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

Department of State Issues Visa Bulletin for September 2026

On August 24, 2026, the U.S. Department of State (DOS) issued its monthly Visa Bulletin for September 2026. USCIS has chosen the Final Action Dates chart for employment-based applications for September 2026 to determine eligibility.  

USCIS will accept employment-based adjustment of status applications in September 2026 only from foreign nationals whose priority date is earlier than the applicable Final Action Date listed in the State Department’s Visa Bulletin. 

Summary 

The September 2026 Visa Bulletin reflects significant differences in employment-based visa availability, with several categories current but substantial backlogs for China and India. EB-1 is current for most countries, but has final action dates of July 1, 2023, for China and October 15, 2022, for India, with the Department of State warning that EB-1 India could become unavailable before the end of FY 2026. EB-2 is current for most countries but is backlogged for China and unavailable for India, with possible further retrogression or unavailability. EB-3 remains backlogged, with final action dates of September 1, 2024, for most countries, January 1, 2022, for China, January 1, 2014, for India, and August 1, 2023, for the Philippines. EB-5 unreserved is current for most countries but remains backlogged for China and unavailable for India, while all EB-5 set-aside categories are current. The Dates for Filing chart is generally more favorable, allowing eligible applicants to proceed with documentation and, where authorized by USCIS, adjustment-of-status filings earlier than their final action dates. Because September is the final month of FY 2026, applicants should closely monitor potential retrogression or category unavailability, particularly in EB-1 India, EB-2, and EB-5 unreserved cases.

Final Action Dates for September 2026

Dates for Filing for September 2026

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

U.S. State Department Pauses Immigrant Visa Appointments Worldwide

The Trump administration has temporarily paused immigrant visa appointments at U.S. embassies and consulates worldwide while the State Department trains consular officers on stricter procedures for evaluating whether applicants are likely to become dependent on public benefits. The pause affects people seeking permanent residence through consular processing, including family-sponsored and employment-based immigrant visa applicants, and some previously scheduled interviews are being rescheduled. The State Department has not announced a definite date for restarting appointments, creating additional uncertainty for applicants and U.S. employers relying on overseas employees to complete the green card process.

Key Points

• Worldwide appointment pause: The State Department has directed U.S. embassies and consulates around the world to pause or reschedule immigrant visa appointments while consular officers undergo additional training. The measure applies to immigrant visa processing rather than ordinary nonimmigrant visa appointments, such as those for tourists and students.
• Public-charge screening is the focus: The training is intended to help consular officers apply stricter and more consistent standards when determining whether an immigrant visa applicant is likely to become dependent on U.S. public benefits. The State Department has already expanded its use of public-charge procedures, including a pilot program allowing certain applicants to overcome a public-charge denial by obtaining a bond through USCIS.
• Previously scheduled interviews may be affected: Applicants who already had immigrant visa interviews scheduled may have their appointments postponed or rescheduled as the new training takes place. There is currently no clear timetable for when regular immigrant visa appointments will resume, which means applicants should expect uncertainty even if they previously received an interview date.
• The action follows other immigration restrictions: The appointment pause comes shortly after a federal judge vacated the State Department’s earlier policy suspending immigrant visa issuance to nationals of 75 countries. The administration is also implementing other measures involving public-charge screening, visa bonds, and changes to where applicants must attend visa interviews.

What Employers Need to Know

• Employment-based green card cases may be delayed: Employees completing the permanent residence process through consular processing may be unable to complete their required immigrant visa interviews while the pause remains in effect. Employers should identify employees with pending overseas immigrant visa cases and evaluate whether the additional delay could affect start dates, international assignments, travel plans, or immigration status.
• Adjustment of status is different: The current pause concerns immigrant visa appointments at U.S. embassies and consulates and therefore primarily affects applicants processing their green cards outside the United States. Employees who are eligible to complete the permanent residence process through adjustment of status with USCIS are generally not subject to this consular appointment pause, although other USCIS processing requirements continue to apply.
• Public-charge review deserves greater attention: Employers sponsoring foreign nationals should expect financial circumstances, education, English proficiency, health, and other factors relevant to public-charge determinations to receive increased scrutiny in consular processing. The State Department has also established a public-charge bond procedure that may provide certain applicants with another way to overcome a public-charge denial.
• Case planning should account for delays: Employers should not assume that an approved I-140 or an available immigrant visa number will result in immediate visa issuance when an employee is processing abroad. Immigration teams should monitor each employee’s case individually and consider the potential impact of consular delays on business operations and permanent-residence timelines.
• Interview location rules remain important: The State Department already requires most immigrant visa applicants to interview in the country where they reside or, in certain circumstances, their country of nationality. This limits the ability of applicants to avoid delays simply by attempting to transfer their cases to another U.S. embassy or consulate.

