U.S. Immigration Alerts

FGI UPDATE: This Week’s Summary of U.S. Immigration News

USCIS’s New Adjustment of Status Guidance Signals Tougher Green Card Review Standards

On May 21, 2026, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199, dramatically changing how officers may evaluate Adjustment of Status (AOS) applications. Although the memo does not change the immigration statute itself, it directs officers to treat adjustment of status as an “extraordinary” discretionary benefit rather than a routine process. The policy has created widespread concern because USCIS initially suggested that many applicants would need to leave the United States and complete consular processing abroad. While later clarifications softened that message somewhat, the memo still signals significantly tougher scrutiny for many green card applicants, especially those with overstays, status violations, or weak evidence of economic or national-interest benefits.

Key Points

• Immediate Policy Shift: USCIS’s new memorandum took effect immediately and applies to both pending and future Form I-485 applications. The agency emphasized that adjustment of status is discretionary and should not automatically replace traditional consular processing abroad.
• No Change to the Underlying Law: The memo does not amend INA § 245 or create a new regulation through formal rulemaking. Instead, it changes how USCIS officers are instructed to exercise discretion when deciding whether applicants deserve adjustment of status inside the United States.
• Higher Scrutiny for Applicants: USCIS officers are now directed to look more carefully at adverse factors such as overstays, immigration violations, and failures to maintain lawful status. The memo also encourages officers to require “unusual or outstanding equities” to justify granting adjustment applications.
• Dual Intent Still Exists, But Offers Less Protection: The memo confirms that dual-intent visa holders such as H-1B and L-1 workers may still pursue adjustment of status. However, USCIS states that maintaining lawful dual-intent status alone may not be enough to guarantee favorable discretionary treatment.
• Economic Benefit and National Interest Matter More: USCIS later clarified that applicants who can demonstrate economic benefit or national-interest contributions are more likely to continue adjusting status within the United States. This appears to favor categories such as EB-1A, EB-2 NIW, EB-1B, EB-5, and PERM-based employment cases.

What Employers Need to Know

• Employment-Based Cases May Be Better Positioned: Employers sponsoring workers through PERM labor certification or high-skilled immigrant categories may still have strong adjustment pathways available. USCIS appears especially receptive to cases involving measurable economic contributions or labor-market needs.
• Documentation Standards Should Increase: Employers should expect USCIS to scrutinize adjustment applications more closely than before. Supporting evidence should clearly explain the employee’s business value, contributions to the U.S. economy, and importance to the employer’s operations.
• Lawful Status Maintenance Is Increasingly Important: USCIS’s memo repeatedly emphasizes compliance with visa terms and maintenance of underlying status. Employers should carefully monitor workers’ immigration compliance histories because even minor violations could become major discretionary issues.
• Consular Processing Risks Have Increased: Some employees may now face pressure to complete immigrant visa processing abroad instead of adjusting status inside the United States. For certain applicants, especially those from countries impacted by additional State Department restrictions, consular processing may involve significant delays or uncertainty.
• Pending Cases May Not Be Protected: The memo does not clearly state whether previously filed adjustment applications will be reviewed under older standards. Employers should therefore prepare for Requests for Evidence (RFEs) or discretionary challenges even in already-pending cases.

Looking Ahead

• Litigation Is Likely: Immigration attorneys expect legal challenges arguing that USCIS improperly implemented a major policy shift without formal notice-and-comment rulemaking. Some commentators believe the memo may be vulnerable under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
• Additional USCIS Guidance Could Follow: The memo specifically states that USCIS may issue future guidance for particular immigration categories or applicant groups. This means additional restrictions—or clarifications—could emerge in the coming months.
• Family-Based Applicants May Face Greater Difficulty: Marriage-based and family-sponsored applicants with overstays or prior status violations appear especially exposed under the new discretionary framework. Even applicants previously protected from certain statutory bars may now encounter heightened discretionary scrutiny.
• Employment-Based National Interest Cases Could Gain Advantages: Applicants whose petitions already emphasize national importance or economic contributions may adapt more easily to the new standards. EB-1A and EB-2 NIW applicants, in particular, may benefit because their existing evidentiary records align closely with USCIS’s new discretionary focus.
• Adjustment of Status May Become Less Predictable: Historically, adjustment of status was viewed as relatively procedural once statutory eligibility was established. The new memo suggests USCIS officers will exercise much broader subjective discretion moving forward, creating greater unpredictability for applicants and employers alike.

