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

August 21, 2026

USCIS to Publish Revised Applications for Extension/Change of Nonimmigrant Status and Work Authorization

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced on August 14, 2026, that it will publish revised editions of Form I-539, Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status, and Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization. The revisions are intended to align the forms with the recently published final rule, Establishing a Fixed Time Period of Admission and an Extension of Stay Procedure for Nonimmigrant Academic Students, Exchange Visitors, and Representatives of Foreign Information Media. Both revised forms will have a publication and edition date of September 15, 2026, and USCIS will reject older editions beginning on that date, with no grace period. To help applicants and employers prepare for the change, USCIS has released preview versions of the revised forms and their instructions on the Form I-539 and Form I-765 webpages.

Key Points

Revised Forms: USCIS will issue new editions of Form I-539 and Form I-765 to bring the applications into alignment with the recently published final rule governing fixed periods of admission and extension-of-stay procedures for certain nonimmigrants. The changes therefore reflect broader regulatory changes affecting nonimmigrant academic students, exchange visitors, and representatives of foreign information media.
September 15, 2026 Effective Date: The publication and edition date for both revised forms is September 15, 2026. USCIS will begin rejecting applications submitted on older editions of the forms on that date.
No Grace Period: USCIS specifically stated that there will be no grace period after the new forms become required. Applicants and employers therefore need to make sure that applications submitted on or after September 15 use the correct editions.
Preview Versions Available: Because of the lack of a grace period, USCIS has made preview versions of the revised forms and their instructions available before the new editions become effective. These previews allow applicants, attorneys, and employers to review the upcoming requirements and prepare filings in advance.

What Employers Need to Know

Review Pending and Upcoming Filings: Employers should identify employees who may need Form I-539 or Form I-765 filings around the September 15 transition date. Particular attention should be given to filings that are being prepared in advance but may not be submitted until after the new editions become mandatory.
Use the Correct Edition: Employers and immigration counsel should verify that the version of each form being submitted matches the edition required by USCIS on the filing date. Using an outdated form after September 15, 2026, could result in rejection because USCIS will not provide a transition or grace period.
Prepare Before the Deadline: Employers should review the preview forms and instructions before September 15 so that any new information or filing requirements can be incorporated into applications. Early preparation can help avoid last-minute problems that could delay an employee’s extension, change-of-status, or employment authorization filing.
Coordinate With Immigration Counsel: Employers should coordinate with their immigration counsel regarding employees whose cases are affected by the new fixed-period admission and extension-of-stay procedures. Counsel can determine whether the revised forms require changes to the information or supporting documentation being prepared for a particular filing.

Looking Ahead

Implementation of the Final Rule: The revised Form I-539 and Form I-765 are an important part of implementing the recently published final rule establishing fixed periods of admission and new extension-of-stay procedures for certain nonimmigrants. Additional operational guidance or changes to USCIS filing procedures may follow as the agency implements the rule.
Greater Attention to Filing Dates: The September 15 transition demonstrates the importance of monitoring USCIS form editions and publication dates when preparing immigration filings. Applicants and employers will need to pay close attention to USCIS updates because submitting an obsolete edition can result in rejection rather than simply requiring the applicant to correct the form later.
Potential Filing Adjustments: Employers may need to adjust internal immigration case-management procedures to account for the revised forms and the absence of a grace period. This may include earlier reviews of applications and closer coordination between employers, employees, and immigration counsel.
Continued Regulatory Changes: The form revisions are directly connected to a broader regulatory change affecting how certain nonimmigrants are admitted and how extensions of stay are processed. Employers should therefore continue monitoring USCIS and Department of Homeland Security developments for additional changes that could affect employees in these categories.

The upcoming revisions to Forms I-539 and I-765 represent an important administrative change connected to the federal government’s new fixed-period admission and extension-of-stay framework for certain nonimmigrants. Because USCIS will reject older editions beginning September 15, 2026, and will not provide a grace period, employers, applicants, and immigration counsel should review the preview forms now and ensure that all filings submitted on or after that date use the correct editions.

