Marina Shepelsky

USCIS IMMIGRATION FEES ARE INCREASING AGAIN FOR FY 2027

USCIS has announced another round of immigration fee increases for Fiscal Year 2027. The new amounts will apply to certain immigration applications and benefits beginning October 16, 2026.

These increases are required under H.R. 1, the federal law that created several new immigration-related fees in 2025 and requires certain fees to be adjusted for inflation every year.

Although most of the increases are relatively small, paying the wrong filing fee can cause USCIS to reject an application entirely. Anyone planning to file for asylum, Temporary Protected Status, work authorization, or certain parole benefits should carefully check the new fees before submitting a case.

WHICH USCIS FEES ARE INCREASING?

Beginning October 16, 2026, the following fees will increase:

1. Annual Asylum Fee

Current fee: $102
New fee: $105

This is the annual fee associated with a pending Form I-589 asylum application. It is separate from the initial asylum filing fee.

2. Immigration Parole Fee

Current fee: $1,020
New fee: $1,050

This fee generally applies when qualifying parole is actually granted, subject to statutory exceptions.

3. Initial Employment Authorization for Asylum Applicants

Current fee: $560
New fee: $570

This applies to certain applicants requesting an initial Employment Authorization Document, or EAD, based on a pending asylum case.

4. Initial Employment Authorization Based on Parole

Current fee: $560
New fee: $570

Certain parolees applying for their first EAD will pay the increased fee.

5. Initial Employment Authorization Based on TPS

Current fee: $560
New fee: $570

Applicants requesting an initial work permit based on Temporary Protected Status will also see a $10 increase.

6. Form I-821 — Application for Temporary Protected Status

Current fee: $510
New fee: $520

The H.R. 1 portion of the TPS application fee will increase by $10.

SOME IMMIGRATION FEES ARE NOT CHANGING

Not every H.R. 1 immigration fee will increase for FY 2027. Several fees will remain at their current amounts:

Initial Form I-589 asylum filing fee: $100
Renewal or extension of certain parole, TPS, or re-parole EADs: $280
Renewal or extension of an asylum-based EAD: $275
Special Immigrant Juvenile Form I-360 fee: $250
Form I-94 fee: $24
The reason some fees remain unchanged is that the law uses specific inflation calculations and rounding rules. In some cases, the inflation adjustment is not large enough to result in a higher rounded fee.

WHY ARE THESE FEES INCREASING?

H.R. 1 created a number of new immigration fees affecting asylum seekers, parolees, TPS applicants, Special Immigrant Juveniles, and others.

The law also requires the government to recalculate many of these fees each fiscal year based on inflation.

For FY 2027, the adjustment is based on changes in the Consumer Price Index between July 2025 and July 2026. As a result, USCIS is increasing several of the H.R. 1 fees by amounts ranging from $3 to $30.

This means immigrants should expect some of these fees to be reviewed and potentially increased again in future fiscal years.

THE OCTOBER 16 DATE IS IMPORTANT

The new USCIS amounts apply to affected filings postmarked on or after October 16, 2026.

Applicants filing around the effective date should be extremely careful.

If USCIS receives an application with an incorrect filing fee, the agency may reject the entire filing. A rejection can create serious problems, especially if someone is facing:

An expiring immigration status;
An expiring work permit;
A TPS filing deadline;
An asylum-related deadline;
A court or USCIS deadline; or
Another time-sensitive immigration issue.
A rejected application normally does not preserve the filing date simply because USCIS previously received the package.

ASYLUM APPLICANTS SHOULD PAY PARTICULAR ATTENTION

The immigration fee system for asylum cases has changed significantly.

In addition to the initial asylum filing fee, certain applicants with pending asylum cases may also be subject to an annual asylum fee. The annual fee is increasing from $102 to $105 for FY 2027.

Asylum applicants should not assume that filing Form I-589 once means there will never be another government fee connected to the pending case. USCIS has developed procedures for collecting these annual fees, and the rules surrounding payment and nonpayment have also been the subject of litigation and continuing agency guidance.

TPS AND PAROLE APPLICANTS ARE ALSO AFFECTED

The changes are especially important for people relying on TPS or humanitarian parole.

A TPS applicant may now have multiple government costs associated with the case, including the TPS application itself and, where applicable, an employment authorization application.

Similarly, certain parole cases may involve the separate immigration parole fee in addition to fees connected with applications for employment authorization.

Applicants should therefore calculate the entire cost of the immigration process, rather than looking only at the fee for one form.

BEFORE YOU FILE, CHECK THE CURRENT FEE

USCIS filing fees have changed repeatedly during the last several years, and additional fees have been created for categories that historically had little or no filing cost.

Do not rely on an old application, an old USCIS receipt, or information you found online months ago when determining how much to pay.

Before submitting an immigration filing, confirm:

The correct version of the immigration form;
The current USCIS filing fee;
Whether an additional H.R. 1 fee applies;
Whether multiple forms require separate fees;
Whether a fee waiver or statutory exception may be available; and
Whether USCIS requires a particular payment method.
NEED HELP WITH YOUR IMMIGRATION CASE?

Immigration filing rules are becoming increasingly complicated, and even a small filing mistake can result in a rejected application or significant delay.

If you are applying for asylum, TPS, humanitarian parole, employment authorization, a Green Card, or another immigration benefit, Shepelsky Law Group can review your immigration history, explain the applicable filing requirements, and help you determine the correct strategy for your case.

