U.S. Immigration Alerts

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

Trump Administration Again Proposes Eliminating Deference to Prior Approvals of Immigration Petitions

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has proposed a new regulation that would eliminate the requirement for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to generally defer to its own prior approvals when reviewing certain immigration petitions for temporary workers. The proposal would affect Form I-129 petitions, which employers use to sponsor foreign nationals in categories including H-1B, L-1, and O-1. If adopted, USCIS officers could reassess eligibility in each case without giving special weight to an earlier approval, even when the employer, employee, and underlying facts have not changed. The proposal could lead to more requests for evidence (RFEs), longer processing times, higher denial risks, and greater uncertainty for employers seeking to retain sponsored workers. DHS is accepting public comments until November 13, 2026.

Key Points

• Proposed Elimination of Deference: The proposed rule would remove the regulation requiring USCIS officers to generally defer to prior approvals involving the same parties and underlying facts. Officers could still consider previous approvals when relevant, but they would no longer be required to give those decisions deference.
• Scope of the Proposal: The proposed change would apply to Form I-129 petitions for nonimmigrant workers, including H-1B, L-1, O-1, and other covered temporary worker classifications. It would apply broadly to relevant I-129 adjudications, rather than only to extension-of-stay requests.
• Historical Background: USCIS introduced its deference policy in 2004, rescinded it in 2017 during the first Trump Administration, and reinstated it in 2021 under the Biden Administration. In late 2024, the policy was incorporated into federal regulations, making its removal subject to the formal rulemaking process.
• Previous Attempt to Eliminate Deference: In August 2025, the Trump Administration proposed eliminating the deference regulation as part of a separate rulemaking effort but did not proceed with that approach. The administration is now pursuing a separate regulatory proposal specifically addressing deference to prior immigration petition approvals.
• Rationale for the Proposed Change: DHS maintains that each petition should be evaluated based on the evidence submitted, and that employers must establish eligibility for every requested immigration benefit. The agency believes eliminating mandatory deference would give adjudicators greater flexibility to review evidence, request additional documentation, and correct errors in earlier approvals.

What Employers Need to Know

• Increased Risk of RFEs and Denials: If finalized, the proposal could lead to more RFEs and a greater risk of denials, particularly for extension petitions. Reports have shown that during the period following the 2017 rescission, H-1B extension denial rates reached a high of 24% and L-1B denial rates reached a high of 35%.
• Potential Delays and Workforce Disruption: More extensive reviews could lengthen processing times and create uncertainty about whether sponsored employees can continue working under their existing immigration arrangements. Employers may need to account for these risks when planning staffing, project timelines, and workforce continuity.
• Greater Documentation Requirements: Employers should be prepared to demonstrate continued eligibility in each petition, even when the employee’s role and circumstances have not materially changed since a previous approval. Maintaining current, consistent documentation of job duties, qualifications, work arrangements, and the employer-employee relationship may become increasingly important.
• Review of Extension Strategies: Employers should work with immigration counsel to assess upcoming I-129 extensions and identify cases that may require additional evidence or earlier preparation. Prior approval should not be treated as a guarantee of future approval if the proposed rule takes effect.
• Opportunity to Submit Public Comments: DHS is accepting comments for 30 days following publication of the proposed rule on October 14, 2026. Employers and business organizations may consider submitting evidence about the potential effects on hiring, retention, costs, project delivery, and U.S. competitiveness.

Looking Ahead

• Rulemaking Remains Pending: The proposal is not currently in effect and does not change how USCIS adjudicates existing I-129 filings under the current regulation. DHS must consider public comments and complete the rulemaking process before any final rule can take effect.
• Potential Increase in Adjudication Uncertainty: If the proposal is finalized, USCIS could review extensions more independently of prior approvals, even when the underlying facts remain the same. This may make outcomes less predictable and increase the importance of establishing eligibility through evidence in every filing.
• Implications for Employers and Foreign Workers: Additional scrutiny, longer processing times, and increased denial risks could make it more difficult for employers to retain foreign talent and maintain uninterrupted operations. These effects may be particularly significant for businesses that depend on specialized workers whose continued employment requires timely petition approvals.
• Importance of Industry Feedback: Comments from employers and other stakeholders may help DHS evaluate the proposal’s practical effects and inform the final rule. Businesses may wish to document anticipated compliance costs, administrative burdens, recruitment challenges, and potential effects on operations and competitiveness.