SOURCE: ABIL Immigration Insider, August 16, 2026

E-Verify Status Change Report Expands to Include TPS, Asylum, and Adjustment of Status EADs

On August 11, 2026, E-Verify announced that it has expanded its Status Change Report to identify additional categories of employees whose Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) have been invalidated. Previously, the report only identified invalidated EADs issued to parolees under category C11, but it now also covers certain asylum-related, Temporary Protected Status (TPS), and adjustment-of-status (AOS) EADs. The expansion gives employers additional information about potential changes to an employee’s work authorization, but employers should carefully review the employee’s Form I-9 and applicable immigration status before taking any employment action.

Key Points

Expanded EAD Categories: The Status Change Report now includes C08 EADs for asylum applicants, C09 EADs for adjustment-of-status applicants under INA Section 245, A12 EADs for individuals granted TPS, and C19 EADs for TPS applicants, in addition to the existing C11 parolee category. The report also identifies EADs based on pending AOS applications that have been invalidated.
Invalidation Does Not Automatically Mean Unauthorized Employment: An employee’s appearance on the report does not necessarily mean that the individual is no longer authorized to work. Employers should review the employee’s Form I-9 and determine whether the employee relied on a different document or has another basis for employment authorization.
TPS Status Requires Careful Review: Employers should confirm the current status of the relevant country’s TPS designation before treating an A12 or C19 EAD as invalid. Because the termination of TPS for some countries remains subject to litigation, an E-Verify invalidation flag may not by itself resolve whether employment authorization remains valid.
Reverification May Be Required: When reverification is appropriate, employers should use Form I-9, Supplement B, and provide the employee with a consistent opportunity to present acceptable evidence of continuing work authorization. Employers should not automatically terminate employment based solely on the appearance of an EAD in the Status Change Report.

What Employers Need To Know

Review the Form I-9 First: Before taking any action, employers should review the employee Form I-9 and determine which document or documents were originally used to establish employment authorization. If the employee used a document other than the flagged EAD or has another basis for work authorization, the E-Verify report may not mean that the employee is unauthorized to work.
Follow the Reverification Process: If reverification is required, employers must use Form I-9, Supplement B, rather than creating a new Form I-9. The employee must be permitted to choose which acceptable, unexpired List A or List C documentation to present, and employers should not reverify List B identity documents.
Do Not Create a New E-Verify Case: E-Verify specifically instructs employers not to create a new E-Verify case when reverifying an employee whose EAD appears in the Status Change Report. Instead, the employer should complete the appropriate reverification process through Form I-9, Supplement B.
Apply Procedures Consistently: Employers should provide employees with the same opportunity to present acceptable evidence of continuing work authorization during reverification. Consistent procedures can help employers avoid treating similarly situated employees differently based on their immigration status or the particular category of EAD involved.

Looking Ahead

- Greater Employer Oversight: The expanded Status Change Report gives employers access to more information about potentially invalidated employment authorization documents. Employers may therefore need to incorporate the expanded report into their existing Form I-9 compliance and reverification procedures.
- Continued TPS Litigation: TPS-related EADs may present particular challenges because the validity of TPS terminations can be affected by ongoing litigation. Employers should continue monitoring the status of TPS designations rather than relying solely on an E-Verify report when determining whether an employee remains authorized to work.

Updated E-Verify Guidance: E-Verify has also updated its guidance concerning invalidated EADs for employers. Employers should monitor additional E-Verify and USCIS guidance as the expanded reporting system is implemented, and additional categories or procedures potentially change.

The expansion of the E-Verify Status Change Report gives employers broader visibility into potentially invalidated EADs involving asylum applicants, TPS beneficiaries and applicants, adjustment-of-status applicants, and parolees. However, an E-Verify flag should be treated as a reason to review the employee’s Form I-9 and current work authorization—not as an automatic determination that the employee is unauthorized to work. Employers should follow the established reverification procedures, allow employees to choose acceptable replacement documentation, and avoid creating a new E-Verify case when reverification is required.

