U.S. Immigration Alerts

FGI UPDATES: THIS WEEK’S SUMMARY OF US IMMIGRATION NEWS

Department of State Issues Visa Bulletin for October 2026

On September 29, 2026, the U.S. Department of State (DOS) issued its monthly Visa Bulletin for October 2026. USCIS has chosen the Dates for Filing chart for employment-based applications for October 2026 to determine eligibility.

Summary

The October 2026 Visa Bulletin opens Fiscal Year 2027 with generally improved but uneven employment-based availability, while warning that some Rest of World categories retrogressed to preserve quarterly and annual limits. Under Final Action Dates, EB-1 remains current except for China (July 1, 2023) and India (February 1, 2023). EB-2 is January 1, 2025, for the general group, Mexico, and the Philippines, October 1, 2021, for China, and November 1, 2013, for India. EB-3 Professionals and Skilled Workers is May 15, 2024, for the general group and Mexico, January 8, 2022, for China, January 1, 2014, for India, and August 15, 2023, for the Philippines; EB-3 Other Workers is January 1, 2022, for the general group, Mexico, and the Philippines, October 1, 2019, for China, and January 1, 2014, for India. EB-5 Unreserved remains current for the general group, Mexico, and the Philippines, but is December 1, 2016, for China and December 1, 2023, for India, while every EB-5 set-aside category remains current.

Dates for Filing are generally more favorable. EB-1 is current except for China and India, both at July 1, 2024. EB-2 is March 15, 2026, for the general group, Mexico, and the Philippines, January 1, 2023, for China, and January 15, 2015, for India. EB-3 Professionals and Skilled Workers is August 1, 2024, for the general group and Mexico, April 1, 2024, for China, January 15, 2015, for India, and January 1, 2024, for the Philippines; EB-3 Other Workers is June 1, 2022, for the general group, Mexico, and the Philippines, October 1, 2020, for China, and January 15, 2015, for India. EB-5 Unreserved remains current for the general group, Mexico, and the Philippines, but is March 1, 2021, for China and May 1, 2024, for India; all set-asides remain current. These filing dates permit earlier document submission, but adjustment applicants should note that later retrogression remains possible as demand is monitored.

Dates for Filing for October 2026

SOURCE: travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/visa-bulletin/2026/visa-bulletin-for-October-2026.htm

Final Action Dates for October 2026

SOURCE: travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/visa-bulletin/2026/visa-bulletin-for-October-2026.htm

DOS Cable Confirms Diversity Visa and Immigrant Visa Processing Pauses Have Ended

The U.S. Department of State (DOS) issued a cable to all diplomatic and consular posts on September 10, 2026, confirming that the Diversity Visa (DV) and immigrant visa (IV) processing pauses previously ordered by the Trump administration are no longer in effect. The guidance follows a court order and instructs consular posts that visa applicants may no longer be refused under INA §221(g) based on either pause. The cable also directs posts to identify applications that were previously refused under the pauses and develop plans to reconsider those cases in accordance with standard Department policies and procedures.

Key Points

• End of Visa Processing Pauses: The DOS confirmed that the DV and IV pauses are no longer in effect following a court order. Consular posts have been instructed to resume handling affected cases under normal procedures.
• INA §221(g) Refusals Prohibited: Applicants may no longer be refused under INA §221(g) based on either visa processing pause. This removes a procedural barrier that had affected certain immigrant and diversity visa applicants.
• Review of Prior Refusals: Consular posts are directed to identify DV and IV applications that were previously refused because of the pauses. Those cases must be reviewed for potential reconsideration.
• Consular Action Required: Posts are expected to develop and implement plans to reconsider affected applications. The review process must be conducted in accordance with existing Department guidance and policies.

What Employers Need to Know

• Potential Increase in Visa Approvals: Employers sponsoring immigrant workers may see previously delayed cases return to active processing. This could allow some foreign national employees to move forward with immigration plans that had been stalled.
• Review of Affected Cases: Organizations with employees whose immigrant visa applications were refused under the pauses should monitor those cases closely. Reconsideration may create new opportunities for affected workers and their families.
• Workforce Planning Implications: The resumption of processing may improve predictability for employers relying on foreign talent. Companies should review anticipated start dates, relocation plans, and onboarding timelines where relevant.
• Coordination With Counsel: Employers may wish to coordinate with immigration counsel to determine whether any employees were impacted by the prior pauses. Timely follow-up could help ensure affected cases receive appropriate attention during the reconsideration process.

