Marina Shepelsky

New Public Charge Rules for Green Card Applicants Take Effect September 18, 2026
AUG 20, 2026

The U.S. government is significantly expanding the public charge analysis used in certain Green Card cases. Beginning September 18, 2026, USCIS will apply new rules when deciding whether an applicant is likely to become dependent on government assistance in the future. The change follows the Department of Homeland Security’s rescission of the more limited 2022 public charge regulations.

Under the new policy, USCIS officers may examine a much broader picture of an applicant’s circumstances. This can include the applicant’s age, health, family situation, financial resources, assets, education, skills, employment history, and receipt of certain government benefits. Means-tested public benefits received on or after September 18, 2026 may be considered as part of the analysis. However, USCIS is still required to look at the totality of the circumstances, and no single factor—such as unemployment, disability, or age—automatically makes someone inadmissible as a public charge.

The new rules are particularly important for people filing Form I-485 to adjust status and obtain a Green Card inside the United States. Applicants who are subject to the public charge ground should expect USCIS to scrutinize their financial circumstances more closely. In many family-based cases, the Form I-864 Affidavit of Support will remain extremely important, but USCIS may also evaluate whether the sponsor realistically has the income and resources necessary to support the immigrant. Applicants should not assume that simply submitting an I-864 automatically resolves every public charge concern.

Another major development is the return of the Public Charge Bond. If USCIS believes an applicant is inadmissible solely because of public charge concerns, USCIS may, in its discretion, give the applicant an opportunity to post a bond using Form I-945 rather than deny the Green Card application outright. The bond is intended to protect the government if the immigrant later receives prohibited public benefits. USCIS—not the applicant—determines whether the bond option will be offered, and it is not available as a matter of right.

The Department of State has also begun using public charge bonds in some immigrant visa cases processed through U.S. consulates abroad. Under a pilot procedure announced in August 2026, a consular officer may notify a selected immigrant visa applicant that a public charge bond may be used to overcome a refusal under INA § 212(a)(4). Bond amounts are determined based on the circumstances of the individual case. This does not mean that every Green Card or immigrant visa applicant must post a bond.

There are also important exceptions. Public charge rules do not apply in the same way to every immigrant. Refugees, asylees, certain VAWA self-petitioners, U and T visa applicants, and several other humanitarian categories have statutory or regulatory protections from the public charge ground of inadmissibility. Green Card holders applying for naturalization also are not applying for admission or adjustment of status simply by filing an N-400.

For immigrants planning to file for adjustment of status after September 18, 2026, financial preparation may now be just as important as proving the underlying family or employment relationship. Applicants should carefully review any public benefits they have received, their household income, employment history, health insurance, assets, debts, sponsor qualifications, and supporting financial documentation before filing.

If you are applying for a Green Card and are concerned about the new public charge rules, government benefits, your sponsor’s income, or whether USCIS could require a public charge bond, contact Shepelsky Law Group before filing. Our immigration attorneys can review your eligibility, identify potential public charge problems, and help prepare the strongest possible application. Call Shepelsky Law Group at +1 (718) 769-6352 [landline] or visit shepelskylaw.com to schedule a consultation.

1 hour ago | [YT] | 0

Marina Shepelsky

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IS INTENTIONALLY LIMITING LEGAL IMMIGRATION TO THE U.S.

The Trump administration is not limiting its immigration crackdown to undocumented immigrants alone. New policies are increasingly affecting people who are trying to immigrate legally through family petitions, employment-based visas, Diversity Visas, refugee programs, adjustment of status, and other lawful immigration pathways. A recent Forbes report [source: www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2026/08/17/tru…] describes the administration’s approach as an effort that is now restricting virtually every major category of legal immigration.

According to Forbes, analysts with the National Foundation for American Policy estimate that current policies could reduce legal immigration to the United States by approximately 33% to 50% during President Trump’s four-year term, potentially affecting between 1.5 million and 2.4 million prospective legal immigrants. These restrictions do not affect only immigrants themselves. They also affect U.S. citizens trying to sponsor spouses, parents and children, as well as American employers attempting to hire needed foreign workers.

One of the most significant restrictions involves immigrant visa processing abroad. The State Department has paused immigrant visa issuance for nationals of 75 countries, including Ukraine’s neighboring and former Soviet countries such as Russia, Belarus, Moldova, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, as well as many countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean. Applicants may still be able to submit applications and attend interviews, but visa issuance remains paused for affected nationals subject to limited exceptions. Separately, Presidential Proclamation 10998 fully or partially restricts immigrant or nonimmigrant visa issuance for nationals of 39 countries.

Other legal immigration programs are also facing major obstacles. Forbes reports that the administration has stopped issuance of approximately 55,000 Diversity Visas, while litigation challenging the policy continues. That is especially serious because DV-2026 winners generally must receive their immigrant visas or adjustment of status approvals by September 30, 2026, or lose eligibility based on their DV-2026 selection. Refugee admissions have also been sharply restricted, while several federal lawsuits are challenging government freezes and holds affecting lawful immigration applications.

Family-based immigration and adjustment of status are becoming more difficult as well. USCIS rescinded the 2022 public-charge regulation in July 2026, with the new rule scheduled to take effect on September 18, 2026. The change gives immigration officers greater discretion when determining whether an intending immigrant may become a public charge. At the same time, employment-based immigrants face potential changes involving prevailing wages, PERM labor certification requirements, visa availability, and increased scrutiny of petitions and applications. Forbes warns that these combined measures demonstrate that the current immigration crackdown reaches far beyond unlawful immigration and increasingly affects people attempting to follow the legal immigration system.

If you are in the United States without permanent status, have a pending immigration case, are waiting for an immigrant visa abroad, or have a family member you want to sponsor, now is the time to understand your options. Immigration policies are changing rapidly, and waiting can sometimes eliminate options that are available today. Call Shepelsky Law Group at Tel: (718)769-6352 to schedule an immigration consultation.