SOURCE: ABIL Immigration Insider, August 16, 2026

DHS Proposes Significant Fee Increase for Naturalization Applications

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has proposed significantly increasing the cost of applying for U.S. citizenship through naturalization. Under the proposal, the Form N-400 filing fee would increase from $760 to $1,330 for paper filings and from $710 to $1,280 for online filings, while reduced fees for lower-income applicants and fee waivers for Forms N-400 and N-336 would be eliminated. Current and former U.S. armed forces service members would remain exempt from the fees under existing law, and the public has until August 24, 2026, to submit comments on the proposal.

Key Points

Higher N-400 Fees: DHS has proposed increasing the naturalization application fee from $760 to $1,330 for paper filings and from $710 to $1,280 for online filings. The proposed increases are intended to recover the full cost of adjudicating Form N-400.
Reduced Fee Eliminated: The proposal would eliminate the reduced-fee option currently available to certain lower-income naturalization applicants. Applicants who currently qualify for the reduced fee would therefore face the full proposed filing fee if the rule is finalized.
Fee Waivers Eliminated: DHS also proposes ending fee waiver eligibility for Form N-400 and Form N-336, which is used to appeal a denied naturalization application. This would make the cost of pursuing naturalization or challenging a naturalization denial substantially higher for applicants who currently qualify for fee waivers.

What Employers Need to Know

Employee Naturalization Costs: Employers with foreign national employees pursuing U.S. citizenship should be aware that the proposed fee increases could substantially increase the personal cost of naturalization. Employers that provide immigration benefits or reimbursements may also want to review whether their existing policies address potential changes in government filing fees.
Potential Impact on Lower-Income Employees: The elimination of the reduced fee and fee waiver could create additional financial barriers for employees who would otherwise qualify for those options. Employers should avoid assuming that an employee will be able to proceed with naturalization under the current fee structure if the proposal is finalized.

Looking Ahead

Public Comment Period: Members of the public may submit comments on the proposed rule through August 24, 2026. The comments received during this period could influence the final version of the rule and the timing or scope of any fee changes.
Potential Financial Barrier: If finalized as proposed, the higher fees could make naturalization significantly more expensive, particularly for applicants who would lose access to reduced fees or fee waivers. This could cause some eligible permanent residents to delay their citizenship applications.
Possible Changes Before Finalization: Because the proposal remains subject to the federal rulemaking process, DHS could modify the proposed fees or other provisions before issuing a final rule. Employers and applicants should therefore avoid treating the proposed amounts as final until DHS completes the process.

DHS’s proposal would substantially increase the cost of U.S. naturalization while eliminating reduced fees and fee waivers for many applicants. Although current and former U.S. armed forces service members would retain their statutory fee exemption, other applicants could face significantly higher costs if the proposal is finalized, making the August 24, 2026, public-comment deadline an important milestone in the rulemaking process.

ICE Expands the List of Form I-9 Errors Subject to Immediate Fines

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has expanded the types of Form I-9 errors that it classifies as substantive violations, increasing the potential compliance and financial risks for employers. Under updated March 2026 guidance, several errors that previously could generally be treated as technical or procedural violations and corrected during an ICE inspection may now result in immediate liability, including certain missing dates, employee information, employer information, document details, and preparer or translator information. The change reduces the opportunity for employers to correct common paperwork mistakes after receiving a Notice of Inspection and makes accurate completion and proactive review of Forms I-9 increasingly important.