Looking Ahead

• Implementation Across Consulates: Individual consular posts will now begin identifying and reviewing affected cases. Processing times may vary depending on case volume and local resources.
• Potential Backlog Management: The reconsideration of previously refused applications may create additional workload for consular posts. Some applicants could experience delays as posts work through affected cases.
• Impact of Court Oversight: Because the DOS action follows a court order, future developments may continue to be influenced by ongoing judicial oversight. Stakeholders should watch for additional guidance or procedural updates from the Department.
• Restoration of Normal Processing: The agency’s directive signals a return to standard adjudication practices for DV and IV applications. Applicants and employers may benefit from greater consistency and predictability in the immigration process.

The Department of State’s September 10, 2026, cable confirms that the Diversity Visa and immigrant visa processing pauses are no longer in effect and that applicants may not be refused under INA §221(g) based on those pauses. Consular posts have been instructed to identify previously affected cases and develop plans to reconsider them under standard Department procedures. For applicants, employers, and sponsors, the guidance represents an important step toward restoring normal visa processing and resolving cases that may have been delayed or denied under the prior restrictions.

USCIS Finalizes Significant EB-5 Fee Increases Effective November 30, 2026

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has finalized a rule increasing most fees associated with the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program, with the new fees taking effect on November 30, 2026. The rule is intended to ensure that fees more closely cover the costs of administering the EB-5 program, support improvements to USCIS technology systems, and fund integrity measures required under the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022. USCIS estimates that the new fee schedule will affect approximately 16,600 EB-5 filings annually and will increase fees by an average of approximately 70.7 percent, although the impact varies substantially depending on the type of filing.

Key Points

• Effective Date: The new EB-5 fee schedule will take effect on November 30, 2026, and applications, petitions, and requests postmarked on or after that date must include the new fees. Applicants and regional centers considering filings before the effective date should therefore account for the filing date when evaluating costs.
• Investor Petition Fees: The fee for Form I-526, filed by standalone investors, will increase from $3,675 to $7,615, while the initial Form I-526E fee for regional center investors will increase from $3,675 to $7,850. Form I-526E amendments will increase to $7,775, and the new Form I-527 for amendments to legacy Form I-526 will carry a $10,330 fee.
• I-829 Fees: The fee for Form I-829, Petition by Investor to Remove Conditions on Permanent Resident Status, will increase from $3,750 to $5,000. This represents a 33 percent increase for investors seeking to complete the final stage of the EB-5 permanent residence process.
• Regional Center Fees: Some fees affecting EB-5 regional centers will increase substantially, particularly initial Form I-956 applications and Form I-956F applications, which will include costs associated with regional center termination and reaffirmation. By contrast, certain amendment and annual statement fees will decrease under the final schedule.
• Integrity and Technology Fees: The rule increases the EB-5 Integrity Fund fee for investors from $1,000 to $1,100 and increases annual regional center Integrity Fund fees from $10,000 to $11,000 for centers with 20 or fewer investors and from $20,000 to $22,000 for other regional centers. The final rule also establishes a $75 EB-5 technology fee where applicable to support improvements to USCIS information technology systems.

What Employers Need to Know

• Employer Involvement: Although EB-5 is primarily an immigrant-investor program rather than an employer-sponsored immigration category, employers and businesses may be involved when EB-5 investment is used to finance qualifying commercial enterprises and create the required jobs. Organizations participating in EB-5 projects should understand how the increased USCIS fees may affect project budgets and overall financing costs.
• Regional Center Planning: Businesses working with regional centers should be prepared for substantially higher costs associated with certain regional center filings, particularly initial Form I-956 applications and Form I-956F filings. These increased government costs may become a factor in the budgeting and structuring of future EB-5 projects.
• Filing Strategy: Employers, project sponsors, and regional centers should identify upcoming EB-5 filings and determine whether they can appropriately be submitted before the November 30 effective date. Filings postmarked on or after November 30 must use the new fee schedule, making accurate timing and fee calculations important for avoiding rejected or delayed submissions.
• Compliance Costs: The increased Integrity Fund fees reflect USCIS’s implementation of statutory requirements designed to support oversight, fraud detection, compliance monitoring, and other program-integrity activities. Businesses and regional centers participating in the EB-5 program should incorporate these recurring costs into their compliance and operating budgets.