Looking Ahead

• The duration of the pause is uncertain: The State Department has not provided a firm date for restoring normal immigrant visa appointments, leaving applicants and employers without a reliable timetable. The length of the training period and the resulting backlog could determine how significant the ultimate processing delays become.
• Public-charge standards may become more important: The administration’s broader immigration strategy indicates that financial self-sufficiency will receive greater attention during immigrant visa adjudication. Employers should expect public-charge considerations to remain an important part of consular processing even after appointments resume.
• Litigation could continue: The worldwide pause adds another layer to an immigration system already facing litigation over the administration’s use of nationality-based immigrant visa restrictions and other screening policies. The recent court decision vacating the 75-country suspension demonstrates that immigration policies implemented through the State Department may face significant legal challenges.
• Consular processing may become less predictable: The combination of additional screening, public-charge requirements, visa bonds, interview-location restrictions, and the current appointment pause could make overseas permanent-residence processing substantially more difficult to predict. Employers with significant numbers of foreign employees should therefore build additional time into immigration and workforce planning.

The State Department’s worldwide pause on immigrant visa appointments represents another significant disruption for foreign nationals seeking permanent residence through consular processing. Although the administration describes the measure as temporary training, it comes as the government is simultaneously increasing scrutiny of applicants’ financial circumstances and expanding public-charge procedures. For employers, the immediate priority should be identifying affected employees and planning for potentially lengthy delays in overseas green card processing. The broader trend suggests that employers should expect greater scrutiny, longer processing times, and continued uncertainty in employment-based immigration cases handled through U.S. consulates.

SOURCE: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/trump-administration-issues-pause-visa-appointments-applicants-worldwide-2026-08-26/

USCIS to Require New Edition of Form I-485 Beginning September 18, 2026

USCIS will publish a revised edition of Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, on September 18, 2026. Beginning that day, USCIS will reject Form I-485 applications filed using the current 01/20/25 edition, making it important for applicants and employers to use the correct version.

What Employers Need to Know

• The new edition becomes mandatory on September 18: USCIS will accept the new 09/18/26 edition beginning September 18, 2026, and will reject the 01/20/25 edition if it is postmarked or electronically submitted on or after that date. Employers should therefore coordinate with employees and immigration counsel to ensure that any I-485 filing is prepared on the correct edition.
• Do not use the new form before September 18: USCIS specifically instructs applicants not to file the 09/18/26 edition before its effective date. Employers with cases being prepared now should pay close attention to the filing date and use the edition that USCIS will accept at the time the application is submitted.
• A rejected filing can create significant problems: USCIS generally does not retain a filing date when a benefit request is rejected. For employment-based adjustment cases, this can be particularly important because a rejection may affect the timing of the I-485 filing and, depending on the circumstances, could create problems if visa availability, status, or other eligibility requirements change before the application is properly filed.
• Employers should review cases already in preparation: Companies sponsoring employees for permanent residence should identify I-485 cases that are expected to be filed around the September 18 transition date. Immigration teams and outside counsel should confirm that the correct form edition, filing fees, signatures, and supporting documentation are being used before submission.
• This is part of a broader USCIS form-update trend: USCIS has increasingly required applicants to use specific editions of immigration forms and has rejected older versions after transition deadlines. A similar change occurred with Form I-485 in 2024, when USCIS announced that only the 10/24/24 edition would be accepted beginning February 10, 2025.

Summary: Employers should treat the September 18 deadline as a filing-control issue rather than simply a form update. Cases filed near the transition date should be reviewed carefully to avoid unnecessary rejection and potential loss of the original filing date. Employers should also expect USCIS to continue updating forms and tightening its requirements for properly prepared submissions, making careful version control increasingly important in employment-based immigration cases.

SOURCE: www.uscis.gov/newsroom/alerts/uscis-to-publish-new-edition-of-form-i-485-older-editions-will-be-rejected-starting-sept-18

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

A federal district court has struck down the State Department’s suspension of immigrant visa issuance for nationals of 75 countries, ruling that the policy violated federal immigration law and the Administrative Procedure Act. The court ordered the State Department to resume processing immigrant visas for affected applicants and to reconsider applications that were refused solely because of the suspension. Although the government may appeal, the decision provides an important opportunity for affected employment-based and family-based immigrant visa applicants whose cases were delayed or refused under the policy.