Our immigration attorneys can review your history, determine whether you have a path to legalize your immigration status, and help you pursue the strongest available option for a visa, Green Card, humanitarian protection, or other lawful status in the United States.

9 hours ago | [YT] | 0

Marina Shepelsky

WRIT OF MANDAMUS – When USCIS Is Taking Too Long to Decide Your Case

If your immigration case has been pending with USCIS for more than one year without a decision post-interview, or if it’s stuck with USCIS before decision over 4.5 years, and ordinary case inquiries have not resolved the delay, a Writ of Mandamus lawsuit may be an option to force the government to take action.

A Writ of Mandamus is a lawsuit filed in U.S. Federal District Court against USCIS and the appropriate federal officials. Federal law gives district courts authority to compel a federal agency or officer to perform a duty owed to an applicant. The Administrative Procedure Act also allows a federal court to compel agency action that has been unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.

What Does a Mandamus Lawsuit Do?

The purpose of the lawsuit is to tell the federal court:

USCIS has had enough time to process this case. The applicant has complied with the requirements, but the government has failed to make a decision. We are asking the Court to require USCIS to act.

A Mandamus lawsuit does not ask the judge to approve your immigration case and does not guarantee approval. Instead, it asks the court to require USCIS to move the case forward and make a decision.

What Happens After the Lawsuit Is Filed?

Once the federal lawsuit is filed, USCIS and the responsible federal officials are formally served with the complaint. The case is no longer simply sitting in the USCIS processing system—the federal government must respond to litigation concerning the delay.

In many cases, the filing of the lawsuit can result in USCIS reviewing the application, scheduling an interview, completing necessary background processing, issuing a Request for Evidence if additional information is required, or making a final decision. The exact result and timing cannot be guaranteed.

What Types of Cases May Qualify?

Mandamus litigation may potentially be considered for delayed:

Green Card / Adjustment of Status applications (Form I-485)
Naturalization applications (Form N-400)
Family petitions (Form I-130)
Employment-based immigration petitions
Asylum and other immigration applications
Other USCIS cases that have remained pending for an unusually long period
There is no automatic rule that a case becomes eligible for Mandamus simply because one year has passed. The question is whether the delay is unreasonable under the circumstances. We evaluate the type of application, normal processing expectations, how long the case has been pending, the reason USCIS has given for the delay, and the applicant’s prior efforts to obtain a decision.

When Should You Consider Mandamus?

PRE-INTERVIEW
If you did not yet have a USCIS interview, a time period of 4.5 years is best before you file a Writ of Mandamus.

POST-INTERVIEW
If your case has been pending for over one year after your interview, particularly when you have already submitted USCIS inquiries or otherwise tried unsuccessfully to obtain meaningful information, it may be time to have an immigration attorney evaluate whether federal litigation is appropriate.

You do not necessarily have to continue waiting indefinitely simply because USCIS tells you that your case is still pending. Federal law provides a mechanism for applicants to challenge government action that has been unreasonably delayed.

Our attorneys can review your USCIS case history, determine whether the delay may support a Mandamus action, and, when appropriate, file a lawsuit in federal court seeking to require the government to finally take action on your immigration case.

CALL SHEPELSKY LAW GROUP TODAY TO BEGIN YOUR OWN WRIT OF MANDAMUS JOURNEY AT TEL: 718-769-6352

1 day ago | [YT] | 0

Marina Shepelsky

URGENT NOTICE TO ADVANCE PAROLE HOLDERS AND CLIENTS: DO NOT TRAVEL OUTSIDE THE U.S. ON ADVANCE PAROLE FOR NOW

We are once again facing significant changes in immigration law that may affect a large number of individuals with pending Form I-485 applications — meaning those who are currently waiting for their green cards inside the United States.

On August 13, 2026, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) issued a decision in Matter of Delcarmen-Lara, 29 I&N Dec. 830, which overturns the long-standing precedent set by Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly.

This is a very serious development.

What has changed?

For many years, individuals in the U.S. who held Advance Parole (AP) were able, under certain circumstances, to travel abroad and return using that document without the trip being treated as a “departure” that would trigger the 3-year or 10-year unlawful presence bars.

Because of this, Advance Parole became a critical protection for many people with pending adjustment of status cases.

That interpretation has now changed.

The BIA has ruled that travel on Advance Parole may now be considered a “departure” for purposes of the unlawful presence bars under immigration law.

Why is this dangerous?

If a person has accumulated sufficient unlawful presence before leaving the United States, a trip abroad using Advance Parole may now potentially trigger an immigration bar upon departure.

For example:
🔴 More than 180 days of unlawful presence — potential 3-year bar
🔴 One year or more of unlawful presence — potential 10-year bar

This could seriously impact a person’s ability to obtain a green card through adjustment of status.

In some cases, waivers may still be available, but Advance Parole no longer automatically protects against unlawful presence consequences.

IMPORTANT: This does NOT mean everyone with Advance Parole is automatically barred

It is critical not to assume:

“I have AP, so I cannot travel.”

or

“I have AP, so I can travel safely.”

Both assumptions may be incorrect.

Everything depends on the individual immigration history, including:

how you entered the U.S.;
how long you were out of status;
when and how unlawful presence accrued;
your adjustment of status category;
whether you have VAWA, TPS, DACA, or another protected status;
prior departures from the U.S.;
any removal order history;
eligibility for waivers;
and other case-specific factors.
Certain categories of immigrants may have exceptions to unlawful presence rules. Therefore, VAWA, TPS, DACA, and similar categories cannot be treated as identical situations.

What if someone is already outside the United States?

This is a particularly complex situation.

The new decision is generally described as applying prospectively (going forward). Therefore, the exact date of departure from the U.S. may be extremely important.

If you already left the U.S. using Advance Parole before this decision was issued, do not make any assumptions about whether you should return immediately or remain abroad.