USCIS’s May 2026 memorandum does not eliminate adjustment of status, but it significantly changes how the process may operate in practice. By emphasizing discretion, extraordinary equities, and economic benefit, the agency has signaled a tougher approach toward many applicants seeking green cards from inside the United States. Employment-based applicants with strong national-interest or economic-contribution records may remain comparatively well-positioned, while family-based applicants and individuals with status violations could face greater obstacles. Although future litigation and policy clarifications may reshape the memo’s long-term impact, the immediate result is a more uncertain and demanding adjustment-of-status environment for employers, foreign nationals, and immigration practitioners alike.

SOURCE:www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/memos/PM-602-0199-AdjustmentOfStatusAndDiscretion-20260521.pdf

USCIS Ends Most Remote Attorney Participation in Immigration Interviews

Effective May 18, 2026, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) no longer permits attorneys and accredited representatives to participate remotely in most immigration interviews conducted at field offices and asylum offices. The new policy applies to affirmative asylum interviews and Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) Section 203 interviews, requiring legal representatives to appear physically in person except in limited circumstances. The change marks a significant shift from practices adopted during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, when virtual participation became more common. As a result, applicants and employers may face increased logistical challenges, including additional travel costs, scheduling complications, and the possible need to retain local counsel.

Key Points

• Remote Participation Has Been Largely Eliminated: USCIS now generally requires attorneys and accredited representatives to attend covered immigration interviews in person. Remote participation will only be permitted in limited situations approved by the agency.
• Policy Applies to Multiple Interview Types: The rule covers interviews conducted at USCIS field offices as well as affirmative asylum and NACARA 203 interviews at asylum offices. This expands the policy’s impact across several major immigration case categories.
• COVID-Era Flexibilities Are Ending: During the pandemic, USCIS allowed many attorneys to appear remotely to reduce travel and health risks. The new guidance signals the agency’s continued rollback of temporary procedural accommodations introduced during that period.
• Travel and Scheduling Burdens May Increase: Applicants whose attorneys are located far from the interview site may now face higher costs and more complicated scheduling requirements. Some individuals may need to coordinate attorney travel or seek representation closer to the interview location.
• Limited Exceptions Still Exist: USCIS indicated that remote participation may still be allowed under certain limited circumstances. However, the agency has not broadly expanded those exceptions, meaning most representatives should expect mandatory in-person attendance.

What Employers Need To Know

• Business Immigration Cases Could Face Additional Costs: Employers sponsoring foreign workers may need to budget for attorney travel expenses connected to adjustment, employment authorization, or other USCIS interviews. Cases involving employees in remote locations could become especially expensive or difficult to coordinate.
• Interview Preparation Will Require More Advance Planning: Employers and legal teams should confirm interview logistics early to ensure counsel can attend in person. Delays or conflicts involving attorney travel could increase the risk of rescheduling or procedural complications.
• Local Counsel May Become More Important: Companies using immigration counsel located outside the employee’s geographic area may need to work with local attorneys for interview appearances. This could create additional coordination requirements between primary and local counsel.
• Asylum-Related Employment Matters Could Be Affected: Employers with workers pursuing asylum-based immigration benefits may encounter additional scheduling and representation challenges. The in-person attendance requirement may make it harder for some applicants to secure consistent legal representation.
• Compliance and Representation Risks Should Be Monitored: Because interviews often involve important legal and factual questions, attorney participation remains critical. Employers should encourage employees to confirm representation logistics well in advance of any scheduled USCIS interview.

