yet been published and the existing grace-period regulations remain in force today. OIRA review record

Practical implications. H-1B, L-1, O-1, TN and other potentially affected workers should not yet behave as though the grace period has disappeared. But employers and foreign workers should prepare for a potentially dramatic reduction in post-termination planning time if the eventual proposal is finalized – making rapid change-of-employer/change-of-status filings after layoffs considerably more important.