Looking Ahead

• Higher Program Costs: The new fee schedule will increase the overall cost of participating in the EB-5 program for investors, regional centers, and other stakeholders, although the size of the increase will depend on the specific filing. USCIS estimates that the final schedule will increase form fees by approximately 70.7 percent on a weighted-average basis.
• Greater Program Oversight: The additional Integrity Fund revenue is intended to support USCIS’s administration and oversight of the EB-5 program, including measures addressing compliance, fraud, and program integrity. The increased funding may therefore accompany continued attention to the activities of investors, regional centers, commercial enterprises, and other participants.
• Technology and Processing: USCIS states that the fee structure is designed not only to recover program-administration costs but also to support improvements to the technology systems used to administer EB-5 cases. The agency has also tied the fees to statutory processing-time goals, including an average goal of completing certain regional centers and new commercial enterprise adjudications within 180 days.
• Continued Regulatory Development: The final rule also codifies provisions of the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022 and establishes the regulatory framework for the new Form I-527. Stakeholders should therefore monitor additional USCIS guidance and implementation instructions as the agency puts the revised fee structure and related program requirements into practice.

The new EB-5 fee structure represents a significant increase in the government costs associated with the program, particularly for certain investor petitions and regional center filings. While USCIS states that the changes are intended to align fees with program-administration costs and strengthen program integrity, the higher fees will require investors, regional centers, project sponsors, and other stakeholders to reassess filing timelines, project budgets, and compliance planning before the November 30, 2026, effective date.

California Federal Court Issues Preliminary Injunction Against the $100,000 H-1B Fee

A federal district court in California has temporarily blocked the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from enforcing the $100,000 fee imposed on certain H-1B petitions. The decision is the second court order preventing DHS from collecting the fee while litigation continues, following a separate Massachusetts court ruling that vacated the fee policy and a subsequent First Circuit decision declining to block that ruling.

Key Points

• California Court Ruling: On September 30, 2026, Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part a preliminary injunction that sets aside the agency policies implementing the $100,000 H-1B fee and bars their enforcement until the agencies complete notice-and-comment rulemaking.
• Second Court Order: The California decision is the second court ruling to prevent DHS from collecting the $100,000 H-1B fee. In June 2026, a federal district court in Massachusetts vacated the fee policy in its entirety, concluding that the fee amounted to a tax that could not properly be imposed through the presidential proclamation and that the policy also violated the APA.
• First Circuit Decision: The Massachusetts court temporarily stayed its ruling while the government appealed, but the First Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently declined to block the lower court’s decision. As a result, the Massachusetts ruling took effect, and USCIS was again prohibited from collecting the $100,000 fee.
• Separate Litigation: The California case, Global Nurse Force v. Trump, is one of several lawsuits challenging the fee, alongside litigation in Massachusetts and Washington, D.C. A D.C. federal court previously upheld the fee in December 2025, creating conflicting decisions while the broader legal challenges continue.

What Employers Need to Know

• Fee Currently Blocked: Although President Trump extended the $100,000 H-1B fee through September 21, 2027, the fee remains blocked by court orders. USCIS therefore should not currently require employers to pay the $100,000 fee for affected H-1B petitions.
• Filing Considerations: Employers planning H-1B petitions that could otherwise be subject to the fee should continue to monitor the litigation and government guidance closely. Because the legal status of the fee could change through additional court action, employers should consult immigration counsel before making filing or workforce-planning decisions involving potentially affected petitions.
• Extension Also Covered: The California order expressly applies to both the original September 2025 proclamation and the September 18, 2026 proclamation extending the fee, so the extension does not currently allow DHS to collect the fee. Because the government may appeal or seek a stay, employers should be prepared for further changes or clarifications with limited advance notice.
• Broader Cost Planning: Employers should also distinguish the $100,000 proclamation fee from a separate DHS proposed rule for an additional $103,265 fee on all cap-subject H-1B petitions. The proposed $103,265 fee would apply regardless of whether a petition requests change of status or consular notification and is a separate policy that would require further rulemaking before taking effect.

Looking Ahead

• Continued Litigation: The California preliminary injunction does not resolve the underlying legal questions surrounding the $100,000 fee. Further appeals, court decisions, or government actions could ultimately determine whether the fee is permanently invalidated or becomes enforceable again.
• Possible Government Challenge: The administration may continue defending the fee and challenge the court orders preventing its collection. The government may appeal the California order or seek a stay, which could change the fee’s status with little notice.
• H-1B Cost Uncertainty: The ongoing litigation, together with the separate proposal for a $103,265 cap-subject H-1B fee, creates continued uncertainty around the future cost of H-1B sponsorship. Employers may need to account for multiple fee structures when planning future hiring and immigration budgets.