Looking Ahead

• Further Procedural Changes May Follow: USCIS has continued reevaluating operational policies introduced during the pandemic years. Additional restrictions or modifications to interview procedures may emerge as the agency emphasizes traditional in-person processes.
• Requests for Expanded Exceptions Could Increase: Immigration attorneys and advocacy organizations may push USCIS to broaden remote participation options for hardship situations or geographically distant cases. Pressure may grow if applicants experience substantial delays or increased costs.
• Regional Access Disparities Could Become More Noticeable: Applicants living far from major metropolitan areas may face greater difficulty securing affordable legal representation for interviews. Smaller employers and applicants in rural regions could be disproportionately impacted.
• Hybrid Representation Models May Develop: Some law firms may increasingly partner with local attorneys to handle interview appearances while maintaining centralized case management elsewhere. This approach could become more common as firms adapt to USCIS’s in-person attendance requirements.
• Operational Efficiency Questions May Arise: It remains unclear whether mandatory in-person attendance will improve interview quality or case processing efficiency. Stakeholders will likely monitor whether the policy creates additional delays, rescheduling issues, or access-to-counsel concerns.

USCIS’s decision to end most remote attorney participation in immigration interviews represents another major procedural shift in post-pandemic immigration operations. By requiring attorneys and accredited representatives to attend interviews in person, the agency has increased the logistical and financial burdens associated with many immigration matters. Employers, applicants, and immigration counsel will need to adapt by planning interview attendance more carefully and potentially coordinating with local representatives. Although limited exceptions remain available, the new policy strongly signals USCIS’s preference for traditional in-person interview practices moving forward.

SOURCE: www.boundless.com/blog/boundless-weekly-immigration-news

USCIS Adopts Stricter Signature Enforcement Rules for Immigration Filings

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has issued an interim final rule giving U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) broader authority to reject or deny immigration filings that contain invalid signatures. Effective July 10, 2026, the rule allows USCIS not only to reject filings at intake for signature problems, but also to deny applications after they have already been accepted and processed if a signature is later found to be invalid. The policy reflects a broader government trend toward stricter procedural enforcement and increased fraud detection in immigration adjudications. As a result, applicants, employers, and attorneys will need to pay much closer attention to how immigration forms are signed, stored, and submitted.

Key Points

• USCIS Can Now Deny Cases for Signature Defects After Acceptance: Under the new rule, USCIS may deny immigration filings if it later determines that a signature was invalid, even after issuing a receipt notice and beginning adjudication. This marks a significant shift because many applicants previously assumed that accepted filings had already cleared basic signature review requirements.
• The Rule Takes Effect July 10, 2026: DHS published the interim final rule in the Federal Register on May 11, 2026, with implementation scheduled for July 10, 2026. The policy applies to immigration benefit requests submitted on or after that effective date.
• Handwritten Signatures Remain the Standard: USCIS continues requiring handwritten “wet ink” signatures for most paper-filed forms and petitions. While scanned or photocopied versions of original handwritten signatures are generally acceptable, digitally generated signatures, signature stamps, pasted signature images, and certain automated signature tools may be treated as invalid.
• Filing Fees and Immigration Benefits May Be Lost: If USCIS denies a filing because of an invalid signature, the agency may keep the filing fees and treat the case as fully adjudicated. Applicants could therefore lose substantial filing costs and potentially miss important filing windows tied to work authorization, lawful status, or priority dates.
• The Rule Reflects Increased Fraud Enforcement Efforts: DHS stated that the rule was designed to address inconsistent adjudication standards and growing concerns about fraudulent or questionable signatures. USCIS has increasingly emphasized fraud detection, identity verification, and stricter procedural compliance across immigration benefit programs.