Key Points

• Court rejected the 75-country suspension: On August 21, 2026, Judge Jeannette A. Vargas of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York vacated the State Department policy suspending immigrant visa issuance to nationals of 75 countries. The court found that the policy violated the Administrative Procedure Act and anti-discrimination and other provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act and exceeded Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s authority under the INA.
• Policy had been in effect since January: Beginning January 21, 2026, the State Department indefinitely suspended immigrant visa issuance for nationals of the affected countries while it reassessed how consular officers determine whether an applicant is likely to become a public charge. Applicants could still submit applications and attend interviews during the suspension, but the State Department would not complete adjudication or issue the immigrant visas.
• Prior refusals must be reconsidered: The court set aside immigrant visa refusals that were based solely on the 75-country suspension. This does not apply where a consular officer determined that the applicant was independently ineligible for the visa on another ground, or where another ground was considered in addition to the suspended policy.

What Employers Need to Know

• Employment-based applicants may benefit immediately: Employers sponsoring foreign nationals from one of the 75 affected countries should identify employees whose immigrant visa processing was stopped or whose visas were refused solely because of the suspension. U.S. consulates should resume adjudicating these cases, although the timing of resumed processing may vary by post.
• Cases should be reviewed for prior refusals: Employers should determine whether affected employees had an immigrant visa refused specifically because of the 75-country policy. Those cases should be eligible for reconsideration under the court’s order, although applicants who were independently ineligible for a visa will not necessarily benefit from the ruling.
• Public charge concerns remain important: The court’s decision does not eliminate the statutory public-charge ground of inadmissibility or prevent the State Department from evaluating an applicant’s likelihood of becoming a public charge. The State Department has separately launched a public-charge bond pilot program under which certain immigrant visa applicants may be required to post a bond before receiving a visa.
• Employers should monitor affected cases closely: The ruling does not guarantee that every affected immigrant visa will be issued immediately, and consular posts will need to address cases that accumulated during the suspension. Employers should therefore continue coordinating with immigration counsel and employees rather than assuming that a previously delayed case will automatically be completed without further action.

Looking Ahead

• Government appeal is possible: The State Department may appeal the district court’s decision, which could lead to additional litigation or a request to stay the ruling while the appeal proceeds. Employers should treat the current situation as subject to further change.
• Public-charge scrutiny will continue: The administration’s broader effort to strengthen public-charge screening remains in place even though this 75-country suspension was vacated. The State Department has also temporarily paused immigrant visa interviews worldwide as of August 2026 while training consular officers on public-charge assessments, creating a separate source of potential delays.
• Consular processing may remain unpredictable: Even if the 75-country suspension is not reinstated, applicants could experience delays as consulates work through cases affected by the suspension and other recent policy changes. The combination of litigation, new public-charge procedures, and the worldwide interview pause means employers should expect continued uncertainty for employees pursuing permanent residence through consular processing.

The court’s decision removes a major obstacle for immigrant visa applicants from 75 countries and requires the State Department to resume processing cases that were halted under the now-vacated policy. For employers, the decision provides an opportunity to reassess delayed employment-based green card cases and determine which employees may now move forward. However, broader changes to public-charge screening and the current worldwide pause on immigrant visa interviews mean that consular processing is likely to remain complicated. Employers should continue monitoring these developments closely as the government considers whether to appeal and as new screening policies take effect. 

SOURCE: www.cnn.com/2026/08/22/politics/judge-voids-trumps-75-country-visa-ban-hnk

Indian Tech Companies Reducing Their Reliance on H-1B Workers

Indian technology companies may be less affected by the Trump administration’s proposed $103,265 H-1B fee than they would have been several years ago because they have significantly reduced their reliance on H-1B workers in the United States. According to NASSCOM, India’s technology industry association, Indian tech companies have expanded their U.S. workforces and invested heavily in U.S. STEM education and training while H-1B employment at these companies has declined substantially over the past five years. Nevertheless, the proposed fee would create a major added cost for companies seeking H-1B workers and could further encourage employers to hire and develop talent in the United States rather than rely on the H-1B program.