Key Points

More Errors Classified as Substantive: ICE’s updated Form I-9 Inspection Fact Sheet identifies additional errors as substantive violations, including missing employee dates of birth or required immigration numbers, missing hire dates, incomplete employer or representative information, and incomplete document information. Substantive violations generally are not eligible for the correction period available for technical or procedural violations.
Reduced Correction Opportunity: Technical or procedural violations may generally be corrected within at least 10 business days after ICE provides notice, while substantive violations can result in monetary penalties without that correction period. Because more common errors are now classified as substantive, employers have fewer opportunities to correct mistakes after an inspection begins.
Electronic I-9 Compliance: ICE’s updated guidance also treats failures to comply with requirements for electronic Form I-9 systems as substantive violations. Employers using electronic systems should therefore ensure that required audit trails, electronic signatures, security measures, retention procedures, and other system requirements are properly maintained.
Document Copies Do Not Cure Errors: ICE has clarified that retaining copies of identity or employment authorization documents does not substitute for properly completing the required information on Form I-9. Employers should not assume that having copies of documents in their files will protect them from penalties for incomplete or inaccurate forms.

What Employers Need to Know

Audit Existing Forms I-9: Employers should consider reviewing Forms I-9 already maintained in their records to identify errors that could now be classified as substantive. Internal audits can help employers identify compliance problems before ICE initiates an inspection and provide an opportunity to correct deficiencies where legally appropriate.
Retrain I-9 Personnel: Employees and authorized representatives responsible for completing Forms I-9 should receive updated training on the current requirements. Training should emphasize complete and accurate completion of required fields, proper document review, reverification procedures, and the requirements applicable to electronic and remote verification.
Review Electronic Systems: Employers using electronic Form I-9 systems should confirm that their systems comply with applicable DHS requirements and maintain appropriate audit trails and electronic signatures. Employers using authorized alternative document inspection procedures should also confirm that they remain properly enrolled in E-Verify or another applicable DHS-authorized program.
Prepare for ICE Inspections: Employers should establish procedures for responding to a Notice of Inspection and producing Forms I-9 and other requested records within the required timeframe. A designated internal response team and established escalation procedures can help employers respond efficiently if ICE initiates an inspection.

Looking Ahead

Greater Compliance Risk: The expanded list of substantive violations is likely to increase the importance of proactive Form I-9 compliance programs. Employers with large workforces could face significant exposure because civil penalties can be assessed on a per-form basis.
Increased Enforcement Pressure: The revised guidance comes as ICE continues to emphasize workplace immigration enforcement and Form I-9 inspections. Employers should expect that accurate recordkeeping, and inspection preparedness will remain important components of immigration compliance.
Ongoing Guidance Changes: ICE’s March 2026 update represents a significant shift from the framework employers have relied upon for many years. Employers should continue monitoring ICE and DHS guidance for additional changes affecting Form I-9 inspections, violation classifications, and potential penalties.

The expansion of substantive Form I-9 violations creates a more demanding compliance environment for U.S. employers. Because several errors that previously received more favorable treatment may now expose employers to immediate penalties, organizations should not wait for an ICE inspection before reviewing their Forms I-9, training personnel, evaluating electronic systems, and strengthening their compliance procedures.

USCIS Issues Guidance On Expanded Public Charge Inadmissibility Determinations

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has issued new guidance explaining how officers will apply the public charge ground of inadmissibility under the Trump administration’s recently finalized rule. Effective September 18, 2026, the guidance will apply to certain Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, filings subject to the public charge ground that are postmarked or electronically submitted on or after that date. The new framework rescinds the Biden-era rules that limited the public benefits that could be considered and gives USCIS officers broader discretion to evaluate an applicant’s circumstances on a case-by-case basis.