Call Shepelsky Law Group at 718-769-6352 to schedule an immigration consultation.

3 days ago | [YT] | 0

Marina Shepelsky

TRUMP LAUNCHES AMERICA.GOV: ONE ONLINE PORTAL FOR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES

President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order on September 29, 2026 directing the federal government to establish America.gov as a single digital entry point for major federal services and information.

The idea is simple: instead of searching through dozens of different government websites, creating different accounts, and trying to figure out which federal agency handles a particular issue, people will eventually be able to start at America.gov.

WHAT IS AMERICA.GOV?

According to the Executive Order, America.gov is intended to become a centralized online portal where individuals can:

Ask questions about federal programs and receive information in plain language;
Find federal benefits and services;
Sign into government services through Login.gov;
Access forms and online government systems; and
Eventually complete certain federal transactions directly through America.gov rather than being redirected from agency website to agency website.
The Administration says the website will use advanced AI technology to help users locate government information and services. America.gov has already launched as an information resource, while additional transactional services are expected to be added as federal agencies connect their systems to the platform.

WHICH GOVERNMENT SERVICES WILL BE INCLUDED?

The Executive Order generally covers online federal services that serve more than 100,000 users during a 12-month period.

Federal agencies must now identify qualifying services and begin integrating them with America.gov. The Office of Management and Budget has 90 days from the September 29 order to issue additional implementation guidance.

The White House has said that services such as passport renewal and Medicare enrollment are expected to become available through America.gov later in 2026, with additional services added over time.

Certain services are specifically excluded, including IRS tax-filing services and national-security-sensitive services involving the Department of War and the Intelligence Community.

WHAT COULD THIS MEAN FOR IMMIGRATION?

For immigrants, employers, and families dealing with the federal government, the project could eventually make it easier to locate information and access qualifying online services.

Today, an immigration case may require a person to navigate websites operated by USCIS, the Department of State, CBP, ICE, EOIR, and other federal agencies depending on the type and stage of the case.

The Executive Order does not say that all immigration applications will immediately move to America.gov. Instead, each agency must determine which of its services qualify and then integrate those services with the new platform.

For now, applicants should therefore continue using the official agency systems and filing procedures required for their particular immigration case unless the government specifically announces that a service has moved to or become available through America.gov.

LOGIN.GOV WILL PLAY A BIGGER ROLE

Another important part of the order is the expansion of Login.gov.

The government intends to integrate Login.gov with America.gov so that individuals can increasingly use one secure identity and sign-in system to access participating federal services. The Administration had already directed agencies in August 2026 to expand Login.gov as a government-wide sign-on system.

This could eventually reduce the number of separate usernames, passwords, and identity-verification systems people must use when dealing with different federal agencies.

WILL THE GOVERNMENT CREATE ONE GIANT DATABASE?

The Executive Order specifically states that America.gov is not supposed to create one centralized federal system of records containing everyone’s personal information.

Individual agencies are supposed to maintain control over their own records and decision-making authority. The order also requires data minimization, secure authentication, authorization controls, and compliance with federal privacy laws.

Traditional ways of accessing federal services — including agency websites, telephone services, mail, and in-person services — are also supposed to remain available. America.gov is intended to provide another centralized way to access services rather than immediately eliminating those existing options.

WHAT IMMIGRANTS SHOULD KNOW

America.gov could eventually make dealing with the federal government significantly easier, but immigration applicants should be careful during the transition.

Do not assume that filing something through a new government portal automatically satisfies a USCIS, Department of State, immigration court, or other agency deadline. Immigration cases frequently involve strict filing requirements, specific forms, filing locations, fees, and deadlines.

Until an agency officially announces a change, continue following the filing instructions applicable to your individual immigration case.

If you have questions about your immigration status, green card, citizenship, asylum, VAWA, employment-based immigration, removal proceedings, or another U.S. immigration matter, contact Shepelsky Law Group. 📞 718-769-6352. Book your consultation at our website to start your legalization at: 🌐 www.shepelskylaw.com

3 days ago | [YT] | 0

Marina Shepelsky

ICE SAYS ARREST POLICY HAS NOT CHANGED: IMMIGRANTS WITHOUT CRIMINAL RECORDS MAY STILL BE ARRESTED

Recent reports created confusion over whether ICE officers had been told to stop arresting undocumented immigrants who do not have criminal records.

The Trump administration is now saying clearly: ICE’s nationwide arrest policy has not changed.

According to a September 27, 2026 Fox News report and other internet publications, ICE officers had recently received verbal guidance telling field offices to prioritize the most serious criminal offenders. Some agents reportedly understood the instructions as meaning that ICE should limit arrests to immigrants with criminal convictions or pending criminal cases.

Administration officials later said that interpretation was incorrect.

WHAT HAPPENED?

Fox News reported that its correspondent spoke with President Donald Trump as well as multiple ICE and Department of Homeland Security sources.

According to the report, verbal guidance was distributed to ICE field offices nationwide instructing officers to prioritize the most serious enforcement targets first.

The guidance reportedly caused confusion among ICE personnel because some officers believed it represented a major change in enforcement policy.

Officials later described the situation as a miscommunication involving enforcement priorities rather than a formal restriction on who ICE could arrest.

New guidance was reportedly sent to ICE offices on September 26 reaffirming that the administration’s existing immigration enforcement policy remained in effect.

ICE IS STILL PRIORITIZING SERIOUS CRIMINAL CASES

The administration continues to say that ICE’s primary enforcement focus includes people considered serious public-safety threats.