Key Points

• H-1B use has declined: Employment under the H-1B program at Indian technology companies in the United States has fallen significantly during the past five years as those companies have increased local hiring. This means Indian firms are entering the proposed $103,265 fee environment with less dependence on H-1B workers than they had in the past.
• Local hiring has increased: Indian technology companies have responded to changes in the U.S. labor market by expanding their domestic U.S. workforce. NASSCOM emphasized that this shift has reduced the industry’s exposure to restrictions and higher costs associated with international hiring.
• STEM investment remains significant: Indian technology companies have also invested in the U.S. STEM talent pipeline, including more than $1.1 billion in university partnerships, education, and workforce-development initiatives. NASSCOM argues that these investments demonstrate the industry’s broader contribution to developing American technology talent rather than simply relying on foreign workers.
• The proposed fee is substantial: DHS has proposed a separate $103,265 fee for all H-1B cap-subject petitions, including petitions eligible for the advanced-degree exemption. The fee would be imposed in addition to other applicable H-1B fees or payments and is projected by DHS to generate approximately $8.8 billion based on 85,000 annual fee-paying petitions.
• The fee has a broader purpose: DHS says the proposed fee would help recover the federal government’s costs of administering the lawful immigration system, including adjudications, fraud detection, national-security vetting, technology modernization, and related activities across several agencies. The proposal would direct much of the resulting revenue to USCIS and the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which oversees the immigration courts.

What Employers Need to Know

• Indian firms may be comparatively better positioned: Employers that have already shifted toward U.S. hiring may be better positioned to absorb the effects of the proposed H-1B fee than companies that remain heavily dependent on foreign workers. However, even a relatively small number of H-1B filings could become extremely expensive when each cap-subject petition carries a proposed $103,265 additional charge.
• The fee would cover cap-subject cases: The proposed charge would apply to all H-1B cap-subject petitions, including petitions qualifying for the 20,000 advanced-degree exemption. Employers therefore cannot assume that U.S. master’s-degree candidates will be exempt from the proposed fee.
• The proposal is separate from the prior $100,000 payment: DHS’s proposed $103,265 fee is based on different statutory authority from the $100,000 payment imposed under the September 2025 presidential proclamation. The earlier payment was challenged in court and vacated by a federal district court in June 2026, although the government’s appeal remains pending.
• Employers should reconsider workforce planning: Companies that regularly use H-1B workers may need to place greater emphasis on U.S. recruitment, internal training, and other immigration categories if the fee becomes final. For Indian technology companies, their existing investment in U.S. hiring and STEM development may provide a model for reducing long-term dependence on H-1B sponsorship.
• The proposal is not yet final: DHS published the proposed rule on August 25, 2026, and the public has 30 days to submit comments. Employers therefore have an opportunity to evaluate the proposal and provide comments before DHS decides whether to issue a final rule.

Looking Ahead

• The fee could accelerate localization: If finalized, the $103,265 cost could encourage technology companies to expand U.S. hiring and training even further rather than sponsor new H-1B workers. This could reinforce a trend that is already visible among Indian technology companies.
• The H-1B program could become more selective: A six-figure fee would make employers much more likely to reserve H-1B sponsorship for positions they consider especially difficult to fill through the U.S. labor market. The change could therefore have a greater effect on hiring decisions than on companies that have already reduced their dependence on H-1B workers.
• Legal challenges are likely: The proposed fee is based on DHS’s authority to recover the costs of administering the immigration system, but the unusually large amount and the fact that the revenue would support activities across multiple federal agencies could generate significant legal challenges. Bloomberg Law reports that questions are already emerging about whether the INA permits USCIS to impose such a large fee and collect revenue for other agencies.
• International talent strategies may change: Continued increases in the cost of H-1B sponsorship could lead multinational companies to expand operations in countries outside the United States or rely more heavily on employees who already have U.S. work authorization. At the same time, companies may increase investment in domestic STEM education and workforce development to build longer-term alternatives to the H-1B system.

Indian technology companies have already adapted to a changing U.S. immigration environment by increasing local hiring and investing in the American STEM workforce, leaving them less exposed to the proposed H-1B fee than they might otherwise have been. Nevertheless, a $103,265 charge would represent a dramatic increase in the cost of hiring H-1B workers and could affect employers across the technology sector. The proposal remains subject to public comment and potential litigation, so employers should monitor the rule closely before making long-term staffing decisions. If ultimately implemented, the fee could accelerate the broader shift toward U.S. hiring, workforce development, and more selective use of H-1B sponsorship.