Your next steps must be based on the specific facts of your case.

What should you do now?

OUR CURRENT RECOMMENDATION:

❗ DO NOT TRAVEL OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES ON ADVANCE PAROLE UNTIL YOU RECEIVE INDIVIDUAL INSTRUCTIONS FROM OUR OFFICE.

This applies especially to clients with pending adjustment of status cases, particularly those who have ever had unlawful presence.

We are sending individualized alerts to clients who had planned travel and are also contacting those currently outside the United States.

We are doing this out of an abundance of caution while we analyze the full impact of Matter of Delcarmen-Lara across different categories of cases.

One more very important point

We understand how stressful and frustrating this change may be.

However, this decision was issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals, not by our law firm.

We did not create this rule or this precedent.

Our responsibility is to inform you of legal changes, warn you about potential risks, and protect your immigration case to the best of our ability.

We are all navigating this new and difficult situation together.

Therefore, questions are always welcome.

However, abusive, threatening, aggressive, or disrespectful phone calls, emails, messages, or any other communication directed at attorneys or staff are not acceptable.

Frustration is understandable. Aggression is not.

Such behavior may result in termination of legal representation if a client engages in threats, harassment, or repeated inappropriate conduct toward our office.

Key takeaway

Until you receive direct instructions from our office — DO NOT TRAVEL outside the U.S. on Advance Parole.

Do not book travel simply because your AP document is valid.

Do not rely on outdated social media videos, friends’ advice, or information that predates August 13, 2026.

Immigration law has changed, and each case must now be evaluated individually.

If you are already outside the United States or have upcoming travel planned using Advance Parole, do not take any action without first consulting your immigration attorney.

We will continue to closely monitor developments. This decision is very recent, and its full practical impact on different categories of immigrants is still being evaluated.

Protect your immigration case. Do not take travel risks until you are certain it is safe for YOUR specific situation.

By: Marina Shepelsky, Esq.

Shepelsky Law Group

📞 (718)769-6352

🔗 ShepelskyLaw.com

1 day ago | [YT] | 0

Marina Shepelsky

Trump’s Second Attempt to Limit Birthright Citizenship Is Already Facing Its First Court Challenge

President Trump’s August 2026 second round of executive actions attempting to limit birthright citizenship is already being challenged in federal court. Only days after the President issued new orders on August 6, 2026, the ACLU and other civil rights organizations went back to court seeking to stop the Administration from using those orders to deny U.S. citizenship to children they argue remain protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

This is essentially round two of the birthright citizenship battle. The Trump Administration previously attempted to deny automatic citizenship to certain children born in the United States based on their parents’ immigration status. That effort ultimately reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled on June 30, 2026, that children born in the United States to undocumented or temporarily present parents are protected by the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Administration responded in August with a new, narrower set of executive actions designed to restrict citizenship in additional circumstances.

The new orders focus in part on so-called birth tourism and would also attempt to deny automatic citizenship in certain cases involving foreign government employees, immigration fraud, and individuals the government classifies as alien enemies. The White House maintains that these new measures are consistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling and fall within recognized constitutional exceptions.

But the first legal challenge to this second attempt is already here. On August 11, the ACLU and other organizations filed a motion in the existing Barbara v. Trump litigation in federal court in New Hampshire. They are asking the judge to make clear that the existing injunction protecting U.S.-born children also prevents the government from accomplishing through the new executive orders what it could not accomplish through its earlier order. The civil rights groups argue that the President cannot use a new executive order to rewrite the constitutional meaning of birthright citizenship.

What Does This Mean for Immigrant Families?

For immigrant parents, the most important point is that birthright citizenship has not disappeared. A child born in the United States does not lose citizenship simply because the parents are undocumented, overstayed their visas, entered temporarily, or do not have Green Cards. The new Trump orders are already being tested in court, and further rulings will determine exactly how far the Administration can go.

But immigrant parents should also remember something equally important: having a U.S.-citizen child does not automatically give the parents legal immigration status. Generally, a U.S. citizen child cannot petition for a parent until turning 21, and even then, unlawful entry, unlawful presence, prior deportation orders, fraud issues, and other immigration violations may create additional obstacles.

Do Not Wait 21 Years to Find Out Whether You Can Legalize Your Status

If you are living in the United States without permanent legal status, do not assume that your only option is to wait until your U.S. citizen child turns 21. You may already qualify for immigration relief through a family-based Green Card, VAWA, T Visa, U Visa, asylum, employment-based immigration, a waiver, or another immigration program.

Immigration law and federal policies are changing extremely quickly. The sooner you understand your options, the sooner you can begin building a strategy to protect yourself and your family.

Call Shepelsky Law Group today to schedule an immigration consultation at Tel: (718)769-6352 or book your consultation at shepelskylaw.cliogrow.com/book Our legal team can review your history, determine whether you have a path to legalize your status in the United States, and help you take the next steps toward a more secure future in America.

2 days ago | [YT] | 0

Marina Shepelsky

ICE’s Plan to Use Electric Shock Gloves: Cruel, Dangerous, and Constitutionally Alarming

DHS is preparing to give ICE officers a disturbing new tool: gloves capable of delivering painful electrical shocks directly through an officer’s touch. ICE reportedly plans to spend as much as $20 million purchasing thousands of the devices, known as G.L.O.V.E. — Generated Low Output Voltage Emitters. The gloves look and function like ordinary patrol gloves until an officer activates their electrical mode and places them against a person’s skin. The manufacturer says the resulting pain can force a person into compliance within seconds.

Calling this a de-escalation device does not make it humane. Using electricity to inflict pain for the purpose of forcing obedience is an extraordinary use of government power. Even the manufacturer warns that the gloves should not be used as punishment, against someone who is merely verbally defiant, or against vulnerable people such as children, pregnant women, elderly people, and people with disabilities. Yet the device is particularly troubling because an officer can activate it almost invisibly. Unlike a baton strike, pepper spray, or a deployed Taser, an electrical shock delivered during physical contact may be difficult for witnesses or cameras to recognize. That creates obvious problems of accountability.