That can include individuals with:

Serious criminal convictions;
Pending criminal charges;
Gang or organized-crime involvement;
National-security concerns; and
Certain immigration violations that DHS considers enforcement priorities.
DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin recently said that the department’s focus is on the most serious offenders, while also making clear that encounters with other undocumented immigrants can still lead to arrest.

But there is an important distinction:

Being a lower enforcement priority does not mean a person is protected from arrest.

ICE CAN STILL ARREST PEOPLE WITHOUT CRIMINAL RECORDS

According to the Fox News report (, President Trump confirmed that ICE may continue arresting people who are unlawfully present in the United States even when they do not have an additional criminal history.

That reportedly includes so-called collateral arrests.

A collateral arrest occurs when ICE is conducting an operation targeting one individual but encounters another person whom officers believe is unlawfully present in the United States.

For example, ICE might come to a home looking for one particular individual but encounter a roommate, relative or other person during the operation. That additional person may potentially become subject to immigration enforcement as well.

The administration says those arrests remain permitted.

HAVING NO CRIMINAL RECORD DOES NOT NECESSARILY PROTECT YOU FROM ICE

This is one of the most important points for immigrants to understand.

Immigration violations and criminal violations are not the same thing.

A person can have:

No arrests;
No criminal convictions;
No pending criminal charges; and
Years of otherwise law-abiding residence in the United States
and still face immigration enforcement depending on that person’s immigration status and individual circumstances.

Recent DHS statements have similarly indicated that officers may arrest undocumented immigrants encountered during enforcement activity even when those individuals were not the original targets.

WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE WITH FINAL DEPORTATION ORDERS?

People with final orders of removal should be particularly careful about interpreting headlines suggesting that ICE is focusing only on criminals.

A final removal order may allow immigration authorities to pursue enforcement even when the person has no separate criminal conviction.

Whether ICE is actively looking for a particular person will depend on many factors, but the latest administration clarification does not create a general protection for people with final deportation orders who have clean criminal records.

ICE ENFORCEMENT HAS REMAINED VERY ACTIVE

The clarification also comes during a period of heightened immigration enforcement.

Recent reporting has documented large numbers of ICE arrests during 2026 and the use of expanded enforcement tactics as the administration continues its deportation campaign.

That enforcement has included both individuals with criminal histories and immigrants whose underlying violations involve immigration law rather than separate criminal offenses.

This is another reason immigrants should not assume that the recent internal ICE confusion represents a broader suspension of enforcement.

DO NOT RELY ON SOCIAL MEDIA HEADLINES

If you saw a post saying:

ICE is no longer arresting undocumented immigrants without criminal records

that is not an accurate description of the administration’s current position.

The more accurate explanation is:

ICE says it is prioritizing serious criminal offenders, but officers may still arrest other undocumented immigrants they encounter.

Those are two very different things.

WHAT SHOULD YOU DO IF YOU ARE WORRIED ABOUT ICE?

If you are undocumented, have a final removal order, overstayed a visa, entered without inspection, missed immigration court or believe ICE may be looking for you, it is important to understand your specific immigration history.

Some individuals may have options to fight removal or obtain lawful immigration status, including:

Asylum;
VAWA;
T visas;
U visas;
Cancellation of removal;
Adjustment of status;
Family-based immigration;
Motions to reopen old immigration cases; or
Other immigration relief.
Every case is different, and the existence of an immigration violation does not automatically mean there is no legal solution.

SHEPELSKY LAW GROUP CAN HELP

Do not assume that a clean criminal record means ICE cannot arrest you, and do not rely on a viral headline to determine your immigration risk.

Shepelsky Law Group can review your immigration history, determine whether you may be vulnerable to ICE enforcement and evaluate whether you have an immigration strategy available to protect yourself and your family.

Call Shepelsky Law Group at 718-769-6352 to schedule an immigration consultation.

3 days ago | [YT] | 0

Marina Shepelsky

ICE ENFORCEMENT IS CREATING LABOR SHORTAGES FOR U.S. HOMEBUILDERS

Increased immigration enforcement is beginning to affect an unexpected part of the U.S. economy: home construction.

Homebuilders across the country say intensified ICE enforcement is making it harder to find workers, increasing labor costs, delaying construction, and extending the amount of time it takes to complete new homes. According to a recent Axios report, builders in states including Texas, Virginia, Maryland, and Florida have reported significant disruptions connected to immigration enforcement.

The construction industry relies heavily on immigrant workers. Immigrants represented more than 26% of the U.S. construction workforce in 2024, according to Census data analyzed by the National Association of Home Builders. In some occupations, the percentage is much higher: immigrants account for approximately 57% of drywall and ceiling installers and 53% of roofers.

Builders say the impact does not necessarily stop with undocumented workers. The National Association of Home Builders has reported that increased immigration enforcement in some markets is also discouraging legally authorized immigrant workers from reporting to construction sites because of fear surrounding enforcement activity.

This comes at an already difficult time for the housing industry. Builders are dealing with high mortgage rates, rising material and financing costs, and persistent shortages of skilled workers. In September 2026, builder confidence dropped to its lowest level in a year, with the National Association of Home Builders specifically identifying labor shortages as one of the pressures affecting the industry.

The Trump administration maintains that ICE is targeting people who are unlawfully present in the United States, not immigrants who have legal status or authorization to work. The administration has also said that American workers can fill available jobs and has created an Office of Immigration Policy within the Department of Labor to assist employers navigating immigration-related workforce issues.