What Employers Need to Know

• Corporate Immigration Procedures May Need Immediate Review: Employers sponsoring foreign workers should reevaluate how immigration forms are prepared, signed, and retained internally. Businesses relying heavily on remote workflows, scanned signatures, or automated document systems may face increased denial risks if procedures do not fully comply with USCIS requirements.
• Original Signature Records Should Be Preserved: USCIS may request proof that signatures originated from valid handwritten documents rather than digitally generated copies. Employers and immigration counsel should maintain original signed records whenever possible to help respond to Requests for Evidence (RFEs), Notices of Intent to Deny (NOIDs), or compliance inquiries.
• Small Technical Errors Could Create Major Immigration Consequences: A filing denied because of a signature defect could disrupt H-1B cap filings, employment authorization timelines, adjustment applications, or status extensions. In some cases, applicants may lose eligibility opportunities that cannot easily be recreated through refiling.
• Authorized Signatory Rules Still Apply: USCIS generally requires immigration petitions filed by companies to be signed by authorized representatives such as executive officers, HR personnel, managing members, or other individuals legally authorized to bind the organization. Employers should ensure signatory authority is properly documented and consistently applied across filings.
• Training and Quality Control Will Become More Important: Immigration teams and HR departments may need stronger compliance procedures for reviewing forms before submission. Careful review of signature placement, signer identity, and form instructions could become essential to avoiding preventable denials and delays.

Looking Ahead

• USCIS May Continue Expanding Procedural Enforcement The signature rule appears consistent with a broader DHS trend toward stricter technical compliance standards in immigration adjudications. Future policy changes may continue emphasizing filing accuracy, fraud prevention, and documentation verification.
• Digital Workflow Challenges Could Increase Many employers and law firms now rely on remote filing systems and electronic document management practices developed during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. USCIS’s continued preference for traditional handwritten signatures may create operational difficulties for organizations accustomed to fully digital workflows.
• More RFEs, NOIDs, and Denials May Follow Immigration practitioners have already reported increased scrutiny involving identical-looking signatures and digitally reproduced forms. As USCIS applies the new rule more aggressively, applicants and employers may see higher numbers of Requests for Evidence and Notices of Intent to Deny tied to signature validity concerns.
• Litigation or Additional Guidance Could Emerge Some immigration advocates may challenge the fairness or implementation of the new standards, especially where otherwise approvable cases are denied over technical defects. USCIS may also issue future clarifications regarding acceptable signature practices and document retention expectations.
• Procedural Compliance Will Likely Become More Central to Immigration Practice The rule reinforces the idea that technical filing requirements can carry serious legal consequences, even when the underlying immigration benefit request is substantively strong. Applicants and employers may need to devote greater resources to compliance review and filing precision moving forward.

USCIS’s new signature enforcement rule represents a major procedural shift with potentially serious consequences for immigration applicants and sponsoring employers. By allowing denials after filings have already been accepted, the agency has increased the risks associated with even minor signature defects and technical filing mistakes. Employers, attorneys, and applicants will need to adopt stricter review and document-retention practices to avoid denials, lost filing fees, and disruptions to immigration status or work authorization. As DHS continues emphasizing fraud prevention and procedural compliance, careful attention to filing details will become increasingly important throughout the immigration process.

SOURCE: www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/05/11/2026-09289/signatures-on-immigration-benefit-requests

Proposed DOL Wage Rule Could Significantly Increase H-1B and Employment-Based Immigration Costs

A proposed Department of Labor (DOL) rule would dramatically increase prevailing wage requirements for H-1B visa holders and employment-based immigrants, potentially reshaping the economics of high-skilled immigration in the United States. According to analyses from the National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) and immigration policy commentators, the proposal could raise required salaries by 21% to 33% depending on the wage level and occupation involved. Supporters of the current system argue that prevailing wage requirements already closely match market compensation levels and that the proposed changes could price many employers out of hiring international talent. Critics of the rule also argue that the DOL’s methodology relies on questionable assumptions about wage disparities between H-1B workers and comparable U.S. professionals.