The use of electric-shock gloves is not entirely new in American law enforcement. But only a handful of local police departments, sheriff’s offices, and correctional facilities have purchased or used similar devices. ICE’s planned acquisition is alarming because of the scale of the proposed rollout and the context in which the gloves could be used — civil immigration enforcement involving thousands of people who may pose no danger to officers or the public.

According to reporting about ICE’s plans, the agency is considering spending millions of dollars to acquire thousands of G.L.O.V.E. devices, which allow an officer to deliver an electrical shock simply by touching a person while the device is activated. That could represent a significant expansion of this technology beyond the relatively limited use it has had in some local law-enforcement agencies. The concern is not simply that the technology exists, but that it could become a routine compliance tool during immigration arrests, detention, transportation, and other encounters with ICE.

The constitutional concerns are serious. When ICE agents arrest or seize a person, the Fourth Amendment prohibits objectively unreasonable and excessive force. Under Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), courts consider factors such as the seriousness of the suspected offense, whether the person poses an immediate safety threat, and whether the person is actively resisting or trying to flee. The Supreme Court reaffirmed as recently as 2026 that the use of painful force in response to mere passive resistance can support a finding that an officer violated the Fourth Amendment. Zorn v. Linton, No. 25-297 (U.S. Mar. 23, 2026).

That distinction is especially important in immigration enforcement. Being undocumented is not a license for the government to physically punish someone. Immigration enforcement is overwhelmingly civil in nature. An individual who is standing still, questioning an officer, refusing to answer questions, crying, frightened, or otherwise failing to immediately obey every command does not automatically present the type of threat that constitutionally justifies deliberately inflicting electrical pain. If these gloves are used simply to obtain faster compliance from someone who poses no immediate danger, there is a powerful argument that the force is excessive and unconstitutional.

There are also serious Fifth Amendment due process concerns once a person is in federal immigration custody. Immigration detainees are civil detainees, not prisoners serving criminal sentences. The Constitution does not permit the government to punish detainees simply because they are being held. Supreme Court precedent recognizes that people who have not been convicted cannot be subjected to force that amounts to punishment. That makes the manufacturer’s own warning — that these gloves must not be used as punishment — particularly significant.

And this is why describing the devices merely as less-lethal misses the point. The Constitution does not ask only whether government force kills someone. It asks whether that force was justified. An electrical shock administered to stop someone who is violently attacking an officer presents a very different constitutional question from shocking a frightened immigrant because he or she will not move quickly enough, will not get out of a vehicle, refuses to stop asking questions, or passively resists being taken away.

ICE officers perform a legitimate law-enforcement function, and officers have the right to protect themselves when they face genuine threats. But that does not give any federal agency unlimited authority to cause pain. The government should be moving toward transparency, accountability, body-camera documentation, meaningful supervision, and genuine de-escalation — not quietly turning an officer’s hand into an electrical weapon.

Electric shock gloves are particularly dangerous because they make the infliction of pain easy, immediate, and potentially difficult to detect. That combination demands extraordinary safeguards. At minimum, every activation should be automatically recorded, every use should require a written use-of-force report, body-camera footage should be preserved, and officers should face meaningful consequences for using the devices against people who are compliant, passively resistant, already restrained, medically vulnerable, or simply verbally protesting their treatment.

America’s immigration laws may authorize the government to arrest, detain, and remove certain noncitizens. They do not authorize cruelty. They do not erase constitutional protections. And they certainly should not turn electrical pain into a routine tool for making immigrants obey. Shepelsky Law Group stands against ICE’s use of cruel and dangerous devices when dealing with the public. We urge the public to raise objections to this by contacting your local Congress representative and voicing your concerns.

To legalize in the U.S. and start the process today, call Shepelsky Law Group at Tel: (718)769-6352 or book your consultation at our website at: shepelskylaw.cliogrow.com/book

2 days ago | [YT] | 0

Marina Shepelsky

U.S. Resumes Immigrant Visa Processing in Poland and Hungary While Applicants Elsewhere Remain Waiting

There is finally some movement in the worldwide disruption of U.S. immigrant visa processing — but so far, the relief appears to be extremely limited.

The Trump administration has resumed immigrant visa processing at U.S. missions in Poland and Hungary, while immigrant visa appointments remain temporarily paused or disrupted at many other U.S. consulates around the world, according to a September 8, 2026 Reuters report published by U.S. News & World Report.

For families who have been waiting months or even years for immigrant visa interviews, the development offers some hope — but it also demonstrates how unpredictable consular processing has become in 2026.

What Happened?

Earlier this year, the State Department suspended immigrant visa issuance for nationals of 75 countries while it reviewed whether applicants were considered at greater risk of becoming dependent on U.S. public benefits.

That January 2026 policy affected applicants from countries including Russia, Belarus, Ukraine’s neighboring countries, Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Brazil, Colombia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Pakistan, Uzbekistan and many others.

On August 21, 2026, a federal court struck down the 75-country visa issuance pause. The State Department subsequently confirmed that the January policy was no longer in effect.

But that did not mean immigrant visa interviews immediately returned to normal.

Following the court ruling, the State Department temporarily adjusted or postponed immigrant visa appointments worldwide while consular officers received new training concerning public-charge determinations and applicants’ ability to financially support themselves in the United States. Reuters reported that this broader disruption could potentially continue for months at some posts because consular personnel must complete the new training and certification process.

Poland and Hungary Are Now Moving Again

According to Reuters, the White House directed U.S. diplomatic missions in Poland and Hungary to prioritize immigrant visa processing, and processing resumed there during the first week of September.

This is particularly important for applicants whose immigrant visa cases are assigned to the U.S. Embassy in Warsaw or Budapest.