For immigrant workers, however, the increased enforcement environment makes it especially important to understand your immigration status, your work authorization, and your rights if approached by immigration officers.

If you are concerned about your immigration status, work authorization, an ICE encounter, or possible deportation, Shepelsky Law Group can review your situation and explain your legal options.

📞 Contact Shepelsky Law Group at Tel: (718)769-6352 to schedule an immigration consultation or book your consultation directly online at www.shepelskylaw.com.

4 days ago | [YT] | 0

Marina Shepelsky

NEW H-1B POLICIES COULD MAKE SPONSORSHIP HARDER FOR EMPLOYERS AND FOREIGN WORKERS

The Trump administration has announced another round of changes affecting the H-1B visa program, including increased scrutiny of employers that sponsor foreign workers and an attempted extension of the controversial $100,000 H-1B payment requirement.

On September 18, 2026, President Trump issued both a new executive order and a presidential proclamation addressing the H-1B program. The administration says the measures are intended to prevent abuse of the program and protect U.S. workers.

One of the biggest changes involves employers that have recently laid off U.S. workers.

Under the new executive order, the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Labor and Department of State are directed to consider whether an H-1B sponsoring employer:

• Laid off workers during the previous year; or
• Is planning future layoffs that could negatively affect similarly situated U.S. workers.

This information may now be considered when the government reviews Labor Condition Applications, H-1B petitions, visa applications and admission of H-1B workers into the United States.

The Department of Labor has also been directed to begin reviewing previously filed Labor Condition Applications to determine whether additional enforcement action may be appropriate.

For employers, this could mean significantly more questions about company hiring practices, layoffs, wages and the relationship between H-1B positions and jobs held by U.S. workers.

For H-1B employees, it could mean additional Requests for Evidence, longer processing times and closer examination of petitions, particularly when the sponsoring company has recently reduced its U.S. workforce. Immigration attorneys interviewed by Forbes have also raised questions about how far the administration can legally extend these requirements under the existing H-1B statute.

$100,000 H-1B PAYMENT EXTENDED — BUT THE COURT BATTLE CONTINUES

The administration also issued a new proclamation seeking to extend for another year the $100,000 payment requirement originally imposed in September 2025 on certain H-1B workers coming from outside the United States.

The September 18 proclamation states that the restriction would continue through September 21, 2027 and generally applies to certain H-1B workers who must enter the United States based on a qualifying petition, unless an exception applies.

However, the $100,000 requirement has already faced major legal challenges.

On June 8, 2026, a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled that implementation of the payment requirement was unlawful and vacated the policy. On July 24, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit rejected the federal government’s request to keep the payment requirement in effect while the appeal proceeds. The litigation remains ongoing.

The new proclamation therefore does not end the legal dispute over whether the government has authority to impose this payment.

According to the administration’s own September proclamation, employers paid the $100,000 amount for only slightly more than 700 petitions during the approximately one-year period following implementation of the original policy.

MORE H-1B CHANGES MAY BE COMING

These actions are part of a much broader series of proposed and recently implemented changes affecting employment-based immigration.

Other proposals reported by Forbes include changes to H-1B prevailing wage requirements, a separate proposed fee exceeding $100,000 for certain cap-subject H-1B petitions, possible restrictions on H-4 employment authorization, possible elimination of the 60-day grace period after termination of employment, and additional restrictions on the H-1B program. Several of these measures remain proposals and are not yet final rules.

The important message for employers and H-1B workers is that the rules are changing quickly.

Companies considering H-1B sponsorship should carefully review their recent layoffs, wage practices, job descriptions and other employment decisions before filing. H-1B workers should also understand how these changes could affect new petitions, extensions, consular processing and international travel.

Shepelsky Law Group closely follows changes in U.S. immigration law and H-1B policy. If you are an employer considering H-1B sponsorship or an H-1B worker concerned about how the new rules may affect your case, contact Shepelsky Law Group at Tel: (718)769-6352 or directly book your consultation at www.ShepelskyLaw.com for starting your legalizing journey with our immigration consultation.

4 days ago | [YT] | 0

Marina Shepelsky

Whistleblower Raises Concerns About DHS Voter-Fraud Investigation and Immigration Data

A federal whistleblower has raised serious concerns about a Department of Homeland Security investigation designed to identify noncitizens who may have registered to vote or voted in U.S. elections. It appears that the voter fraud investigators violated state laws in the process of their investigation and used incorrect date, perhaps intentionally.

According to a September 14, 2026 report by The New York Times, hundreds of federal agents have reportedly been assigned to an initiative within DHS aimed at comparing state voter records with federal immigration information. The whistleblower alleges that some of the investigative methods may have violated state laws and may also have incorrectly identified U.S. citizens as potentially unlawful voters.

What Is the Unlawful Voter Initiative?

The DHS operation has been described as the Unlawful Voter Initiative. According to The New York Times, agents have been reviewing voter information from states and comparing it against information maintained in federal immigration databases.

The whistleblower reported that agents were expected to review at least 40 individuals during an eight-hour workday, leaving approximately 12 minutes per case to evaluate a person’s citizenship and voting history. The whistleblower contends that this pace, combined with possible problems in the underlying data, could lead to mistakes.

DHS has defended the investigation. In a statement reported by The New York Times, the Department said it was comparing publicly available voter information with records concerning known noncitizens in federal databases and maintained that the initiative was intended to identify unlawful voting. DHS rejected the suggestion that its leadership was directing employees to violate the law.