Key Points

• The Proposed Rule Would Raise Required Wage Levels Significantly: The DOL proposal would increase prevailing wage calculations for H-1B workers and employment-based immigrants by adjusting the percentile structure used in wage determinations. According to the agency’s own estimates, required wages could rise by an average of 33% for Level I positions, 24% for Level II positions, 21% for Level III positions, and 22% for Level IV positions.
• The Rule Revives Earlier Trump-Era Wage Policies: Analysts note that the proposal closely resembles controversial wage rules introduced during the Trump administration in 2020 and 2021. Earlier versions faced legal challenges and were blocked or delayed after courts found procedural and Administrative Procedure Act concerns.
• NFAP Argues the Current System Already Reflects Market Wages: NFAP research compared current DOL prevailing wage data to private wage surveys from Willis Towers Watson and found only minimal differences between the two systems. The organization argues that the current prevailing wage framework already closely approximates real market compensation levels for similarly employed workers.
• Critics Say the DOL Methodology Is Flawed: Opponents of the rule argue that the DOL improperly compares mostly early-career H-1B workers to all workers in an occupation, including professionals with significantly greater tenure and experience. Analysts also contend that DOL relied on prevailing wage minimums rather than actual salaries paid to H-1B workers, potentially exaggerating any claimed wage gap.
• Private Wage Surveys Could Become More Important: The proposed rule still allows employers to use qualifying private wage surveys in many circumstances. Immigration practitioners believe these surveys may become increasingly valuable if government prevailing wage calculations rise substantially under the final rule.

What Employers Need to Know

• Labor Costs for Foreign Talent Could Increase Dramatically: Employers sponsoring H-1B workers or employment-based immigrants may face significantly higher minimum salary obligations if the rule takes effect. Certain industries that rely heavily on early-career foreign professionals, including technology and engineering sectors, could experience especially large cost increases.
• Entry-Level Hiring May Become More Difficult: Because Level I wage requirements would experience some of the largest percentage increases, employers could find it harder to sponsor recent graduates and early-career professionals. This may particularly affect companies recruiting international students graduating from U.S. universities in STEM fields.
• Private Wage Surveys May Offer Strategic Alternatives: Employers may increasingly rely on private compensation surveys to establish prevailing wages where permitted by law. However, DOL has also suggested it may consider future restrictions on the use of such surveys, creating additional uncertainty for employers.
• Compliance and Budget Planning Will Become More Complex: Companies with ongoing H-1B programs may need to reevaluate salary structures, workforce planning, and sponsorship budgets. Businesses operating in high-cost metropolitan areas such as San Francisco, New York, and San Jose could face particularly steep wage increases.
• Litigation Risks Could Delay Implementation: Immigration attorneys and policy groups have already suggested the proposal may face legal challenges if finalized in its current form. Employers should therefore monitor both regulatory developments and potential court decisions before making major workforce adjustments.

Looking Ahead

• A Final Rule Could Arrive Before the 2027 H-1B Registration Season: Analysts note that the DOL may finalize the rule in time to affect future H-1B filing cycles. If implemented quickly, employers could face new wage requirements during the next electronic registration period beginning in 2027.
• Additional Restrictions on High-Skilled Immigration May Follow: The proposed wage rule is part of a broader trend toward tighter regulation of employment-based immigration programs. Other recent policies involving H-1B fees, adjudication standards, and adjustment-of-status procedures suggest continued scrutiny of high-skilled immigration pathways.
• Courts May Play a Major Role in the Rule’s Future: Previous prevailing wage regulations faced repeated legal setbacks under the Administrative Procedure Act. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, courts may apply even closer scrutiny to agency interpretations and methodologies in future immigration-related litigation.
• Employers May Shift Hiring Strategies Internationally: If prevailing wage obligations rise substantially, some companies may increase hiring outside the United States rather than absorb significantly higher domestic sponsorship costs. This could have broader implications for U.S. competitiveness in industries dependent on global talent.
• The Debate Over H-1B Wages Will Likely Continue: Questions about whether H-1B workers are underpaid relative to U.S. professionals remain politically and economically contentious. Future research, litigation, and regulatory changes will likely continue shaping how prevailing wages are calculated and enforced.