Key Points

Broader Public Charge Test: USCIS officers will be permitted to consider a wider range of public benefits when determining whether an applicant is likely to become a public charge. The new approach replaces the narrower framework under which only specified types of cash assistance and government-funded long-term institutional care were generally considered.
Totality of the Circumstances: Officers will evaluate the applicant’s circumstances as a whole rather than applying a single automatic test based on receipt of a particular benefit. Relevant factors can include age, health, family status, assets, financial resources, education, and skills, along with other information that may indicate whether the applicant is likely to become a public charge.
Benefits Received by Family Members: The new framework allows officers to consider certain public benefits received by an applicant’s dependents when evaluating the overall circumstances of the case. This represents a significant change from the 2022 regulations, which specifically limited consideration of benefits received by other members of the household.
September 18 Effective Date: The new guidance becomes effective September 18, 2026, and applies to covered Form I-485 applications postmarked or electronically submitted on or after that date. Applications filed before September 18 will continue to be governed by the applicable rules in effect when they were filed.

What Employers Need to Know

Employee Adjustment Cases: Employers sponsoring foreign nationals for permanent residence should be aware that the expanded public charge framework may affect employees pursuing adjustment of status. Although public charge determinations generally concern the individual applicant rather than the employer, the new framework can add another issue that must be evaluated when preparing an adjustment-of-status case.
Financial Circumstances May Receive Greater Attention: Employees applying for status adjustment may face more detailed questions about their finances, resources, education, health, and family circumstances. Employers and immigration counsel should therefore review cases carefully to determine whether additional documentation may be appropriate.
Public Benefits Require Careful Analysis: Employers should not assume that receipt of any particular benefit automatically makes an employee inadmissible under the public charge ground. The new framework calls for a case-by-case assessment of the circumstances, and the applicability of particular benefits depends on the facts and timing.
Coordinate With Immigration Counsel: Employers should discuss potentially affected adjustment-of-status cases with immigration counsel before making decisions about filing timing or supporting documentation. Counsel can evaluate whether the new rules apply to a particular employee and whether additional evidence should be included with the Form I-485 filing.

Looking Ahead

Greater Adjudicatory Discretion: The new framework gives USCIS officers considerably broader discretion to consider relevant facts when making public charge determinations. This could result in greater variation in how individual cases are evaluated because officers will be required to weigh multiple factors rather than simply checking whether an applicant received a specified benefit.
Potential Chilling Effect: The broader rule may cause some immigrant families to avoid public benefits even when they are legally eligible to receive them. Policy analysts have warned that this chilling effect could extend beyond individuals actually subject to the public charge test, including family members and U.S. citizen children.
Possible Litigation: The 2026 rule is likely to face legal challenges, particularly because earlier changes to the public charge framework resulted in extensive litigation. The outcome of any litigation could affect whether the new framework remains in place, is modified, or is blocked.
Revised Filing Procedures: USCIS is implementing the new framework through updated policy guidance and related filing procedures. Employers and immigration practitioners should continue monitoring USCIS updates for additional instructions concerning Form I-485 filings submitted on or after September 18.

The new USCIS public charge guidance represents a significant expansion of the factors that may be considered when determining whether an immigrant seeking adjustment of status is likely to become a public charge. With the new framework taking effect September 18, 2026, applicants and employers should be prepared for greater scrutiny of financial and personal circumstances, while continuing to monitor the implementation of the rule and any litigation that could affect its future.

SOURCE: www.uscis.gov/newsroom/alerts/uscis-issues-guidance-on-making-public-charge-inadmissibility-determination

University Groups Sue to Block New Fixed-Period Student Visa Rule

A coalition of university groups, labor unions, and advocacy organizations has filed a federal lawsuit seeking to block a new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) rule that would replace the current “duration of status” system for international students and exchange visitors with fixed periods of admission. The rule, finalized in July 2026 and scheduled to take effect September 15, would generally limit F-1 and J-1 students and exchange visitors to four-year admission periods, requiring additional government approval in certain circumstances when they need to remain in the United States longer. The plaintiffs argue that the rule is arbitrary and capricious, could discourage international students from studying in the United States, and could harm universities, research programs, and the broader U.S. economy.