Investigators Allegedly Used Personal Information to Access State Voter Records

One of the whistleblower’s concerns involves the way agents allegedly accessed voter information.

According to the report, investigators used personally identifiable information—including dates of birth and, in some instances, portions of Social Security numbers or other identifying information—to access voter-record websites maintained by states. Some state websites restrict those tools to voters checking their own information.

The whistleblower reportedly raised questions internally about whether federal employees could legally use another person’s identifying information in this way. DHS legal officials reportedly concluded that agents could conduct the searches as part of their official duties.

These allegations remain disputed, and the existence of the whistleblower complaint does not itself establish that federal agents violated state or federal law.

Why Naturalized U.S. Citizens Could Be Affected

One of the most important issues for immigrants and naturalized citizens involves the government’s use of immigration identification numbers.

Many immigrants receive an Alien Registration Number, commonly called an A-number, while they are still noncitizens. That number remains associated with their immigration history even after they later become naturalized U.S. citizens.

According to the whistleblower account reported by The New York Times, A-numbers were among the information contained in data being reviewed by investigators. The whistleblower expressed concern that immigration records could therefore cause naturalized citizens to be incorrectly flagged if databases are incomplete, outdated, or interpreted without confirming that the person subsequently became a U.S. citizen.

The report also states that investigators were looking for evidence that individuals may have registered to vote or voted before becoming U.S. citizens.

Why Immigration Records Matter More Than Ever

This development is another reminder that information submitted throughout a person’s immigration history can remain in federal databases for many years.

Immigrants should make sure that applications submitted to USCIS, ICE, the Department of State, and other government agencies are accurate and consistent. Naturalized citizens should also make sure that appropriate government agencies have updated records reflecting their U.S. citizenship when necessary.

A person who discovers that a government database incorrectly identifies them as a noncitizen should not ignore the issue. Similarly, anyone concerned about a prior voter registration, voting history, citizenship representation, or inconsistency in immigration records should speak with an immigration attorney before responding to a government inquiry.

According to The New York Times, the whistleblower’s allegations have been provided to members of Congress and have generated additional scrutiny of DHS’s voter investigation. DHS continues to defend the initiative as an effort to identify noncitizens who unlawfully participate in federal elections.

Source: Nick Corasaniti and Hamed Aleaziz, Whistle-Blower: Federal Agents May Have Broken State Laws in Search for Voter Fraud, The New York Times, September 14, 2026.

Contact Shepelsky Law Group

If you are living in the United States without permanent legal status, are worried about your immigration history, or want to find out whether you have a path to a green card or other lawful status, speak with an experienced immigration attorney before a problem arises. Shepelsky Law Group helps immigrants with family-based immigration, VAWA, asylum, waivers, adjustment of status, removal defense, humanitarian cases, and other paths to legal status in the United States. Call Shepelsky Law Group at (718) 769-6352 or book your consultation at www.ShepelskyLaw.com to schedule an immigration consultation and discuss your options for legalizing your status in the United States.

5 days ago | [YT] | 0

Marina Shepelsky

Immigrant Visa Freeze 2026: What You Need To Do

A federal court has now struck down the 75-country immigrant visa ban that blocked green card processing for nationals of dozens of countries since January 2026. This page covers the full history of the immigrant visa freeze, how the courts ruled, and what affected applicants should do now.

What Was the 75-Country Immigrant Visa Ban?

On January 21, 2026, the U.S. Department of State implemented a freeze on immigrant visa issuance for nationals of 75 countries. The government claimed nationals of these countries presented an increased risk of becoming a public charge or relying on public benefits in the United States.

The affected countries included Brazil, Colombia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Jamaica, Ghana, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Egypt, Morocco, Nepal, Thailand, Albania, Russia, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Nigeria, and many others. The full list covered nearly 40% of the world’s countries.

Under the policy, consular officers could continue interviewing and evaluating applicants. However, even if an officer determined that an applicant was otherwise eligible for an immigrant visa and was not likely to become a public charge, the officer was still instructed to refuse issuance under INA § 221(g) because of the applicant’s nationality.

The immigrant visa freeze left thousands of otherwise-eligible applicants in limbo for months while litigation worked through the courts.

Which Visa Categories Did the Immigrant Visa Ban Affect?

The freeze affected all immigrant visa categories requiring consular processing, including:

IR and CR visas for immediate relatives and conditional residents
Preference-based family petitions including F1, F2A, F2B, F3, and F4
Employment-based green cards including EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3
Diversity Visa lottery winners from affected countries
Special immigrant visas requiring consular processing
U.S. consulates could still conduct interviews and review applications. However, they would not issue immigrant visas during the suspension period. This created delays for applicants who were otherwise eligible.

Did the Ban Affect Applicants Inside the United States?

No. The freeze applied to consular processing abroad, not to adjustment of status applications filed with USCIS inside the United States. Applicants already in the U.S. who were eligible to adjust status could continue filing Form I-485 and pursuing their green card without leaving the country.

However, applicants inside the United States needed to understand one critical risk. Departing the United States for a consular interview — or for any other reason — could trigger reentry bars, loss of status, or other consequences depending on individual immigration history. Anyone considering travel should review their situation with an experienced immigration attorney before leaving.

What Did the August 7 Court Ruling Say?

