USCIS Announces New Policy on Adjustment of Status Adjudications in the United States
On May 21, 2026, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued a policy memorandum stating that it would apply a stricter standard in exercising discretion when adjudicating applications for adjustment of status to permanent residence in the United States. USCIS emphasized that consular processing through a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad should be viewed as the primary path to obtaining permanent residence, while adjustment of status in the United States is a discretionary process that may be approved more selectively.
Previously, adjustment of status was generally approved when an applicant met the eligibility requirements for permanent residence and did not have significant issues involving fraud, criminal history, or serious immigration violations. Under the new policy, however, USCIS officers will review an applicant’s entire immigration history more broadly and place greater emphasis on negative factors such as prior status violations and activities inconsistent with the stated purpose of admission.
This policy change may affect a wide range of applicants, including employment-based immigrants, holders of H-1B, L-1, O-1, and other employment visas, family-based green card applicants, NIW and EB-1 applicants, and their derivative family members. USCIS, however, has maintained the existing principle that pursuing permanent residence itself is not a negative factor for holders of dual-intent visas such as H-1B and L-1.
The memorandum suggests that scrutiny of adjustment of status applications in the United States may become more stringent overall. Accordingly, applicants and employers may need to reassess their green card strategies and, in some cases, consider whether consular processing abroad would be a more appropriate option.
F, J, and I Visa Holders May Face Stricter Rules on Authorized Stay
If a proposed rule currently being pursued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is finalized, the current “Duration of Status” (D/S) system applicable to F students, J exchange visitors, and I foreign media representatives may be eliminated. Under the proposed system, visa holders would be authorized to remain in the United States only until the expiration date listed on their Form I-94 and would be required to separately apply to USCIS for an extension of stay.
Currently, most F, J, and I visa holders may remain in the United States in D/S status as long as they continue to comply with the requirements of their programs. If the new rule takes effect, however, all such visa holders would receive a fixed I-94 expiration date, making careful management of their authorized period of stay even more important. USCIS oversight may also increase with respect to matters that could affect status, such as changes in academic major, degree program, or exchange program.
One particularly important concern is that remaining in the United States beyond the I-94 expiration date may result in unlawful presence. Overstaying for certain periods may trigger three-year or ten-year bars to reentry. Confusing the expiration date on a visa stamp with the actual authorized period of stay shown on Form I-94 could therefore result in serious consequences. Lawful stay in the United States is generally determined by the I-94, not by the expiration date of the visa stamp.
The proposal also includes reducing the current 60-day grace period to 30 days, which could significantly shorten the time available after completion of a program to depart the United States, transfer schools, or change status. Accordingly, individuals planning changes to their academic programs, CPT or OPT applications, extensions of stay, or international travel should consult with their school officials or an immigration law professional in advance.
Federal Court Invalidates $100,000 Additional H-1B Fee
On June 8, 2026, a federal court in Massachusetts invalidated the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s policy imposing an additional $100,000 fee on certain H-1B petitions. The policy, implemented pursuant to a 2025 presidential directive, required the additional fee for certain new H-1B filings. The court found that the charge effectively constituted a tax imposed without congressional authorization and lacked a sufficient legal basis.
The court also ruled that the policy violated the rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act and that the government had failed to provide an adequate basis for calculating the fee, rendering the policy arbitrary and unlawful.
The ruling, however, is not necessarily the final word. The federal government is widely expected to appeal, and if the court stays the effect of the ruling during the appeal, the $100,000 fee may continue to apply. In addition, a federal court in Washington, D.C. previously reached the opposite conclusion on the same issue. As a result, legal uncertainty is expected to continue until a federal court of appeals or the U.S. Supreme Court issues a final ruling.
With the filing deadline for FY2027 H-1B lottery selectees approaching, employers should carefully consider whether any changes to their filing strategy are necessary. USCIS has not yet issued official guidance, and it remains unclear how petitions filed without the additional fee will be handled or whether previously paid fees will be refunded. Employers and H-1B applicants should therefore closely monitor developments and consult with immigration counsel regarding an appropriate strategy.
A detailed analysis by Jieun Park, U.S. Attorney at LAWAMERICA, regarding the significance of the court ruling and its impact on H-1B employers and applicants is available at the link below.
Federal Court Rules $100,000 H-1B Application Fee Unlawful
What Employers Should Prepare as I-9 Audits Intensify
As workplace immigration enforcement continues to increase, one procedure that employers should pay particular attention to is the Notice of Inspection (NOI), which initiates an I-9 audit. An NOI is an official audit notice issued by Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), an investigative agency within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Employers that receive an NOI are legally required to produce their Form I-9 employment eligibility verification records. However, employers are generally entitled to at least three business days to prepare the requested documents and cannot ordinarily be required to produce them immediately on site.
HSI has also recently applied stricter standards to errors in I-9 documentation. Certain errors that were previously treated as minor and correctable may now be classified as substantive violations, potentially resulting in penalties ranging from hundreds to thousands of dollars per violation. In particular, once an NOI has been received, the ability to make corrections to I-9 records may be significantly limited, making advance internal review increasingly important.