The California court’s preliminary injunction provides additional relief to employers by preventing DHS from currently enforcing the $100,000 H-1B fee, but the broader legal dispute remains unresolved. Employers should continue monitoring court proceedings and agency guidance closely, particularly because the government could seek further relief, and the separate proposed $103,265 H-1B fee could create additional costs if finalized.

Federal Court Strikes Down State Department’s 75-Country Immigrant Visa Ban

A federal judge in the Southern District of New York has struck down a U.S. Department of State (DOS) policy that suspended immigrant visa issuance for nationals of 75 countries. The court found that the policy violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) by discriminating based on nationality and improperly replacing the individualized review required for immigrant visa applications with a categorical restriction. The ruling vacates the policy and visa refusals based solely on the policy, although applicants must still satisfy all other applicable immigration and admissibility requirements.

Key Points

• 75-Country Visa Suspension: In January 2026, the DOS announced that it would suspend immigrant visa issuance to nationals of 75 countries based on the government’s stated concern that individuals from those countries presented a heightened risk of becoming public charges. Consular officers were directed to refuse affected immigrant visa applications under INA § 221(g), even when applicants otherwise appeared eligible for immigrant visas.
• Nationality-Based Discrimination: The court determined that the policy violated INA § 202(a)(1)(A), which prohibits discrimination in immigrant visa issuance based on nationality. The court concluded that the categorical refusal of visas based solely on an applicant’s nationality was inconsistent with this statutory protection.
• Individualized Adjudication: The court found that federal immigration law requires immigrant visa applications to be evaluated based on each applicant’s individual circumstances. The challenged policy instead prevented consular officers from issuing visas to otherwise eligible applicants based on a broad assumption tied to nationality.
• Secretary of State’s Authority: The court also concluded that the Secretary of State exceeded the authority granted by Congress by directing consular officers to refuse immigrant visas based on nationality. The decision emphasized that consular officers have the statutory responsibility to make individual visa eligibility determinations.

What Employers Need to Know

• Employment-Based Cases Affected: The policy affected employment-based as well as family-based immigrant visa applicants whose cases required processing through U.S. consulates abroad. Employers with employees from affected countries should identify cases that were delayed or refused under the policy and assess whether further action is appropriate.
• Previously Refused Cases: The court vacated immigrant visa refusals that were based solely on the 75-country policy and ordered those cases returned for further processing. This does not guarantee visa approval, because applicants must still meet all applicable eligibility and admissibility requirements.
• Processing Delays: The end of the policy does not necessarily mean that affected cases will resume immediately because consular posts must implement the ruling and address cases that accumulated during the suspension. Employers should therefore anticipate that some employees may continue to experience delays while affected cases are reviewed.
• Other Restrictions Remain: The ruling addresses the 75-country immigrant visa suspension and does not eliminate separate presidential travel or entry restrictions that may apply to certain nationalities. An employee may therefore regain access to immigrant visa processing while remaining subject to another restriction affecting visa issuance or admission to the United States.

Looking Ahead

• Government Appeal: The U.S. government has appealed the decision, and the appellate litigation could affect the continued implementation of the ruling. The government also sought to pause the lower court’s decision, but that request was denied, leaving the policy currently vacated.
• Consular Implementation: The practical effect of the ruling will depend in part on how quickly the DOS instructs consular posts to resume processing affected cases. Previously refused applications may require additional administrative processing before applicants receive updated decisions.
• Continued Case-by-Case Review: Affected applicants should now have their immigrant visa eligibility evaluated without relying on the invalidated nationality-based suspension. However, public charge considerations and other lawful grounds of inadmissibility will continue to apply on an individual basis.

The court’s decision restores individualized immigrant visa processing for nationals of the 75 countries covered by the former suspension and removes a nationality-based barrier that had affected both family-sponsored and employment-based immigration. Employers and affected employees should nevertheless expect continued processing delays, monitor the government’s appeal, and consider any separate travel or admissibility restrictions that may remain applicable.

USCIS Announces FY 2027 Inflation Increase for Certain Immigration-Related Fees

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has announced inflation-based increases to certain immigration-related fees for Fiscal Year (FY) 2027. The adjustments are required under H.R. 1 and are based on inflation between July 2025 and July 2026, with the new fees applying to qualifying requests postmarked on or after October 16, 2026.