The DOL’s proposed prevailing wage rule could become one of the most consequential recent changes to the H-1B and employment-based immigration systems. By significantly increasing required salary levels, the proposal may reshape employer sponsorship strategies, reduce opportunities for early-career foreign professionals, and increase compliance burdens for businesses across multiple industries. At the same time, critics argue the rule rests on flawed assumptions and may exceed the government’s statutory authority, setting the stage for possible litigation and continued policy debate. Whether finalized as proposed or modified through legal and political pressure, the rule signals a continued shift toward more restrictive and closely scrutinized high-skilled immigration policies in the United States.

SOURCES: nfap.com/research/nfap-policy-brief-an-analysis-of-dols-proposed-rule-on-prevailing-wage/; www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/?sh=e9f5bda74d9e

US Government Imposes Ebola-Related Travel Restrictions and Visa Service Suspensions for Certain African Countries

The U.S. government has announced a series of emergency public health and immigration measures in response to Ebola-related concerns involving the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Uganda, and South Sudan. Beginning in May 2026, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Department of State (DOS) implemented coordinated actions affecting international travel, airport screening, and visa processing. The measures include restrictions on flights arriving in the United States, enhanced health screening procedures for travelers, and temporary suspension of visa services at U.S. embassies in the affected countries. In addition, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced an automatic extension of work authorization for certain Salvadoran Temporary Protected Status (TPS) beneficiaries.

Key Points

• DHS Imposed Ebola-Related Flight Arrival Restrictions: On May 21, 2026, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), a component of DHS, announced immediate restrictions affecting flights carrying individuals who recently traveled from the DRC, Uganda, or South Sudan. DHS considers a person covered by the restrictions if they were present in one of those countries within 21 days before attempting entry into the United States.
• Certain Travelers and Flights Are Exempt: Cargo-only flights and flight crew members are excluded from the arrival restrictions. U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, members of the armed forces, and certain additional categories of travelers are also exempt from some of the restrictions.
• Designated Airport Requirements Were Modified: Initially, affected flights were required to arrive only through Washington-Dulles International Airport. DHS later revised the list of designated airports permitted to receive affected travelers as operational needs evolved.
• CDC Implemented Enhanced Airport Health Screening Measures: Travelers who were present in the DRC, Uganda, or South Sudan within the previous 21 days are now escorted to designated airport screening areas upon arrival in the United States. CDC staff conduct health questionnaires, temperature screenings using non-contact thermometers, and visual symptom observations as part of the process.
• Travelers With Symptoms Face Additional Evaluation: Travelers displaying fever or other Ebola-related symptoms are referred to CDC public health officers for additional evaluation. If a suspected case is identified, CDC will coordinate with state and local health authorities to conduct contact tracing and passenger notification efforts.