NOIs may be issued not only to industries that have traditionally been frequent targets of enforcement, such as construction, restaurants, hotels, landscaping, and agriculture, but also to companies with prior audit histories or businesses identified through interagency data sharing. In some cases, workplace investigations may also begin based on employment information obtained from individuals arrested by ICE.
Employers should therefore conduct internal I-9 audits, update their compliance policies in accordance with current requirements, and train on-site personnel on how to respond to government inspections. As the government increasingly uses artificial intelligence (AI) to review large volumes of I-9 records, identifying and correcting potential issues in advance has become more important than ever.
LAWAMERICA provides comprehensive legal assistance with I-9 compliance and government audits, from preventive internal reviews to responses to government investigations. Additional information is available at the link below.
ICE Form I-9 Audits
LAWAMERICA Maintains a 100% Approval Rate for L-1 Intracompany Transferee Visas
LAWAMERICA provides a wide range of U.S. immigration services to corporate and individual clients, including employment visas, intracompany transferee visas, and investor visas.
LAWAMERICA has particular strength in L-1 intracompany transferee matters. Recently, the firm successfully obtained approval of a Blanket L petition for a company with a complex corporate structure and eligibility issues, allowing the company to dispatch employees to the United States more efficiently. Under the Blanket L program, eligible employees may apply for L-1 visas directly through a U.S. embassy or consulate without first obtaining separate approval of an individual L-1 petition for each employee. A related case study is available at the link below.
[Case Study] Blanket L Petition Approved for U.S. L-1 Visas
LAWAMERICA continues to receive inquiries regarding E-2 employee visa denials. In cases involving multiple visa refusals, it is especially important to carefully analyze the reasons for the denials and, where appropriate, consider alternative visa categories such as the L-1 intracompany transferee visa.
Detailed explanations by Jungyong Park and Jieun Park, U.S. Attorneys at LAWAMERICA, regarding common reasons for E-2 employee visa denials and strategies for improving the likelihood of approval are available at the links below.
Reasons E-2 Employee Visas Are Denied and How to Respond
When Is an E-2 Employee Visa More Likely to Be Approved?
Recent changes in U.S. immigration laws and visa policies have created uncertainty and concerns for many applicants. In particular, we have received an increasing number of inquiries regarding unexpected changes and heightened scrutiny involving employment visas, intracompany transferee visas, investor visas, and green card applications.
Through our consultations with clients, we are continually reminded that successful immigration representation requires more than simply preparing documents. It is essential to develop the most appropriate strategy based on each client’s individual circumstances. Even for the same visa category, the outcome may vary depending on the applicant’s professional background, corporate structure, and plans in the United States. Therefore, careful analysis based on experience and expertise is particularly important.
LAWAMERICA remains committed to providing practical and effective solutions for our clients in the rapidly changing U.S. immigration environment. We will continue to provide the latest U.S. immigration law updates and practical information that can assist our clients.
Thank you for your continued trust in LAWAMERICA.
Sincerely,
LAWAMERICA
USCIS Announces New Policy on Adjustment of Status Adjudications in the United States
On May 21, 2026, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued a policy memorandum stating that it would apply a stricter standard in exercising discretion when adjudicating applications for adjustment of status to permanent residence in the United States. USCIS emphasized that consular processing through a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad should be viewed as the primary path to obtaining permanent residence, while adjustment of status in the United States is a discretionary process that may be approved more selectively.
Previously, adjustment of status was generally approved when an applicant met the eligibility requirements for permanent residence and did not have significant issues involving fraud, criminal history, or serious immigration violations. Under the new policy, however, USCIS officers will review an applicant’s entire immigration history more broadly and place greater emphasis on negative factors such as prior status violations and activities inconsistent with the stated purpose of admission.
This policy change may affect a wide range of applicants, including employment-based immigrants, holders of H-1B, L-1, O-1, and other employment visas, family-based green card applicants, NIW and EB-1 applicants, and their derivative family members. USCIS, however, has maintained the existing principle that pursuing permanent residence itself is not a negative factor for holders of dual-intent visas such as H-1B and L-1.
The memorandum suggests that scrutiny of adjustment of status applications in the United States may become more stringent overall. Accordingly, applicants and employers may need to reassess their green card strategies and, in some cases, consider whether consular processing abroad would be a more appropriate option.
F, J, and I Visa Holders May Face Stricter Rules on Authorized Stay
If a proposed rule currently being pursued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is finalized, the current “Duration of Status” (D/S) system applicable to F students, J exchange visitors, and I foreign media representatives may be eliminated. Under the proposed system, visa holders would be authorized to remain in the United States only until the expiration date listed on their Form I-94 and would be required to separately apply to USCIS for an extension of stay.
Currently, most F, J, and I visa holders may remain in the United States in D/S status as long as they continue to comply with the requirements of their programs. If the new rule takes effect, however, all such visa holders would receive a fixed I-94 expiration date, making careful management of their authorized period of stay even more important. USCIS oversight may also increase with respect to matters that could affect status, such as changes in academic major, degree program, or exchange program.