On August 7, 2026, a federal judge ruled that the 75-country immigrant visa freeze was unlawful. However, that ruling provided direct relief only to Newton De Moura Gomes and his family, who filed the lawsuit. The judge ordered the State Department to reconsider their applications without applying the unlawful blanket policy.

The ruling did not immediately reopen every immigrant visa case from the 75 affected countries. Other applicants remained subject to the freeze unless the State Department changed its policy or another court issued broader relief.

What Did the August 21 CLINIC v. Rubio Ruling Say?

On August 21, 2026, U.S. District Judge Jeannette A. Vargas of the Southern District of New York issued a much broader ruling in Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC) v. Rubio, No. 1:26-cv-00858.

Judge Vargas vacated the State Department’s nationwide immigrant visa suspension for nationals of all 75 affected countries. The court concluded that the policy violated federal law and exceeded the Secretary of State’s statutory authority.

Specifically, the court found that the policy violated INA § 202(a)(1)(A), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A), which provides that a person generally may not be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of nationality, place of birth, or place of residence. The final order concluded that the policy also violated 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g) and 22 C.F.R. § 40.6.

Does the August 21 Ruling Apply to Every Affected Applicant?

The August 21 ruling vacated the 75-country ban nationwide. The State Department cannot continue refusing immigrant visas solely because an applicant is a national of one of the 75 covered countries under this particular policy.

Applicants must still qualify for the particular immigrant visa they seek. Normal grounds of inadmissibility, financial sponsorship requirements, criminal and immigration history, public charge review where applicable, documentary requirements, and visa number availability continue to apply.

The court also ordered that immigrant visa refusals based solely on the 75-country policy be set aside and returned for further proceedings consistent with the ruling. A refusal based on a separate ground of inadmissibility is not automatically erased by this decision.

Was My Immigrant Visa Refused Because of the 75-Country Ban?

This is the most important question for people who already attended their consular interviews. If your visa was refused under INA § 221(g) solely because of your nationality under the 75-country policy, the court’s ruling may require the State Department to reconsider your application.

However, there may be a practical delay before every U.S. embassy and consulate changes its procedures. Do not assume your case will automatically begin moving immediately. Contact an immigration attorney to evaluate your specific refusal and determine the best next steps.

Does the Ruling Affect the Separate Travel Ban Under Presidential Proclamation 10998?

No. The court did not invalidate every nationality-based immigration restriction currently in effect. Presidential Proclamation 10998 separately suspends visa issuance for nationals of 39 countries and certain Palestinian Authority travel document holders. Those restrictions remain separate from the 75-country public charge visa suspension.

Nationals of countries including Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Haiti, and Sudan remain subject to separate restrictions under Presidential Proclamation 10998, subject to the exceptions available under that proclamation.

Countries that were included only in the 75-country policy — such as Brazil, Colombia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Jamaica, Ghana, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Nepal, and Thailand — may benefit much more directly from the court’s decision. They are not subject to the same blanket immigrant visa restrictions under Presidential Proclamation 10998. Learn more about how the separate travel ban affects applicants.

Could the Government Appeal the Visa Freeze Ruling?

Yes. The government could appeal the federal district court’s ruling and could potentially seek a stay of the decision while an appeal proceeds. If a stay is granted, the ban could be reinstated temporarily while the appeal is decided.

Applicants should monitor developments closely and not delay in having their cases reviewed. An appeal could move quickly. Learn more about how courts have handled similar immigration enforcement challenges.

Until a final resolution, applicants affected by the immigrant visa freeze should not assume their cases will move automatically.

If Your Immigrant Visa Was Refused Under the 75-Country Ban, What Should You Do?

If your immigrant visa was refused under INA § 221(g), placed into administrative processing, or delayed because you are a national of one of the 75 affected countries, this is the time to have your case reviewed.

Steps to take now:

Gather your visa refusal notice and any correspondence from the consulate
Confirm whether the refusal cited your nationality under the 75-country policy or a separate ground of inadmissibility
Review your priority date and visa availability in the current Visa Bulletin
Confirm whether you may qualify for adjustment of status inside the United States instead of consular processing
Determine whether any waiver applies to your case
Contact an experienced immigration attorney immediately
Contact Shepelsky Law Group About Your Immigrant Visa Case

Shepelsky Law Group represents immigrants in family-based immigration, employment-based immigration, consular processing, visa refusals, waivers, adjustment of status, and other complex U.S. immigration matters.

Call Shepelsky Law Group at (718) 769-6352 or schedule a consultation at ShepelskyLaw.com to find out how this federal court decision may affect your immigration case.

5 days ago | [YT] | 0

Marina Shepelsky

Got a USCIS RFE? How to Structure Your Response and Avoid a Denial

As an immigration lawyer, I’ve witnessed how 2026 has already marked a noticeable shift in how USCIS is deciding immigration cases with RFEs and NOIDs.

Across asylum, family-based, employment, and humanitarian filings, USCIS issues Requests for Evidence (RFEs) and Notices of Intent to Deny (NOIDs) more frequently and more aggressively. At Shepelsky Law Group, we are seeing clear patterns that every applicant should understand.

First, what is the RFE and what is the NOID? Let’s break them down and compare them.

What Is an RFE?
An RFE (Request for Evidence) is a notice from USCIS asking for additional documents or clarification before making a decision. It means USCIS believes your case may be approvable but says the file is incomplete or unclear. RFEs usually focus on missing evidence, inconsistencies, or proof of eligibility elements.