What Employers Need to Know

• International Travel May Face Significant Disruptions: Employers with personnel traveling to or from the DRC, Uganda, or South Sudan should expect possible delays, routing changes, and enhanced airport screening procedures. Travel involving affected regions may become substantially more complicated while the restrictions remain in place.
• Visa Processing Has Been Temporarily Suspended in Certain Countries: Effective May 18, 2026, U.S. embassies in Juba, South Sudan; Kinshasa, DRC; and Kampala, Uganda temporarily paused visa services and operations. The suspension affects both immigrant and nonimmigrant visa applications, potentially delaying employee relocations, and business travel plans.
• Current Visas Remain Valid: DOS stated that the temporary suspension does not invalidate visas that were already issued before the pause took effect. However, affected applicants whose appointments were canceled or rescheduled may face significant delays before new appointments become available.
• Health Monitoring Requirements Could Affect Employee Mobility: Travelers arriving from the affected countries may receive instructions for ongoing health monitoring after entering the United States. Employers should prepare for possible quarantine guidance, follow-up communications from public health authorities, or delayed returns to work in certain situations.
• TPS-Related Work Authorization Was Extended for Certain Salvadoran Nationals: USCIS automatically extended the validity of Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) with category codes A12 or C19 for qualifying Salvadoran TPS recipients through July 22, 2026. Employers should update I-9 compliance records accordingly for eligible employees whose EADs expired on March 9, 2025.

Looking Ahead

• Travel Restrictions Could Expand or Change Quickly: DHS stated that the restrictions will remain in place until modified or terminated by the Secretary of Homeland Security. Additional airport limitations, screening procedures, or travel restrictions could be implemented if public health conditions worsen.
• Consular Delays May Continue for an Extended Period: DOS has not provided a timeline for resuming full visa operations in the affected countries. Applicants and employers may therefore face prolonged uncertainty involving visa scheduling and international mobility planning.
• Public Health Screening May Become More Common During Disease Outbreaks: The federal government’s coordinated response demonstrates how quickly immigration and travel systems can be adjusted during global health emergencies. Similar screening and travel-control measures may be used in future outbreaks involving other regions or diseases.
• Employers May Need Stronger International Travel Contingency Plans: Companies with global operations may increasingly need formal emergency response procedures for public health disruptions affecting international employees. Workforce planning, remote work arrangements, and travel-risk assessments could become more important operational priorities.
• TPS and Humanitarian Immigration Policies May Continue Evolving: USCIS’s extension of TPS-related work authorization for Salvadoran beneficiaries reflects the government’s continued use of humanitarian immigration protections during periods of instability and crisis. Additional TPS-related announcements or humanitarian immigration measures could emerge depending on future global developments.

SOURCE: ABIL Immigration Insider, May 24, 2026

State Department Reaches FY 2026 EB-2 Visa Limit for Indian Applicants

The U.S. Department of State (DOS), working with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), announced that all available Employment-Based Second Preference (EB-2) immigrant visas for applicants chargeable to India have been issued for fiscal year 2026. As a result, U.S. embassies and consulates can no longer issue EB-2 immigrant visas to Indian nationals for the remainder of the fiscal year. The annual visa allocation will be reset on October 1, 2026, at the start of fiscal year 2027. The announcement highlights the continuing impact of statutory per-country limits and long-standing green card backlogs affecting highly skilled Indian professionals in the United States.

Key Points

• India’s FY 2026 EB-2 Visa Allocation Has Been Fully Used: DOS confirmed on May 22, 2026, that all available EB-2 immigrant visas for applicants chargeable to India had been exhausted for the current fiscal year. U.S. embassies and consulates may not issue additional EB-2 visas to Indian nationals until the annual limits reset on October 1, 2026.
• The EB-2 Category Is Subject to Annual Numerical Limits: Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the EB-2 category receives 28.6 percent of the worldwide employment-based immigrant visa allocation each fiscal year. In addition, no single country may generally receive more than seven percent of the total employment-based and family-sponsored immigrant visas available annually.
• Indian Applicants Continue Facing Severe Backlogs: India has long experienced extraordinarily high demand in the EB-2 category because of the large number of Indian professionals working in the United States on temporary employment visas such as H-1B status. The exhaustion of visa numbers means many applicants will continue waiting months or years before permanent residence can be finalized.
• Retrogression and “Unavailable” Status Were Anticipated: The June 2026 Visa Bulletin had already warned that India’s EB-2 category faced possible retrogression or unavailability because of high demand and rapid visa usage earlier in the fiscal year. DOS indicated that the agency was monitoring visa issuance closely to prevent exceeding annual statutory limits.
• Pending Cases Will Remain in the Queue: Applicants with pending adjustment-of-status or immigrant visa cases will not lose their place in line because of the annual limit being reached. However, final approval or immigrant visa issuance generally cannot occur until new visa numbers become available in fiscal year 2027.