In summary, DHS has proposed eliminating the regulatory requirement that USCIS defer to prior approvals when adjudicating covered Form I-129 petitions. Although the proposal is not yet effective, its adoption could materially affect temporary worker extensions and other covered filings by increasing the need for supporting evidence and potentially raising processing times and denial risks. Employers should monitor the rulemaking process, prepare for case-specific scrutiny, and consider submitting comments on the proposal’s potential operational and economic consequences.

Trump Administration Announces Investigation into ‘Visa Fraud’ at Top US Universities

On October 8, 2026, Vice President J. D. Vance and Anthony D’Esposito, Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), announced a federal investigation into alleged J-1 visa fraud involving nine major American universities. The administration stated that the investigation will examine whether foreign influence, improper financial relationships, or misuse of visa programs are compromising federally funded research. Officials said subpoenas have been issued and investigations are underway. They also announced a government-wide visa fraud strike team to investigate potential violations and coordinate with the Department of Justice on possible prosecutions. Several universities confirmed receiving government subpoenas and stated that they would cooperate while emphasizing the important contributions of international students, scholars, and employees to U.S. research and innovation.

Key Points

• Nine Universities Under Investigation: The administration identified the University of Pittsburgh, Yale University, Harvard University, Stanford University, Brown University, the University of California at Davis, the California Institute of Technology (Caltech), Arizona State University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Officials described the initiative as a major investigation into alleged J-1 visa fraud involving these institutions.
• Scope of the Investigation: Federal investigators intend to examine potential visa abuse, foreign influence, and improper financial relationships that could affect federally funded research. Officials have indicated that the investigation will include scrutiny of financial arrangements and possible misuse of government-administered visa programs.
• Subpoenas and Enforcement Measures: DOL Inspector General Anthony D’Esposito confirmed that subpoenas had been served and investigations were underway. He also announced plans for a visa fraud strike team that would coordinate investigative efforts across government agencies and work with the Department of Justice to pursue potential criminal cases.
• Administration’s Stated Objectives: Officials said the initiative is intended to identify and address alleged visa fraud and protect the integrity of federally funded research. The administration has emphasized that the investigation will apply regardless of an institution’s prominence or reputation.

What Employers Need to Know

• Universities and Research Institutions: Universities that employ foreign nationals or participate in government-administered visa programs may face increased scrutiny of their records and compliance practices. Institutions receiving subpoenas should review the requests carefully and coordinate their responses with appropriate legal counsel.
• J-1 Program Compliance: Institutions sponsoring exchange visitors should ensure that their program records, sponsorship arrangements, funding information, and supporting documentation are accurate and consistent with applicable requirements. The investigation may also prompt other institutions to review their own exchange visitor program practices.
• Broader Immigration Compliance Risks: Although the announcement focused on alleged J-1 visa fraud, the press conference also referenced H-1B visa fraud. Employers and research institutions that sponsor workers or scholars through different visa categories should monitor developments and ensure that their immigration and employment practices comply with the requirements applicable to each program.
• Institutional Responses: Brown University confirmed that it had received a subpoena for records concerning foreign labor programs administered by the federal government and stated that it would respond promptly. MIT also confirmed that it was reviewing what it characterized as a broad subpoena, while emphasizing the value of international students and scholars to American research and competitiveness.

Looking Ahead

• Potential Expansion of Investigations: The newly announced visa fraud strike team could increase coordination among federal agencies investigating suspected violations of immigration and foreign labor programs. The scope of any additional investigations, and whether other institutions or employers will be affected, remains uncertain.
• Possible Legal and Regulatory Consequences: If investigators identify evidence of violations, the government could pursue administrative enforcement or criminal prosecution where supported by the facts and applicable law. The announcement does not establish that any university has committed visa fraud.
• Impact on International Research and Recruitment: The investigation may lead universities and research institutions to reassess their compliance procedures for recruiting and sponsoring international scholars. Institutions will need to balance careful compliance with their reliance on international talent to support research, innovation, and competitiveness.
• Continued Developments: The investigation remains ongoing, and further information may emerge as institutions respond to subpoenas and federal agencies review records. Universities, employers, and immigration practitioners should monitor official announcements for clarification of the investigation’s scope and any resulting enforcement actions.