What Is a NOID?
A NOID (Notice of Intent to Deny) is a warning that USCIS intends to deny the case unless you overcome specific legal or factual problems. It means the officer believes you do not meet the eligibility requirements based on the current record. NOIDs are more serious and often cite statutes, regulations, or case law.

RFE vs. NOID (Comparison)

An RFE allows you to fix evidentiary gaps, while a NOID signals that USCIS believes you are ineligible and requires a strong legal response to avoid denial.

RFE = fixable gaps; NOID = potential denial
RFE asks for evidence; NOID challenges eligibility
RFE implies approval is still likely; NOID signals high risk
RFE responses focus on documents; NOID responses require legal argument
RFE gives more flexibility; NOID has narrower room to recover
Here are the key RFE and NOID trends emerging in 2026:

USCIS is issuing more RFEs and NOIDs overall, even in cases that would have been approved with minimal review in prior years. Officers are demanding stronger legal arguments and clearer eligibility, not just basic documentation.
NOIDs are replacing RFEs in many cases, signaling that USCIS believes the applicant may already be ineligible. This leaves less room for error and requires a legal, not just factual, response.
Increased scrutiny of inconsistencies across filings is driving RFEs. Officers are cross-checking prior applications, entries, affidavits, and supporting evidence more closely than before.
Corroboration demands are rising. USCIS is requesting third-party evidence, expert letters, medical or psychological evaluations, and detailed country condition reports—even when regulations do not strictly require them.
Procedural defects are getting more aggressive. Missing signatures, outdated forms, minor errors, or formatting issues are now triggering RFEs and NOIDs instead of simple rejections or courtesy notices.
Applicants from certain countries and humanitarian categories are seeing deeper security and background review, resulting in prolonged adjudications and additional evidence requests.
Even strong cases are not immune. Employment-based petitions, VAWA self-petitions, and long-pending humanitarian cases lead to RFEs questioning eligibility standards that had previously settled.
What this means is simple: USCIS is no longer giving applicants the benefit of the doubt. Prepare as if every filing will be challenged. They make immigrants work hard for each application, treating each application with a lot of distrust and suspicion. Now is the time to do all your immigration submissions only with the help of an experienced U.S. Immigration lawyer. At Shepelsky Law Group, we have been doing this work for over 23 years and can help!

Strategic Legal Defense for USCIS RFEs and NOIDs in 2026

At Shepelsky Law Group, our lawyers approach RFEs and NOIDs as litigation-style advocacy, not paperwork. A poorly handled RFE or NOID can permanently damage an immigration case, while a strategic response can save it.

If you or a loved one has received an RFE or NOID, or you are preparing a filing in this stricter USCIS environment, do not wait.

Learn how to navigate the RFE process with expert insights from an immigration lawyer for RFE cases at Shepelsky Law Group.

Call Shepelsky Law Group today at (718)769-6352 or book your consultation directly at shepelskylaw.cliogrow.com/book to protect your case and your future in the United States.

6 days ago | [YT] | 1

Marina Shepelsky

NEW POLL SHOWS AMERICANS’ IMMIGRATION PRIORITIES ARE SHIFTING AS CONCERNS GROW OVER IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT AND PATHWAYS TO LEGAL STATUS

A new NBC News poll suggests that American voters’ priorities on immigration are changing as the Trump administration continues an aggressive immigration enforcement campaign.

According to NBC News, more voters now say preventing discrimination against immigrants and creating a pathway to U.S. citizenship should be prioritized over securing the border and stopping illegal immigration. NBC described this as a shift from voter attitudes measured during the 2024 election cycle.

The poll was conducted September 11–15, 2026, among 1,000 registered voters, with a margin of error of approximately 3.1 percentage points.

The results come after more than a year of intensified immigration enforcement under President Trump. The administration has expanded immigration arrests and deportation operations while also tightening several areas of legal immigration. At the same time, other recent polling has found substantial public concern about how immigration enforcement is being carried out. For example, a September Fox News poll found that 53% of registered voters believed the administration’s immigration enforcement had gone too far, while 23% said it had not gone far enough and 23% said it was about right.

The NBC poll does not mean that Americans have stopped caring about border security. Instead, it indicates that voters are weighing several immigration priorities at the same time, including border enforcement, treatment of immigrants already living in the United States, and possible opportunities for people without lawful status to obtain legal status or citizenship.

For immigrants and their families, political opinions alone do not change immigration law. Immigration cases continue to be governed by federal statutes, regulations, court decisions and rapidly changing government policies. Anyone who is undocumented, facing removal proceedings, concerned about ICE enforcement, or trying to determine whether there is a legal pathway to remain in the United States should have their individual immigration history reviewed by an experienced attorney.

Shepelsky Law Group represents immigrants in family immigration, asylum, removal defense, VAWA, T visas, employment-based immigration and other immigration matters. Call us todat at Tel: (718)769-6352 or book your consultation directly at www.Shepelskylaw.com to start your legalization journed in the US with our immigration lawyers.

If you have questions about your immigration options or are worried about how recent immigration changes could affect you or your family, contact Shepelsky Law Group to schedule a consultation.

6 days ago | [YT] | 1

Marina Shepelsky

Public Charge Rule Under Attack: 22 States File Federal Lawsuit

A major public charge lawsuit is now in federal court. On September 14, 2026, a coalition of 22 states and Washington, D.C., led by New York Attorney General Letitia James, filed a federal lawsuit challenging the Department of Homeland Security’s new public charge policy. The coalition asks the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to declare the rule unlawful and stop its implementation. The new rule is currently scheduled to take effect on September 18, 2026.