What Employers Need to Know

• Green Card Processing Delays May Increase for Indian Employees: Employers sponsoring Indian professionals through the EB-2 category should expect continued delays in adjustment-of-status approvals and immigrant visa issuance. Employees may remain dependent on temporary visa categories such as H-1B status for extended periods while awaiting visa availability.
• Work Authorization Extensions May Become More Important: Many Indian employees waiting in the EB-2 backlog rely on Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) and advance parole benefits connected to pending adjustment applications. Employers should monitor renewal timelines carefully to avoid work authorization interruptions during prolonged processing delays.
• Priority Date Strategy Remains Critical: Because visa availability can fluctuate significantly based on demand and annual limits, employers and immigration counsel should closely monitor Visa Bulletin developments and filing opportunities. Strategic use of EB-1, EB-3, or interfiling options may become increasingly important for certain employees.
• Recruitment and Retention Challenges Could Intensify: Long green card wait times may affect employee morale, mobility, and long-term workforce planning for companies employing large numbers of Indian nationals. Some workers may pursue alternative immigration pathways or employment opportunities in countries with faster permanent residence systems.
• Consular Processing and Adjustment Cases Are Both Affected: The visa number exhaustion applies not only to consular immigrant visa issuance abroad but also to adjustment-of-status approvals within the United States. USCIS may continue processing cases administratively, but final approvals generally cannot occur without available visa numbers.

Looking Ahead

• Visa Numbers Will Reset on October 1, 2026: The EB-2 annual allocation will reopen at the beginning of fiscal year 2027, allowing DOS and USCIS to resume final approvals and immigrant visa issuance for eligible Indian applicants. However, demand is expected to remain extremely high.
• Further Retrogression Could Continue Across Employment Categories: Heavy demand in EB-1 and EB-2 categories for Indian nationals has already caused significant retrogression in recent Visa Bulletins. Similar retrogressions or “unavailable” designations may continue in future fiscal years if demand continues exceeding supply.
• Legislative Reform Debates Will Likely Continue: The ongoing backlog for Indian employment-based immigrants continues fueling debate over whether Congress should eliminate or modify per-country limits. Although several reform proposals have been introduced over the years, no major legislative changes have yet resolved the issue.
• Alternative Immigration Strategies May Gain Popularity: As EB-2 wait times remain unpredictable, some applicants may increasingly pursue EB-1 classifications, National Interest Waivers (NIWs), or employer-sponsored EB-3 strategies. Companies may also explore global mobility alternatives outside the United States for highly skilled workers.
• Global Immigration Competition May Increase: Prolonged U.S. green card backlogs could encourage highly skilled professionals to consider countries with faster pathways to permanent residence and citizenship. Policymakers and business leaders may continue debating whether employment-based immigration delays affect U.S. competitiveness in technology, engineering, and research sectors.

The State Department’s announcement that India’s EB-2 immigrant visa allocation for fiscal year 2026 has been exhausted underscores the continuing strain on the U.S. employment-based immigration system. Indian professionals remain disproportionately affected by statutory per-country caps and high demand for permanent residence opportunities, leading to lengthy processing delays and visa retrogression. Employers sponsoring skilled foreign workers will need to continue managing temporary visa renewals, workforce planning concerns, and evolving immigration strategies while waiting for visa availability to reopen in fiscal year 2027. Although visa numbers will reset on October 1, 2026, the broader structural backlog affecting Indian EB-2 applicants is likely to remain a major issue for years to come.