Key Points

Federal Lawsuit: University groups and labor organizations have sued the federal government to prevent the new rule from taking effect. The plaintiffs argue that DHS did not adequately justify the policy and failed to properly address significant concerns raised during the rulemaking process.
End of Duration of Status: The rule would eliminate the current system under which F-1 students are generally admitted for the duration of their academic program rather than for a fixed number of years. Under the new system, students could need additional government approval to remain in the United States beyond the fixed admission period, even when they continue pursuing their academic programs.
Four-Year Limit: The final rule establishes a four-year maximum admission period for F-1 and J-1 students and exchange visitors. Students whose programs require more than four years could therefore face additional immigration procedures to continue their education in the United States.
Academic and Economic Concerns: The plaintiffs contend that the rule could discourage international students from choosing U.S. universities and could negatively affect university finances and research programs. They also argue that losing international talent could have broader consequences for U.S. industries and fields that depend on highly educated international graduates.

What Employers Need to Know

Impact on International Students: Employers that recruit international students should monitor the litigation because changes to F-1 status could affect students’ ability to complete their education and later transition into employment-based immigration categories. Disruptions to a student’s status could also complicate the timing of OPT, STEM OPT, and eventual H-1B sponsorship.
Longer Academic Programs: Students pursuing bachelor’s, master’s, doctoral, or other programs that extend beyond four years could face additional immigration requirements under the new framework. Employers recruiting these students should be prepared for greater uncertainty concerning their future work authorization and immigration timelines.
Recruitment Planning: The lawsuit highlights the possibility that immigration restrictions could make U.S. universities less attractive to international students. Employers that rely heavily on international graduates as a source of skilled talent should consider how changes in international student enrollment could affect future recruiting pipelines.
Monitor Litigation: Employers should not assume that the September 15 implementation date is necessarily the final outcome because the lawsuit could result in a court order affecting implementation. Companies that employ or recruit F-1 students should continue monitoring developments rather than making long-term workforce decisions based solely on the rule’s current effective date.

Looking Ahead

Potential Court Intervention: The plaintiffs are seeking to overturn the rule before it takes effect, creating the possibility that a federal court could delay or block implementation. The litigation could therefore determine whether the new fixed-period system takes effect as scheduled on September 15.
University Enrollment: If the rule remains in place, universities could face increased difficulty recruiting and retaining international students who are concerned about additional immigration requirements. Reduced international enrollment could affect university finances, research programs, and the availability of highly educated talent in the United States.
Future Immigration Pathways: The rule could have effects beyond the period of a student’s education because international students are an important source of future U.S. workers. Changes that reduce the number of students able to complete U.S. programs could ultimately reduce the pool of international graduates available for OPT, STEM OPT, H-1B employment, and other employment-based immigration pathways.
Broader Policy Direction: The lawsuit is part of a larger dispute over the Trump administration’s efforts to impose additional restrictions on legal immigration and temporary visa categories. The outcome could therefore provide an important indication of how courts will evaluate future immigration rules affecting international students, universities, and other categories of legal immigrants.

The lawsuit challenging the new fixed-period student visa rule could have significant consequences for international students, U.S. universities, and employers that depend on international graduates. With the rule scheduled to take effect September 15, 2026, the litigation creates substantial uncertainty over whether F-1 and J-1 students will continue to benefit from the current duration-of-status system or instead face fixed admission periods and additional government approval requirements. Employers should closely monitor the case because changes to the student immigration system could ultimately affect the future supply of international talent entering the U.S. workforce.

SOURCE: www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2026/08/18/university-groups-file-immigration-lawsuit-to-block-student-rule/

Additional U.S. Consular Posts Join Pilot Program Offering Expedited B-1/B-2 Visa Appointments

The U.S. Department of State has expanded a pilot program that allows certain B-1/B-2 visa applicants to pay an additional $750 fee for an earlier visa appointment. Effective August 18, 2026, U.S. consular posts in Canada, Bogotá, Guatemala City, San José, and Tegucigalpa joined the program, while posts in Mexico continue to participate. The program allows eligible applicants at participating posts to obtain a visa appointment within 10 business days, although the expedited fee only speeds up the appointment itself and does not accelerate visa adjudication or increase the likelihood of visa approval.