What Is the New Public Charge Rule?

The new rule rescinds the narrower public charge regulations adopted in 2022. It gives immigration officers significantly more discretion when deciding whether a person is likely to become a public charge in the future. For adjustment of status applications filed on or after September 18, USCIS officers may consider an applicant’s application for, approval for, or receipt of means-tested government benefits as part of the overall public charge analysis.

This may include programs such as Medicaid and certain other income-based health programs, SNAP food assistance, income-based housing assistance, certain state and local assistance programs, and other food, health, housing, or financial benefits where eligibility depends on income or financial need.

Receiving a public benefit does not automatically mean a green card denial. Public benefits are one part of a broader totality of the circumstances analysis. Officers may also examine the applicant’s age, health, family circumstances, financial resources, income, education, and employment history. For the full breakdown of what USCIS considers, review DHS’s public charge guidance. Learn more about how the new public charge rule works.

Does the New Rule Apply to Benefits Already Received?

The expanded policy generally applies prospectively. For benefits excluded under the previous public charge framework, DHS stated that an applicant’s application for or receipt of those benefits will only come under scrutiny if it occurs on or after September 18, 2026.

The rule applies to adjustment of status applications postmarked or electronically submitted on or after September 18. It also applies to applications for admission made on or after that date. Applicants considering consular processing should also review how this rule applies before departing the United States.

What About Benefits Received by U.S. Citizen Children?

The new policy has caused significant concern among mixed-status families. DHS stated that USCIS generally will not treat benefits received by a U.S. citizen child or other family member as though the immigration applicant personally received those benefits.

However, information concerning the family’s benefits may affect the analysis of the applicant’s financial situation. USCIS may consider whether the applicant’s income falls below an eligibility threshold. They may also examine whether benefits received by a family member are actually supporting the applicant.

Immigrant parents of U.S. citizen children should not automatically cancel benefits without first obtaining individualized immigration advice.

Why Did 22 States File the Public Charge Lawsuit?

The states argue that DHS exceeded the authority Congress gave it under the immigration laws. The public charge lawsuit claims the new rule is overly broad. It leaves immigration officers without sufficiently clear standards for deciding how much weight to give different forms of government assistance.

The states also argue the policy violates federal administrative law. They predict it could cause widespread confusion among immigrant families.

Participating jurisdictions include New York, New Jersey, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Maryland, Washington, Virginia, Colorado, Connecticut, Minnesota, Oregon, Wisconsin, and others, together with Washington, D.C. Pennsylvania’s governor also joined the challenge.

State officials argue that immigrants and their family members may stop using healthcare, nutrition, and housing programs out of fear. Accepting assistance could jeopardize a future green card in their minds, even when it legally should not.

A Second Public Charge Lawsuit Was Filed the Same Day

A separate lawsuit came from New York City, Chicago, San Francisco, Santa Clara County, Seattle, and King County, Washington. These local governments similarly argue that the new policy gives immigration officers excessive discretion.

They also say the rule could create a chilling effect in immigrant communities. Families may avoid medical treatment, food assistance, housing programs, and other services even when legally eligible. Local governments contend this could increase homelessness, uncompensated medical care, food insecurity, and other costs that cities and counties will absorb.

Is This the First Public Charge Court Battle?

No. Public charge has been one of the most heavily litigated areas of immigration law in recent years. During President Trump’s first administration, DHS adopted a substantially broader public charge policy in 2019. That rule generated nationwide litigation before the Biden administration abandoned it and adopted the narrower 2022 framework.

The 2026 rule again moves federal policy toward a much broader examination of public benefits and an applicant’s financial self-sufficiency. The new lawsuits may become another major test of how far the executive branch may expand the public charge ground of inadmissibility. Learn more about how immigration courts fast-track removal cases in today’s enforcement environment.

Has the Public Charge Rule Been Blocked Yet?

Not yet. As of September 15, 2026, the filing of these lawsuits has not itself stopped the rule from taking effect. The challengers are asking the federal court to intervene. Unless a judge issues an injunction or other order before September 18, the new public charge framework remains scheduled to take effect that day.

For immigrants preparing to file for adjustment of status, the September 18 effective date may therefore be extremely important. Review realistic USCIS case timelines to understand how long processing may take after filing.

Who Is Exempt From the Public Charge Rule?

Many humanitarian categories are exempt from public charge inadmissibility entirely, including refugees and asylees, VAWA self-petitioners, U visa applicants, T visa applicants, and Special Immigrant Juveniles. If you fall into one of these categories, the public charge lawsuit and rule change may not affect your case at all.

What Should Green Card Applicants Do Now?

Do not cancel benefits for yourself or your U.S. citizen children without speaking to an attorney first. Don’t rush to file an incomplete application just to beat the deadline. Do not make assumptions based on social media posts or rumors.

If you or a family member receives Medicaid, SNAP, housing assistance, or another income-based public benefit and you are applying for a green card, speak with an experienced immigration attorney before making any decisions. Also review whether family-based or humanitarian immigration options exempt you from the public charge test entirely. If you already received a USCIS RFE or NOID related to public charge, contact an attorney immediately.

Shepelsky Law Group closely follows the public charge lawsuit and changes in USCIS policy. Call us at (718) 769-6352 or book your consultation at shepelskylaw.cliogrow.com/book.

6 days ago | [YT] | 1