The State Department has not publicly provided a detailed explanation for why these two countries were selected to resume processing ahead of other locations.

For applicants elsewhere, however, the larger immigrant visa appointment disruption remains an important concern.

What Does This Mean for Applicants From Russia?

Russian immigrants should pay particularly close attention to these developments.

The January 2026 policy specifically included Russian nationals among the 75 nationalities affected by the immigrant visa issuance pause. Although that particular policy was terminated following the federal court ruling, immigrant visa processing continues to be affected by the State Department’s broader changes to consular procedures and public-charge screening.

Russian citizens also face the additional complication that routine U.S. immigrant visa processing is not available in Russia itself, meaning their cases may be assigned to a designated U.S. consular post abroad.

Anyone with an approved I-130, approved employment petition, immigrant visa case at the National Visa Center, or upcoming consular interview should verify where the case is currently assigned and whether that particular consulate is scheduling immigrant visa interviews.

Do not assume that because Poland has resumed immigrant visa processing, every applicant can simply transfer a case to Warsaw.

Under current State Department rules, immigrant visa applicants are generally expected to interview in the consular district covering their place of residence or, when permitted, their country of nationality. Transfers to another post may require approval through the National Visa Center.

Public-Charge Screening Is Becoming More Important

The underlying issue behind these visa disruptions has not disappeared.

The State Department continues to emphasize whether intending immigrants are likely to become financially dependent on government benefits after entering the United States.

That means immigrant visa applicants should expect officers to examine issues such as:

the petitioner’s income and financial documentation;
Form I-864 Affidavit of Support;
household size;
joint sponsors;
the immigrant’s age and health;
employment history and job prospects;
education and professional skills;
financial resources; and
other circumstances relevant to whether the applicant is likely to become a public charge.
An applicant should not assume that simply submitting an I-864 automatically eliminates every potential public-charge concern.

Cases involving low petitioner income, unemployed applicants, significant medical conditions, insufficient documentation, complicated household arrangements, or questionable joint sponsors should be carefully reviewed before the immigrant visa interview.

If Your Interview Was Canceled, Do Not Start the Case Over

Applicants whose immigrant visa appointments were canceled or postponed because of the recent processing disruptions generally should not file a new immigrant petition simply because the interview was delayed.

Instead, determine:

whether the underlying I-130, I-140 or other immigrant petition remains approved;
whether the National Visa Center considers the case documentarily complete;
which U.S. embassy or consulate currently has jurisdiction over the case;
whether the interview has been canceled, postponed or is awaiting rescheduling; and
whether additional financial or public-charge documentation should be prepared before the new interview date.
The National Visa Center specifically advises applicants to use their CEAC accounts for current case status and required documentation.

Could Other Countries Be Next?

Possibly.

The resumption of processing in Poland and Hungary demonstrates that the State Department can restart immigrant visa operations at individual posts even while disruptions continue elsewhere.

But applicants should not rely on predictions about which country will be next.

In 2026, consular immigration policies have been changing rapidly. A case that appeared ready for an interview one week can encounter new screening requirements, appointment cancellations or procedural changes the next.

That makes preparation increasingly important.

What Immigrants Should Do Now

If you already have an approved immigration petition and are waiting for consular processing, do not simply wait without checking your case.

Make sure your civil documents are current.

Make sure the petitioner’s financial evidence is sufficient.

Confirm whether you need a joint sponsor.

Check your NVC case status.

Confirm which embassy is responsible for your interview.

And if you have complicated immigration history, prior visa refusals, unlawful presence, a public-charge concern, criminal history, prior misrepresentation, or another potential inadmissibility issue, address it before appearing at the consulate.

The reopening of immigrant visa processing in Poland and Hungary is encouraging news for some applicants, but it also highlights a larger reality: U.S. consular immigration processing remains unpredictable, and families should be prepared to act quickly when an interview opportunity becomes available.

Contact Shepelsky Law Group

Shepelsky Law Group assists clients with family-based immigration, immigrant visa consular processing, National Visa Center cases, I-130 petitions, employment-based immigration, public-charge issues, waivers of inadmissibility and complicated immigrant visa cases.

If your immigrant visa interview was canceled, your case has been sitting at the National Visa Center, or you are unsure where your interview will take place, speak with an immigration attorney before your case moves forward.

Call Shepelsky Law Group for a consultation at (718) 769-6352 or book your consultation on www.ShepelskyLaw.com to determine the best strategy for completing your immigrant visa process.

2 days ago | [YT] | 0

Marina Shepelsky

USCIS Social Media Screening: What Immigrants Need to Know

Immigration social media screening is now a standard part of the U.S. immigration vetting process. USCIS recently confirmed it is expanding social media screening for immigration applicants. The agency now uses social media monitoring to identify posts that may indicate anti-American sentiment or potential security risks. The government says this review will not target political opinions or free speech. It focuses on detecting content related to violence or terrorism.

USCIS clarified that social media is only one part of the vetting process. It is not a deciding factor on its own. However, this signals a broader effort by the agency to incorporate digital behavior into background checks.

How Does Immigration Social Media Screening Work?

Officers access the accounts you list on visa or green card forms. They review public posts for consistency or possible red flags. Screening goes beyond what you post directly. Officers may also review photos, captions, comments, likes, and shared content in the context of your immigration case.

Posts that seem harmless, funny, or casual can create questions about honesty, intent, safety, or eligibility. Before posting online, applicants should understand that their entire digital footprint may become part of the immigration review process.

Does Immigration Check Social Media for Green Card Applications?

Yes. Green card applicants face social media review as part of standard background checks. Officers may review your profiles for content that contradicts your application, suggests fraud, or raises public safety concerns. This applies to marriage-based green cards, family petitions, and adjustment of status cases.

Does Immigration Check Social Media for Marriage Cases?

Yes. In marriage-based cases, immigration officers review couples’ profiles to confirm the relationship appears genuine. Marriage fraud is an active enforcement priority. USCIS and ICE have publicly emphasized investigations into fraudulent marriages.