Key Points

Additional Participating Posts: Beginning August 18, the pilot program expanded beyond Mexico to include the U.S. Embassy and all U.S. consulates in Canada, as well as posts in Bogotá, Guatemala City, San José, and Tegucigalpa. The State Department is expected to identify additional participating posts as the pilot program expands.
$750 Expedite Fee: Eligible B-1/B-2 visa applicants can pay an additional $750 fee to obtain an expedited appointment at a participating consular post. The expedited appointments are intended to be available within 10 business days, although availability is limited.
Appointment Only: The $750 fee provides an earlier appointment but does not speed up the actual adjudication of the visa application. Applicants remain subject to the same eligibility requirements, and security or other administrative processing can still significantly delay visa issuance.
Standard Application Process: Applicants must first submit the DS-160 and pay the standard machine-readable visa (MRV) fee through the State Department’s Consular Electronic Application Center before selecting an expedited appointment if one is available. The fee-based program supplements, rather than replaces, the existing process for requesting expedited appointments based on humanitarian or urgent travel circumstances.

What Employers Need to Know

Business Travelers May Benefit: Employees who need to travel to the United States temporarily for legitimate B-1 business purposes may have an additional option for obtaining an earlier visa appointment. This could be particularly useful when business travel is time-sensitive, and regular appointment availability would otherwise create significant delays.
The Fee Does Not Guarantee Visa Issuance: Employers should not treat payment of the $750 fee to accelerate the visa process or increase the likelihood of approval. Employees remain subject to the ordinary B-1/B-2 eligibility requirements and any applicable security or administrative processing.
Location Matters: Employers should determine whether an employee is eligible to apply at one of the participating consular posts before relying on the expedited appointment option. The State Department has also restricted third country-national visa processing in many circumstances, which could limit the usefulness of applying at a post outside an applicant’s country of nationality or residence.
Plan Travel Carefully: Employers should continue to build sufficient time into international travel plans because an expedited appointment does not guarantee that a visa will be issued immediately after the interview. Security checks, administrative processing, or other eligibility issues can still delay visa issuance even when an applicant obtains an expedited appointment.

Looking Ahead

Program Expansion: The State Department may add additional consular posts to the fee-based expedited appointment program as it evaluates demand. Applicants and employers should therefore monitor State Department announcements for new locations.
Limited Availability: Even at participating posts, expedited appointments will be available only in limited quantities. The availability of an expedited appointment therefore should not be assumed simply because a particular consular post participates in the program.
Program Evaluation: The pilot program is scheduled to continue through December 31, 2026, after which the State Department plans to analyze program data and determine whether to continue the service and whether the fee should be adjusted. The program’s future could depend on applicant demand and the Department’s assessment of its effectiveness.
Broader Visa Processing Changes: The expedited appointment program comes as the State Department continues to modify visa appointment procedures, including restrictions on third country-national processing and changes to interview waiver eligibility. These developments may make advance planning increasingly important for employees who need visas to travel to the United States.

The expansion of the B-1/B-2 expedited appointment pilot gives eligible visa applicants additional options for securing earlier appointments at participating U.S. consular posts. However, the $750 fee only provides access to an earlier appointment and does not accelerate adjudication or guarantee visa issuance, meaning employers should continue to account for ordinary visa processing and potential administrative delays when planning international business travel.

Appeals Court Allows USCIS to Re-Review Certain Approved Immigration Benefits

The First Circuit Court of Appeals has allowed U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to resume re-reviewing certain previously approved immigration benefits for foreign nationals from countries subject to U.S. travel restrictions while litigation over the policy continues. The court’s August 14, 2026, order partially stayed a June federal district court decision that had found several USCIS policies unlawful, but only the re-review policy has been allowed to resume; other policies, including a pause on adjudicating immigration benefits for affected foreign nationals, remain blocked. The decision could affect individuals from travel-ban countries who entered the United States on or after January 20, 2021, and potentially some individuals who entered earlier but received an immigration benefit approval on or after that date.