In summary, the Trump administration has announced a federal investigation into alleged J-1 visa fraud involving nine prominent U.S. universities, with scrutiny focused on potential visa abuse, foreign influence, financial relationships, and federally funded research. Subpoenas have reportedly been issued, and officials intend to coordinate investigations through a government-wide strike team. The announcement signals increased enforcement attention toward university-related visa programs, but allegations remain under investigation, and no conclusion of wrongdoing has been established by the announcement itself.

USCIS Expands Upload Filing Options for Form I-129 Petitions

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) continues to expand electronic filing options for Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker. Through its PDF upload process, employers and their authorized representatives can submit a completed petition and supporting documentation electronically via a USCIS online account instead of mailing a paper filing. This option can simplify submission and document handling, although petitioners must confirm that the relevant nonimmigrant classification is eligible for PDF to upload and follow the applicable filing requirements.

Key Points

• Expanded Electronic Filing Access: USCIS has made PDF upload available for additional Form I-129 nonimmigrant worker petition categories. Eligible petitioners can upload a completed form and supporting evidence through a USCIS online account.
• Eligible Classifications: The available PDF upload categories include E, H-1B and H-1B1, H-3, L-1, blanket L, O, P, Q, R-1, and TN petitions, as well as certain cap-exempt H-2B petitions. Petitioners should confirm the precise eligibility requirements for their filing before submission.
• Separate H-2A Filing Form: Form I-129H2A is available only through the PDF upload process, and USCIS will reject paper filings of that specific form. Employers filing H-2A petitions on paper must continue to use the standard Form I-129.
• Online Submission Requirements: Attorneys and accredited representatives using PDF upload must also submit Form G-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Accredited Representative. The beneficiary’s or petitioner’s valid wet-ink signature must appear on the uploaded PDF, as applicable to the filing requirements.

What Employers Need to Know

• Review Filing Eligibility: Employers should determine whether the applicable petition category supports guided online filing, PDF upload, or paper filing. The available submission method depends on the classification and the specific form being filed.
• Coordinate With Immigration Counsel: Employers working with outside counsel should coordinate the preparation, review, and submission of petitions through the appropriate USCIS account. Counsel and employers should also confirm that required signatures, supporting evidence, and Form G-28 are included where applicable.
• Check Form Editions and Filing Instructions: Employers should verify that they are using the correct edition of Form I-129 and the current USCIS filing instructions. Outdated forms, missing signatures, or incorrect submission methods may result in rejection or processing delays.
• Consider Filing Costs: USCIS’s October 2026 fee schedule provides lower online filing fees than paper filing for certain Form I-129 classifications and petitioner types. Employers should verify the applicable base fee and any additional required fees before submitting a petition.

Looking Ahead

• Further Digital Filing Expansion: USCIS has established a framework that allows it to require electronic filing for eligible forms, subject to applicable conditions and advance notice. Employers should monitor USCIS announcements for any future changes affecting Form I-129 filing procedures.
• Potential Administrative Efficiencies: Broader use of PDF upload may reduce the administrative steps associated with preparing, mailing, scanning, and entering paper submissions. The actual time savings will depend on the filing process and USCIS adjudication procedures.
• Continued Compliance Obligations: Electronic filing does not eliminate the need to establish eligibility for the requested nonimmigrant classification or provide complete supporting evidence. Employers should maintain established immigration compliance and document-review procedures regardless of the filing method.

The expansion of PDF upload options gives eligible employers and their representatives additional ways to submit Form I-129 petitions electronically. Employers should confirm category-specific eligibility, follow current form and signature requirements, coordinate with immigration counsel to ensure accurate, timely submission, and monitor future USCIS changes to electronic filing policies.

USCIS Reaffirms Elimination of the Maximum 540-Day Automatic Extension for Employment Authorization Documents (EADs)

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) published a final rule on October 14, 2026, effective that day, confirming the elimination of the maximum 540-day automatic extension of certain Employment Authorization Documents (EADs). The rule, which formalizes an interim regulation that took effect on October 30, 2025, means that eligible applicants who file EAD renewal applications on or after that date generally cannot continue working beyond the expiration date of their current EAD while awaiting renewal approval, unless they have another basis for employment authorization. The final rule does not change the existing policy or affect qualifying automatic extensions that began before October 30, 2025.