One particularly important concern is that remaining in the United States beyond the I-94 expiration date may result in unlawful presence. Overstaying for certain periods may trigger three-year or ten-year bars to reentry. Confusing the expiration date on a visa stamp with the actual authorized period of stay shown on Form I-94 could therefore result in serious consequences. Lawful stay in the United States is generally determined by the I-94, not by the expiration date of the visa stamp.
The proposal also includes reducing the current 60-day grace period to 30 days, which could significantly shorten the time available after completion of a program to depart the United States, transfer schools, or change status. Accordingly, individuals planning changes to their academic programs, CPT or OPT applications, extensions of stay, or international travel should consult with their school officials or an immigration law professional in advance.
Federal Court Invalidates $100,000 Additional H-1B Fee
On June 8, 2026, a federal court in Massachusetts invalidated the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s policy imposing an additional $100,000 fee on certain H-1B petitions. The policy, implemented pursuant to a 2025 presidential directive, required the additional fee for certain new H-1B filings. The court found that the charge effectively constituted a tax imposed without congressional authorization and lacked a sufficient legal basis.
The court also ruled that the policy violated the rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act and that the government had failed to provide an adequate basis for calculating the fee, rendering the policy arbitrary and unlawful.
The ruling, however, is not necessarily the final word. The federal government is widely expected to appeal, and if the court stays the effect of the ruling during the appeal, the $100,000 fee may continue to apply. In addition, a federal court in Washington, D.C. previously reached the opposite conclusion on the same issue. As a result, legal uncertainty is expected to continue until a federal court of appeals or the U.S. Supreme Court issues a final ruling.
With the filing deadline for FY2027 H-1B lottery selectees approaching, employers should carefully consider whether any changes to their filing strategy are necessary. USCIS has not yet issued official guidance, and it remains unclear how petitions filed without the additional fee will be handled or whether previously paid fees will be refunded. Employers and H-1B applicants should therefore closely monitor developments and consult with immigration counsel regarding an appropriate strategy.
A detailed analysis by Jieun Park, U.S. Attorney at LAWAMERICA, regarding the significance of the court ruling and its impact on H-1B employers and applicants is available at the link below.
Federal Court Rules $100,000 H-1B Application Fee Unlawful
What Employers Should Prepare as I-9 Audits Intensify
As workplace immigration enforcement continues to increase, one procedure that employers should pay particular attention to is the Notice of Inspection (NOI), which initiates an I-9 audit. An NOI is an official audit notice issued by Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), an investigative agency within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Employers that receive an NOI are legally required to produce their Form I-9 employment eligibility verification records. However, employers are generally entitled to at least three business days to prepare the requested documents and cannot ordinarily be required to produce them immediately on site.
HSI has also recently applied stricter standards to errors in I-9 documentation. Certain errors that were previously treated as minor and correctable may now be classified as substantive violations, potentially resulting in penalties ranging from hundreds to thousands of dollars per violation. In particular, once an NOI has been received, the ability to make corrections to I-9 records may be significantly limited, making advance internal review increasingly important.
NOIs may be issued not only to industries that have traditionally been frequent targets of enforcement, such as construction, restaurants, hotels, landscaping, and agriculture, but also to companies with prior audit histories or businesses identified through interagency data sharing. In some cases, workplace investigations may also begin based on employment information obtained from individuals arrested by ICE.
Employers should therefore conduct internal I-9 audits, update their compliance policies in accordance with current requirements, and train on-site personnel on how to respond to government inspections. As the government increasingly uses artificial intelligence (AI) to review large volumes of I-9 records, identifying and correcting potential issues in advance has become more important than ever.
LAWAMERICA provides comprehensive legal assistance with I-9 compliance and government audits, from preventive internal reviews to responses to government investigations. Additional information is available at the link below.
ICE Form I-9 Audits
LAWAMERICA Maintains a 100% Approval Rate for L-1 Intracompany Transferee Visas
LAWAMERICA provides a wide range of U.S. immigration services to corporate and individual clients, including employment visas, intracompany transferee visas, and investor visas.
LAWAMERICA has particular strength in L-1 intracompany transferee matters. Recently, the firm successfully obtained approval of a Blanket L petition for a company with a complex corporate structure and eligibility issues, allowing the company to dispatch employees to the United States more efficiently. Under the Blanket L program, eligible employees may apply for L-1 visas directly through a U.S. embassy or consulate without first obtaining separate approval of an individual L-1 petition for each employee. A related case study is available at the link below.
[Case Study] Blanket L Petition Approved for U.S. L-1 Visas
LAWAMERICA continues to receive inquiries regarding E-2 employee visa denials. In cases involving multiple visa refusals, it is especially important to carefully analyze the reasons for the denials and, where appropriate, consider alternative visa categories such as the L-1 intracompany transferee visa.
Detailed explanations by Jungyong Park and Jieun Park, U.S. Attorneys at LAWAMERICA, regarding common reasons for E-2 employee visa denials and strategies for improving the likelihood of approval are available at the links below.
Reasons E-2 Employee Visas Are Denied and How to Respond
When Is an E-2 Employee Visa More Likely to Be Approved?