Key Points

Re-Review Permitted: The First Circuit has permitted USCIS to resume re-reviewing certain previously approved immigration benefits involving foreign nationals from countries subject to the current travel restrictions. The policy applies to individuals who entered the United States on or after January 20, 2021, and may also reach some individuals who entered earlier but received an immigration benefit approval on or after that date.
Other Policies Remain Blocked: The court’s decision does not restore all USCIS policies challenged in federal court. USCIS remains barred from suspending adjudications for foreign nationals from travel-ban countries, treating nationality from a travel-ban country as a negative factor in discretionary adjudications, and suspending asylum adjudications under the challenged policies.
Travel-Ban Countries: The policies affect foreign nationals who are nationals of, or in some circumstances were born in, the 39 countries currently subject to full or partial U.S. travel restrictions, as well as individuals holding Palestinian Authority travel documents. The countries include Afghanistan, Haiti, Iran, Nigeria, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen, and Zimbabwe, among others.
Litigation Continues: USCIS originally implemented the challenged policies in late 2025 and expanded them in January 2026 after the travel restrictions were broadened. A federal district court vacated the policies in June 2026, but the government appealed, leading to the First Circuit’s August 14 partial stay.

What Employers Need to Know

Approved Benefits May Be Reexamined: Employers should understand that an immigration benefit previously approved by USCIS may now be subject to additional review if the foreign national falls within the affected population. The possibility of re-review creates additional uncertainty even for cases that have already received favorable USCIS decisions.
Affected Employees Should Be Identified: Employers with foreign national employees from travel-ban countries should consider identifying cases that may fall within the scope of the revived re-review policy. Particular attention may be appropriate for employees who entered the United States on or after January 20, 2021, or whose immigration benefits were approved on or after that date.
USCIS Correspondence Requires Attention: Employees who receive correspondence from USCIS that concerns the re-review of a previously approved benefit should not ignore the notice. Employers should encourage affected employees to consult immigration counsel promptly so that any response deadlines and legal issues can be evaluated.
Do Not Assume All Travel-Ban Policies Are Active: The appeals court did not authorize USCIS to resume every policy challenged in the litigation. Employers should therefore distinguish between the re-review policy that is currently permitted and the other policies that remain vacated.

Looking Ahead

Further Court Action: The underlying litigation remains ongoing, and future decisions could change the scope of USCIS’s authority to re-review previously approved benefits. Employers should continue monitoring the case rather than treating the August 14 order as a final resolution of the dispute.
Potential Additional USCIS Review: The ability to re-review approved benefits could result in increased scrutiny of affected foreign nationals and their previously approved immigration cases. This may create additional uncertainty for individuals and employers relying on previously granted benefits for employment, travel, or continued immigration processing.
Broader Immigration Implications: The case could become important beyond the specific re-review policy because it involves the government’s authority to impose nationality-based adjudication policies through USCIS. The outcome may help define the limits of similar agency policies affecting nationals of countries subject to U.S. travel restrictions.
Case-Specific Analysis Will Be Important: Because the court’s ruling applies only to a specific portion of the challenged USCIS policies, the impact will depend on an individual’s nationality, date of entry, immigration benefit, and relevant approval dates. Employers should therefore avoid assuming that all employees from travel-ban countries will be treated identically.

The First Circuit’s decision represents a significant development for foreign nationals from countries subject to U.S. travel restrictions because USCIS may once again re-review certain previously approved immigration benefits while the litigation continues. Although the court has allowed that specific policy to resume, other challenged USCIS policies remain blocked, making the current legal landscape highly fact specific. Employers with affected foreign national employees should closely monitor USCIS communications and coordinate with immigration counsel when a previously approved benefit becomes subject to renewed agency review.

U.S. Immigration Alerts