Does Immigration Check Social Media for Asylum Cases?

Yes. Officers reviewing asylum applications may compare your public posts with your stated fear of return. A photo from your home country tagged with positive captions can raise serious credibility concerns during the review.

Does Immigration Check Social Media for Students?

Yes. International students should exercise particular caution online. Social media activity that contradicts visa terms can raise red flags. This applies to F-1 and J-1 visa holders and anyone subject to student visa rules.

11 Things to Avoid Posting During the Immigration Process

1. Posts That Contradict Your Immigration Application

You apply for asylum claiming fear of returning home. Then you post vacation photos from that country saying you had the best time ever. Officers routinely compare public information with the story in the application.

2. Jokes About Immigration Fraud

Posts like “Finally got married for papers lol” or “Who needs love when you need a green card” can look damaging in a marriage-based green card case. Intent does not matter. The post does.

3. Posts Suggesting a Fake Marriage or Staged Relationship

Posting that you are single while applying for a spouse-based green card raises serious red flags. Posting romantic photos with someone other than your spouse while claiming a bona fide marriage does too.

4. Admitting Unauthorized Work

Posts like “I’m working cash jobs while waiting for papers” or “I don’t have work authorization but I’m still working” can create problems. This applies to visa, adjustment of status, asylum, or discretionary applications.

5. Posts About Drugs, Weapons, Violence, or Criminal Activity

Photos with illegal drugs, bragging about fights, guns, threats, scams, fake IDs, or driving drunk can raise admissibility concerns. This applies even when the post is exaggerated or meant as humor.

6. Threats or Extremist Content

Sharing posts that praise violence, terrorist groups, hate groups, or attacks on civilians may hurt your case. USCIS has announced that certain social media activity may factor into immigration benefit screening.

7. Anti-American or Hateful Statements Framed as Violence or Hostility

Political criticism alone is not the issue. Posts like “America should be destroyed” or content supporting harm against Americans cross a different line. USCIS has issued guidance considering anti-Americanism in discretionary immigration requests.

8. Posts Showing False Intent for a Temporary Visa

Applying for a tourist visa while posting “I’m moving to New York permanently next month” can hurt your case. Telling the embassy a trip is for vacation while posting about working in the U.S. also creates problems. This applies to B-1/B-2, F-1, J-1, and other nonimmigrant visa cases.

9. Posts Showing Fake Documents or Bad Immigration Advice

Posting “Need someone to make me a fake bank statement” or “Anyone know how to lie at the embassy?” creates misrepresentation and fraud concerns. These can follow your case permanently.

10. Oversharing Case Details That Can Be Used Against You

Posting your asylum story, court date, private immigration documents, or screenshots of USCIS notices can expose inconsistencies. It can also invite scams or allow others to report your case. USCIS maintains a public tip form for suspected immigration fraud.

11. Inappropriate Photos Involving Alcohol, Drugs, or Other Questionable Content

Photos or videos showing excessive drinking, drug use, or sexually explicit images may affect how officers assess your character, credibility, and eligibility. Even casual or funny posts can work against you during a review.

The Best Rule Before You Post

Before posting, ask yourself one question. Could this make me look dishonest, unsafe, fraudulent, or inconsistent with my immigration forms? If the answer is yes, do not post it.

What Applicants Should Do Before Filing

Review all public posts before submitting any immigration application
Be careful with political or controversial discussions online
Avoid sharing or reacting to any violent or extremist content
Keep private accounts secure and avoid letting others post under your name
Speak with an experienced immigration attorney if you have any concerns about your online presence
Our Take on Immigration Social Media Screening

At Shepelsky Law Group, we believe immigrants deserve transparency and fairness at every step of their case. Social media screening should never silence political expression or punish lawful residents. If you worry that your online activity might affect your immigration process, we can help you review and prepare your case.

FAQ: Does Immigration Check Social Media?

Does immigration check your social media?

Yes. USCIS and other U.S. immigration agencies may review applicants’ public social media profiles as part of background and security checks.

Why does immigration ask for social media?

The government collects this information to verify identity, prevent fraud, and identify potential security risks.

How does social media affect immigration?

Your posts can support or harm your case depending on accuracy and tone. Conflicting information can delay or deny approval.

Does immigration check social media for citizenship applications?

Yes. Naturalization applicants should review their online presence before filing Form N-400. Inconsistent or concerning content can raise questions about good moral character.

Contact Shepelsky Law Group

At Shepelsky Law Group, our immigration lawyers help clients prepare strong, honest, and well-documented immigration cases. Call us today at (718) 769-6352 or visit ShepelskyLaw.com to schedule a consultation.

3 days ago | [YT] | 0

Marina Shepelsky

USCIS Social Media Screening: What Immigrants Need to Know

Immigration social media screening is now a standard part of the U.S. immigration vetting process. USCIS recently confirmed it is expanding social media screening for immigration applicants. The agency now uses social media monitoring to identify posts that may indicate anti-American sentiment or potential security risks. The government says this review will not target political opinions or free speech. It focuses on detecting content related to violence or terrorism.

USCIS clarified that social media is only one part of the vetting process. It is not a deciding factor on its own. However, this signals a broader effort by the agency to incorporate digital behavior into background checks.

How Does Immigration Social Media Screening Work?

Officers access the accounts you list on visa or green card forms. They review public posts for consistency or possible red flags. Screening goes beyond what you post directly. Officers may also review photos, captions, comments, likes, and shared content in the context of your immigration case.

Posts that seem harmless, funny, or casual can create questions about honesty, intent, safety, or eligibility. Before posting online, applicants should understand that their entire digital footprint may become part of the immigration review process.

Does Immigration Check Social Media for Green Card Applications?

Yes. Green card applicants face social media review as part of standard background checks. Officers may review your profiles for content that contradicts your application, suggests fraud, or raises public safety concerns. This applies to marriage-based green cards, family petitions, and adjustment of status cases.