Key Points

• Annual Inflation Adjustment:R. 1 requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to adjust certain immigration-related fees for inflation each fiscal year. USCIS calculated the FY 2027 adjustments using the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) between July 2025 and July 2026, with most fees rounded down to the next lowest $10 increment.
• Annual Asylum Fee: The annual fee for pending asylum applications will increase from $102 to $105 beginning October 16, 2026. The initial Form I-589 filing fee will remain $100, while the renewal or extension employment authorization fee for asylum applicants will remain $275 because H.R. 1 does not authorize an inflation adjustment for that particular fee.
• Employment Authorization Fees: The initial employment authorization document (EAD) fee for asylum applicants, parolees, and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) applicants will increase from $560 to $570. Renewal and extension EAD fees for parolees and TPS holders will remain $280 because the inflation adjustment does not result in a higher rounded fee.
• TPS and Parole Fees: The Form I-821 fee for a TPS application will increase from $510 to $520, while the immigration parole fee associated with Form I-131 will increase from $1,020 to $1,050. The initial parole-related EAD fee will also increase from $560 to $570.
• Other Fees Unchanged: Several fees will remain at their current levels because the inflation adjustment does not produce a sufficient increase after the statutory rounding rules are applied. These include the Special Immigrant Juvenile fee of $250 and the Form I-94 immigration fee of $24.

What Employers Need to Know

• Affected Employees: Employers supporting employees or prospective employees who are seeking immigration benefits affected by the new fees should identify cases that may require updated payments. This is particularly relevant for employees with TPS, parole, or asylum-related employment authorization who may be responsible for filing the underlying benefit request or EAD application.
• Correct Fees Required: USCIS will require the FY 2027 fee amounts for qualifying requests postmarked on or after October 16, 2026. Requests submitted with an incorrect fee after that date will be rejected, making accurate fee verification an important part of the filing process.
• Case Planning: Employers and immigration teams should review cases currently being prepared to determine whether the new fee schedule will apply. Where employees are responsible for government filing fees, employers should also ensure that affected employees receive updated instructions before submitting their applications.
• Limited Scope: The FY 2027 adjustment does not represent a general increase to all USCIS filing fees. The changes apply only to specified immigration-related fees established under H.R. 1, including certain asylum, EAD, TPS, and parole fees.

Looking Ahead

• Annual Adjustments: The FY 2027 changes are part of an ongoing statutory process rather than a one-time fee increase. DHS is required to make similar inflation adjustments in subsequent fiscal years, meaning affected fees may continue to change annually.
• Regular Fee Monitoring: Employers and immigration practitioners will need to monitor USCIS fee schedules more regularly because the statutory inflation mechanism can change filing costs without requiring a separate broad fee rule. Reviewing the applicable fee immediately before filing will help reduce the risk of rejection.
• Potential Regulatory Codification: DHS stated that it may codify the annual fee adjustments covered by the notice in the federal regulations in the future. Such action could provide a more permanent regulatory framework for administering the annual adjustments.

The FY 2027 USCIS fee adjustments are generally modest but create additional filing costs for certain asylum, EAD, TPS, and parole-related benefits. Employers, employees, and immigration teams should update filing procedures and fee checklists before October 16, 2026, when the new amounts become mandatory for qualifying requests, and should continue monitoring future annual adjustments.

NFAP Analysis Challenges DHS Revenue Projections for Proposed H-1B Fee

On September 24, 2026, the National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) released a comment analyzing the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) proposed rule that would impose a $103,265 fee on H-1B cap-subject petitions. According to NFAP, DHS significantly overstated the amount of revenue the fee would generate, estimating that the agency’s projections exceed likely collections by approximately $6.1 billion annually. The analysis also raises questions about the policy’s underlying purpose, suggesting that the fee could function more as a deterrent to H-1B immigration than as a revenue-generating measure. NFAP further argues that employers facing such costs may choose to place highly skilled workers in other countries, citing research indicating that companies often increase foreign hiring when H-1B restrictions become more burdensome.