Key Points

• Final Rule Confirms Existing Policy: USCIS is codifying its October 2025 interim final rule after considering public comments. The final rule makes no substantive changes and formalizes the elimination of the maximum 540-day automatic extension for covered EAD renewal applications.
• Effective Date and Applicability: The rule applies to certain EAD renewal applications filed on or after October 30, 2025. Qualifying automatic extensions that began before that date remain unaffected, as do extensions separately authorized by law or a Federal Register notice.
• Affected EAD Categories: The rule covers several categories, including adjustment-of-status applicants (C09), refugees and asylees (A3 and A5), asylum applicants (C08), certain Violence Against Women Act self-petitioners and their qualified children (C31), eligible H-4 spouses (C26), and certain Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders (A12 or C19). TPS-related automatic extensions may still apply when separately authorized through a Federal Register notice.

• Exceptions for Certain Workers: Spouses of L-1 and E nonimmigrants generally retain employment authorization incident to their valid status, even if their EAD expires. F-1 students who apply for a STEM Optional Practical Training extension also remain eligible for a separate 180-day automatic extension under existing regulations.
• Background of the Policy: USCIS initially established an automatic extension of up to 180 days in 2016, temporarily increased it to 540 days in 2022, and made the longer extension permanent in December 2024, effective January 2025. The agency reversed that policy through its October 2025 interim rule, and the new final rule formalizes that change.

What Employers Need to Know

• Renewal Timing Is Critical: Employees in affected EAD categories generally must stop working when their current EAD expires if their renewal remains pending, and they have no other valid basis for employment authorization. Employers should encourage eligible employees to submit renewal applications as early as permitted to reduce the risk of employment interruptions.
• Work Authorization Must Be Verified: Employers should review employee work authorization expiration dates and determine whether a separate authorization basis or exception applies before making employment decisions. A pending EAD renewal application alone does not provide continued work authorization under the new rule for covered applications.
• Identify Affected Employees: Human resources and immigration teams should identify employees whose work authorization depends on an EAD, particularly adjustment-of-status applicants and H-4 EAD holders. These employees may face gaps in employment authorization if USCIS does not approve their renewals before their existing documents expire.
• Distinguish Applicable Exceptions: Employers should not assume that all EAD holders are subject to the same rules, because certain workers may qualify for separate extensions or employment authorization incident to status. In particular, qualifying L-1 and E spouses and F-1 STEM OPT applicants are subject to distinct work authorization provisions.

Looking Ahead

• Potential Employment Gaps: Employees with pending EAD renewals may experience interruptions in their ability to work if approval is delayed beyond the expiration of their current authorization. Employers may need contingency plans for affected positions and projects to manage these interruptions.
• Greater Importance of Advance Planning: Employers may need to strengthen immigration tracking systems, renewal reminders, and coordination between employees, HR, and immigration counsel. Earlier preparation can help identify potential gaps and allow more time to evaluate available options.
• No Immediate Additional Policy Change: Because the final rule codifies the interim regulation without modification, the policy already in effect since October 30, 2025, remains in place. Employers should continue following the existing requirements rather than anticipate a new transition period or restoration of the 540-day extension.
• Continued Need to Monitor USCIS Guidance: Employers should watch for future regulatory changes, agency guidance, or category-specific Federal Register notices that could affect automatic extensions. Any such development should be assessed against the employee’s specific immigration category and filing date.

In summary, USCIS has finalized its elimination of the maximum 540-day automatic EAD extension for covered renewal applications filed on or after October 30, 2025. Although the final rule does not introduce a new substantive change, it reinforces the need for employers and foreign national employees to monitor expiration dates carefully, file renewals early, and confirm whether any separate basis for employment authorization applies.

White House Reviews Proposed Changes to Premium Processing for Foreign Workers

The White House is reviewing a proposed rule from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) that would change the timelines for premium processing of certain immigration applications, including petitions for employment-based immigrants and temporary workers. The proposal was submitted to the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) on October 13, 2026, for review. Under the current system, employers and applicants can pay an additional fee to obtain expedited processing for eligible petitions and applications, with different fees and processing periods depending on the type of filing. The proposal has not yet been published, and the specific revisions remain subject to regulatory review.