Does Immigration Check Social Media for Marriage Cases?

Yes. In marriage-based cases, immigration officers review couples’ profiles to confirm the relationship appears genuine. Marriage fraud is an active enforcement priority. USCIS and ICE have publicly emphasized investigations into fraudulent marriages.

Does Immigration Check Social Media for Asylum Cases?

Yes. Officers reviewing asylum applications may compare your public posts with your stated fear of return. A photo from your home country tagged with positive captions can raise serious credibility concerns during the review.

Does Immigration Check Social Media for Students?

Yes. International students should exercise particular caution online. Social media activity that contradicts visa terms can raise red flags. This applies to F-1 and J-1 visa holders and anyone subject to student visa rules.

11 Things to Avoid Posting During the Immigration Process

1. Posts That Contradict Your Immigration Application

You apply for asylum claiming fear of returning home. Then you post vacation photos from that country saying you had the best time ever. Officers routinely compare public information with the story in the application.

2. Jokes About Immigration Fraud

Posts like “Finally got married for papers lol” or “Who needs love when you need a green card” can look damaging in a marriage-based green card case. Intent does not matter. The post does.

3. Posts Suggesting a Fake Marriage or Staged Relationship

Posting that you are single while applying for a spouse-based green card raises serious red flags. Posting romantic photos with someone other than your spouse while claiming a bona fide marriage does too.

4. Admitting Unauthorized Work

Posts like “I’m working cash jobs while waiting for papers” or “I don’t have work authorization but I’m still working” can create problems. This applies to visa, adjustment of status, asylum, or discretionary applications.

5. Posts About Drugs, Weapons, Violence, or Criminal Activity

Photos with illegal drugs, bragging about fights, guns, threats, scams, fake IDs, or driving drunk can raise admissibility concerns. This applies even when the post is exaggerated or meant as humor.

6. Threats or Extremist Content

Sharing posts that praise violence, terrorist groups, hate groups, or attacks on civilians may hurt your case. USCIS has announced that certain social media activity may factor into immigration benefit screening.

7. Anti-American or Hateful Statements Framed as Violence or Hostility

Political criticism alone is not the issue. Posts like “America should be destroyed” or content supporting harm against Americans cross a different line. USCIS has issued guidance considering anti-Americanism in discretionary immigration requests.

8. Posts Showing False Intent for a Temporary Visa

Applying for a tourist visa while posting “I’m moving to New York permanently next month” can hurt your case. Telling the embassy a trip is for vacation while posting about working in the U.S. also creates problems. This applies to B-1/B-2, F-1, J-1, and other nonimmigrant visa cases.

9. Posts Showing Fake Documents or Bad Immigration Advice

Posting “Need someone to make me a fake bank statement” or “Anyone know how to lie at the embassy?” creates misrepresentation and fraud concerns. These can follow your case permanently.

10. Oversharing Case Details That Can Be Used Against You

Posting your asylum story, court date, private immigration documents, or screenshots of USCIS notices can expose inconsistencies. It can also invite scams or allow others to report your case. USCIS maintains a public tip form for suspected immigration fraud.

11. Inappropriate Photos Involving Alcohol, Drugs, or Other Questionable Content

Photos or videos showing excessive drinking, drug use, or sexually explicit images may affect how officers assess your character, credibility, and eligibility. Even casual or funny posts can work against you during a review.

The Best Rule Before You Post

Before posting, ask yourself one question. Could this make me look dishonest, unsafe, fraudulent, or inconsistent with my immigration forms? If the answer is yes, do not post it.

What Applicants Should Do Before Filing

Review all public posts before submitting any immigration application
Be careful with political or controversial discussions online
Avoid sharing or reacting to any violent or extremist content
Keep private accounts secure and avoid letting others post under your name
Speak with an experienced immigration attorney if you have any concerns about your online presence
Our Take on Immigration Social Media Screening

At Shepelsky Law Group, we believe immigrants deserve transparency and fairness at every step of their case. Social media screening should never silence political expression or punish lawful residents. If you worry that your online activity might affect your immigration process, we can help you review and prepare your case.

FAQ: Does Immigration Check Social Media?

Does immigration check your social media?

Yes. USCIS and other U.S. immigration agencies may review applicants’ public social media profiles as part of background and security checks.

Why does immigration ask for social media?

The government collects this information to verify identity, prevent fraud, and identify potential security risks.

How does social media affect immigration?

Your posts can support or harm your case depending on accuracy and tone. Conflicting information can delay or deny approval.

Does immigration check social media for citizenship applications?

Yes. Naturalization applicants should review their online presence before filing Form N-400. Inconsistent or concerning content can raise questions about good moral character.

Contact Shepelsky Law Group

At Shepelsky Law Group, our immigration lawyers help clients prepare strong, honest, and well-documented immigration cases. Call us today at (718) 769-6352 or visit ShepelskyLaw.com to schedule a consultation.

3 days ago | [YT] | 1

Marina Shepelsky

Immigration Judges Are Being Told to Move Deportation Cases Faster — Even When Immigrants Are Waiting for Legal Status

A major change is taking place inside U.S. immigration courts, and immigrants in removal proceedings need to understand what it could mean for their cases.

According to a September 4, 2026 report by The Guardian, immigration judges across the country recently received mandatory training encouraging them to significantly limit continuances — requests that allow an immigration court case to be postponed while an immigrant obtains an attorney, prepares evidence, or waits for another immigration benefit to become available.

For immigrants, the message is becoming increasingly clear: do not assume immigration court will give you unlimited time to complete another immigration process.

What Is a Continuance?

A continuance is essentially a request asking the immigration judge for more time before the case moves forward.

Under immigration regulations, a judge may grant a continuance for good cause. Existing precedent requires judges to examine the particular reason for the request and the circumstances of the case.