Key Points

• Proposed H-1B Fee: DHS has proposed a fee of $103,265 for H-1B cap-subject petitions. The proposal would represent a substantial increase in the costs associated with sponsoring foreign professional workers through the H-1B program.
• Revenue Projection Dispute: NFAP’s analysis concludes that DHS overestimated expected fee revenue by approximately $6.1 billion per year. The organization argues that the agency’s assumptions do not accurately reflect how employers and applicants are likely to respond to such a significant fee increase.
• Questions About Policy Objectives: The analysis suggests that the proposed fee may serve as a deterrent function rather than primarily raising revenue. NFAP notes that only about 700 individuals paid a similar fee before it was ultimately invalidated by a court.
• Employer Behavioral Responses: NFAP argues that employers may alter their hiring strategies if the fee is implemented. Rather than paying the proposed amount, some companies could shift highly skilled positions to locations outside the United States.
• Supporting Research: The organization cites academic research examining the effects of H-1B restrictions on employer behavior. That research found that companies often respond to H-1B limitations by increasing their hiring activities in other countries.

What Employers Need to Know

• Significant Cost Implications: If finalized, the proposed fee would dramatically increase the cost of sponsoring H-1B cap-subject workers. Employers that rely on international talent could face substantial budgetary and workforce planning challenges.
• Potential Changes to Hiring Strategies: Companies may need to reassess whether certain positions can continue to be filled through the H-1B program. Some organizations could explore alternative immigration pathways or international staffing models.
• Impact on Talent Acquisition: Higher sponsorship costs could affect employers’ ability to recruit specialized talent in competitive fields. Industries that depend heavily on highly skilled foreign workers may face increased hiring constraints.
• Global Workforce Considerations: Employers with international operations may evaluate whether certain roles can be performed from locations outside the United States. The proposal could incentivize expanded hiring or workforce growth in foreign offices.
• Monitoring Regulatory Developments: The proposed rule remains subject to review and potential revision. Employers should closely follow developments and assess how different outcomes could affect future hiring plans.

Looking Ahead

• Rulemaking Process: DHS will continue reviewing comments and feedback submitted on the proposed fee. The agency may modify its proposal before issuing any final rule.
• Potential Legal Challenges: The proposal could face legal scrutiny if stakeholders argue that the fee exceeds permissible authority or effectively functions as a barrier to immigration. Previous litigation involving similar fees may influence future challenges.
• Economic and Workforce Effects: Debate is likely to continue regarding the fee’s impact on innovation, competitiveness, and access to skilled labor. Policymakers and stakeholders may closely examine whether the proposal achieves its stated objectives.
• Shifts in Global Hiring: If implemented, the fee could accelerate decisions by some employers to locate talent outside the United States. This outcome would align with research suggesting that companies often increase overseas hiring when U.S. immigration restrictions become more burdensome.
• Broader Immigration Policy Debate: The proposal may become part of a larger discussion about the role of employment-based immigration in the U.S. economy. Future policy decisions could shape how businesses access and retain global talent.

NFAP’s September 24, 2026, analysis challenges DHS’s revenue assumptions for its proposed $103,265 H-1B cap-subject petition fee, asserting that the agency overestimated collections by approximately $6.1 billion annually. Beyond the financial projections, the analysis argues that the fee could discourage H-1B participation and encourage employers to move highly skilled positions outside the United States. As the rulemaking process continues, employers should closely monitor developments and evaluate the potential effects on hiring strategies, workforce planning, and access to global talent.

USCIS Narrows Weekend and Holiday Filing-Deadline Rule

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued a Policy Alert on September 23, 2026, that significantly limits when filing deadlines falling on a weekend or federal holiday can be extended to the next business day. Effective October 23, 2026, the next-business-day rule will apply only when a filing deadline is defined by a statute, regulation, or form instruction as a specific number of days. For example, if an applicant has 30 days to file a request and the final day falls on a weekend or federal holiday, a paper filing received on the next business day will generally be considered timely. Prior USCIS guidance had applied this rule more broadly.

Key Points

• The new policy makes clear that deadlines tied to birthdays, age-based eligibility requirements, or anniversary dates do not qualify for extension.
• Filings that must be submitted before a child turns 21 must be received by USCIS before the child’s 21st birthday, even if that date falls on a weekend or federal holiday.
• USCIS also confirmed that the one-year asylum filing deadline is measured by the anniversary of the applicant’s arrival in the United States and therefore is not eligible for next-business-day treatment.
• This policy reverses USCIS’s broader 2023 interpretation, making it critical for practitioners and applicants to submit age- and anniversary-based filings before the controlling deadline rather than relying on an extension to the next business day.

Immigration filings often depend on strict age or anniversary-based deadlines. The revised policy eliminates a safety net that many applicants may have assumed was available, increasing the importance of advanced filing preparation to avoid losing eligibility for immigration benefits.

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.