Key Points

• Proposed Changes Under Review: DHS has submitted a proposed rule to OMB to amend USCIS premium processing timeframes. The proposal’s details remain confidential pending completion of the federal review process, so the specific changes are not yet confirmed.
• Current Premium Processing Timeframes: USCIS currently provides premium processing within 15, 30, or 45 business days, depending on the immigration benefit requested. The service generally requires USCIS to take qualifying adjudicative action within the applicable period, which may include issuing an approval, a request for evidence (RFE), or a notice of intent to deny (NOID), rather than guaranteeing approval.
• Applications Covered: Premium processing is available for Form I-140 employment-based immigrant petitions, most Form I-129 petitions for temporary workers, and certain Form I-765 employment authorization applications and Form I-539 applications to change or extend nonimmigrant status. The applicable timeframe depends on the filing category, including the specific employment-based immigration benefit sought.
• Current Fees: Premium processing fees currently range from $1,780 to $2,965, depending on the type of application or petition. USCIS last increased these fees in March 2026 as part of its biennial inflation-based adjustment process.

What Employers Need to Know

• Existing Rules Remain in Effect: Employers should continue using the current premium processing timeframes and fees until DHS completes the rulemaking process, and any final rule takes effect. The pending proposal does not itself change eligibility, processing deadlines, or filing requirements.
• Potential Impact on Hiring and Retention: If premium processing timeframes are extended, employers could have to wait longer for certain immigration decisions involving new hires, extensions, or employment-based permanent residence cases. This could affect onboarding schedules, project staffing, and workforce planning, particularly where timely adjudication is important.
• Budgeting for Immigration Filings: Premium processing can add significant costs to employment-based immigration filings, particularly for employers sponsoring multiple foreign workers. Employers should continue to account for current fees when budgeting for petitions and consider how potential future changes could affect immigration expenses.
• Planning for Time-Sensitive Cases: Employers should assess the timing of upcoming petitions and extensions based on current processing options rather than anticipated regulatory changes. Premium processing may help expedite eligible cases, but it does not guarantee approval of a petition or application.
• Monitor Official Guidance: Employers should follow USCIS announcements and the publication of any proposed or final rule for details about affected filing categories, processing periods, and fees. Immigration counsel can help determine whether any changes require adjustments to filing strategies or workforce planning.
• Premium Processing Does Not Guarantee Approval: Paying for premium processing guarantees only the applicable adjudicative action within the designated timeframe under the relevant rules, not a favorable decision. An RFE or NOID may require additional documentation and create further delays before a final outcome is reached.

Looking Ahead

• Possible Changes to Processing Timelines: If the proposal is adopted, the time USCIS can act on certain premium processing requests could change. The practical effect will depend on the final rule terms and the categories of applications covered.
• Potential Cost Implications: Changes to premium processing periods or associated fees could affect employers’ immigration budgets and decisions about which cases warrant expedited handling. The proposal’s financial implications cannot be fully determined until its specific provisions are available.
• Further Regulatory Review: OIRA’s review is an intermediate step in the rulemaking process, and additional review or revisions may occur before publication. Employers should distinguish between a proposal under review and an implemented policy change.
• Importance of Continued Monitoring: Employers that depend on timely immigration decisions should monitor developments to determine whether changes could affect recruitment, onboarding, extensions, or permanent residence sponsorship. Any revised timelines should be incorporated into immigration planning once official requirements are confirmed.
• Public Comment Period: Once the proposed rule clears OMB review, it is expected to be published in the Federal Register for public comment, generally for 30 to 60 days. Employers and other stakeholders will have an opportunity to explain how potential changes could affect immigration operations and business needs.

In summary, this proposed rule could change the premium processing timeframes for certain employment-based immigration petitions and applications. Although the proposal may lead to longer adjudication periods, its details have not yet been released, and current requirements remain in effect. Employers should monitor publication of the proposed rule, evaluate its potential business implications, and consider participating in the public comment process.

The content of this article is intended only to provide a general guide to the subject matter. It should not be construed as legal advice. Please contact FGI at info@employmentimmigration.com or (+1) 248.643.4900 for guidance if you have specific questions.