Continuances can be extremely important when an immigrant is pursuing another form of legal status.

For example, someone in removal proceedings may be waiting for:

approval of a family-based petition;
availability of an immigrant visa number;
a U visa based on being the victim of a serious crime;
Special Immigrant Juvenile Status;
another USCIS petition or immigration benefit that could ultimately allow the person to remain legally in the United States.
Until now, an attorney could often ask the immigration judge to give the immigrant additional time while that process continued.

That may become much harder.

Even an Approved Immigration Petition May Not Be Enough to Delay Deportation

One of the most concerning parts of the reported training involves immigrants who have already taken significant steps toward obtaining lawful status.

According to The Guardian, judges were instructed that an approved visa petition should not necessarily justify postponing removal proceedings when the immigrant is still waiting for a visa number to become available because of annual immigration quotas.

Think about what that means.

An immigrant may have already established eligibility for an immigration benefit.

The government may have approved the underlying petition.

But because the law limits how many visas can be issued each year, the immigrant may still have to wait before obtaining the actual green card or visa.

Under this more aggressive approach, immigration court may nevertheless continue moving the deportation case forward.

The reported training specifically discussed immigrants waiting for U visas and Special Immigrant Juvenile classification — two categories designed to protect particularly vulnerable people, including victims of serious crimes and certain abused, abandoned, or neglected children.

Immigration Judges Are Being Told to Focus on Speed

The training presentation was reportedly titled Motions to Continue: Efficiently Advancing Cases to Completion.

According to The Guardian, the presentation emphasized preventing unnecessary delays and moving cases toward final decisions more quickly as the immigration court system faces a backlog of approximately 3.2 million pending cases.

The Department of Justice told The Guardian that reducing the backlog is one of the administration’s priorities and that cases should be heard fairly, quickly, and uniformly.

The concern for immigrants is that faster processing can also mean substantially less time to prepare complicated cases.

Immigration cases often require extensive documentation, witness statements, medical records, psychological evaluations, criminal dispositions, family records, expert reports, country-condition evidence, and other supporting documentation.

These materials cannot always be assembled overnight.

Finding an Immigration Lawyer Quickly Is Becoming More Important

The reported training also addressed requests for additional time to obtain an attorney.

According to The Guardian, judges appeared to be discouraged from routinely allowing immigrants more than approximately 10 days to find legal representation in some circumstances.

This should not be understood as a universal rule that every immigrant has only 10 days to find a lawyer.

But it demonstrates the direction immigration courts are moving.

If you receive a Notice to Appear, learn that DHS has placed you into removal proceedings, or receive notice of an upcoming immigration court hearing, do not assume that the judge will repeatedly postpone the case while you look for representation.

Start looking for an immigration attorney immediately.

Simply Having a Pending USCIS Case May Not Protect You

Another dangerous misunderstanding is the belief that a pending immigration application automatically protects someone from deportation.

It often does not.

You might have:

a pending I-130 family petition;
an approved I-130 family petition;
a pending U visa for crime victims;
a pending SIJS case for children without parents in the U.S.;
a pending T-Visa for victims of trafficking
an SIJS case;
a pending I-751 Removal of Conditions on perm. Residence petition;
another application pending with USCIS.
That does not necessarily require an immigration judge to stop your removal proceedings indefinitely.

Immigration judges continue to apply the good-cause standard when deciding motions to continue. EOIR’s current practice guidance also states that requests should generally be made through a written motion explaining the reasons for the continuance and supported by evidence when appropriate.

This is why an immigration court strategy and a USCIS strategy need to be coordinated.

What Should Immigrants in Removal Proceedings Do Now?

If you are already in immigration court, do not wait until days before your next hearing to begin preparing your case.

Find out immediately:

What forms of relief do you qualify for?

Could you qualify for asylum, cancellation of removal, adjustment of status, VAWA, a U visa, a T visa, SIJS, a waiver, or another defense against removal?

Are there applications that should be filed now?

If another petition must be filed with USCIS before you can ask the immigration judge for additional time, delaying that filing can hurt your ability to show that you have been diligently pursuing relief.

What evidence will you eventually need?

Start collecting records early rather than waiting for the judge to set a final hearing.

Do you need to request a continuance?

A request for more time should explain specifically why additional time is necessary, what immigration benefit is being pursued, what steps have already been completed, and why the delay is outside the immigrant’s control.

Judges have repeatedly emphasized diligence when deciding whether more time should be granted. Recent BIA precedent has also warned against continuances based only on speculative possibilities for future relief.

Waiting Is Becoming a Riskier Immigration Strategy

For years, some immigrants could remain in lengthy removal proceedings while other immigration applications slowly moved through USCIS.

The government is now making clear that it wants immigration judges to move cases toward completion much faster.

That makes preparation and timing more important than ever.

If there is an immigration petition you qualify to file, waiting may make it harder later to convince an immigration judge that your deportation case should be delayed.

If evidence needs to be collected, start collecting it.

If you need an attorney, begin looking now.

And if you have a USCIS application pending while you are also in immigration court, make sure that the two cases are being handled as part of one coordinated legal strategy.

Shepelsky Law Group: Do Not Wait Until Your Next Court Hearing

Immigration court is becoming faster and less forgiving of delay. If you or a family member is in removal proceedings, has received a Notice to Appear, or is waiting for another immigration benefit while deportation proceedings are pending, now is the time to understand your options.

Shepelsky Law Group represents immigrants in removal defense, asylum, cancellation of removal, adjustment of status, family immigration, VAWA, U visas, T visas, SIJS matters, motions to reopen, appeals, and other immigration cases.

CALL US TODAY AT TEL: (718)769-6352 or book your consultation at www.ShepelskyLaw.com

Do not wait for the immigration judge to tell you that you have run out of time. Contact Shepelsky Law Group today to schedule a consultation and develop a strategy for protecting your ability to remain in the United States.

3 days ago | [YT] | 1