SOURCE: news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/india-tech-firms-face-less-exposure-to-trumps-103-000-h-1b-fee?context=search&index=0

OpenAI PERM Settlement Highlights Increased Employer Recruitment Compliance Risks

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has reached a $3.2 million settlement with OpenAI and its subsidiary, Statsig, over allegations that the companies discriminated against U.S. workers during the PERM labor certification process. Although the case involved fewer than 10 PERM positions, the settlement included $1.2 million in civil penalties, $2 million in back pay, changes to recruitment practices, employee training, and three years of government monitoring. The case shows that employers should not assume that a small PERM program is low-risk, and that PERM recruitment should closely resemble the company’s normal hiring practices for comparable positions.

Key Points

• DOJ alleged discriminatory recruitment practices: The DOJ alleged that OpenAI’s PERM recruitment differed from its normal hiring process in ways that discouraged U.S. workers from applying. The allegations included failing to post PERM positions on the company’s public careers website, requiring paper applications by mail instead of electronic applications, and using recruitment methods such as late-night radio advertisements that made it less likely qualified U.S. workers would learn about or apply for the positions.
• The settlement carries significant financial penalties: OpenAI and Statsig agreed to pay $3.2 million, consisting of $1.2 million in civil penalties and a $2 million fund for back pay. The companies also agreed to revise their recruitment policies, post PERM jobs on their public careers website, accept electronic applications, and train employees on the anti-discrimination requirements of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
• A small PERM program can still create major risk: The case involved fewer than 10 PERM positions yet resulted in multimillion-dollar financial obligations and three years of DOJ monitoring. This distinguishes the case from earlier high-profile DOJ enforcement actions involving companies such as Facebook and Apple, which involved thousands of PERM positions or much larger recruitment programs.
• PERM rules themselves have not fundamentally changed: Employers must still satisfy the existing Department of Labor (DOL) recruitment requirements before sponsoring a foreign national for permanent residence. However, recent DOJ enforcement actions suggest that satisfying the minimum regulatory requirements may not be enough if the overall recruitment process looks materially different from the company’s normal hiring practices.

What Employers Need to Know

• Compare PERM recruitment with normal hiring: Employers should ask whether their PERM recruitment looks substantially like the way they would recruit for the same position if no green card sponsorship were involved. Differences in where jobs are advertised, how applicants apply, how applications are reviewed, and how recruiting is conducted could receive greater scrutiny during an enforcement investigation.
• Use normal recruiting channels when possible: Employers should consider advertising PERM positions through the same channels they normally use for comparable jobs, including the company’s public careers website where appropriate. Applicants should also be given an application process that is reasonably comparable to the process available to other candidates, including electronic applications when that is the employer’s normal practice.
• Document legitimate differences: Current government guidance does not require PERM recruitment to be identical to an employer’s standard recruiting process. Nevertheless, employers should be able to clearly explain and document why any meaningful differences exist between PERM recruitment and their ordinary hiring practices.
• Review recruitment policies proactively: Employers with active or planned PERM programs should consider reviewing their recruitment procedures with experienced immigration counsel. Key questions include whether the same advertising channels are used, whether applicants can apply through the normal process, and whether the company can demonstrate that U.S. applicants are being given a genuine opportunity to compete for the position.

Looking Ahead 

• DOJ scrutiny may increase: The OpenAI settlement suggests that the government may scrutinize the overall design and practical effect of PERM recruitment rather than focusing only on whether the employer completed the required regulatory steps. Employers should therefore expect greater attention to whether their recruitment process genuinely provides U.S. workers with an opportunity to apply.
• PERM recruitment may become more closely aligned with ordinary hiring: Employers may increasingly design PERM recruitment to mirror their standard recruiting practices as closely as possible while continuing to satisfy the DOL’s specific regulatory requirements. This could reduce the appearance that a position is being advertised differently because it is being offered to a foreign national.
• Future PERM changes could reinforce this trend: The DOL is separately planning a major modernization of the PERM labor certification process, including potential changes to recruitment methods, nondiscrimination requirements, and employer recordkeeping. If those reforms move forward, employers could face both updated recruitment rules and heightened enforcement expectations at the same time.
• Compliance should extend beyond individual cases: The settlement demonstrates that employers should evaluate PERM recruitment as an organizational process rather than treating each case as an isolated immigration filing. Establishing consistent procedures, training HR and talent-acquisition personnel, and maintaining clear documentation may become increasingly important as government enforcement priorities evolve.

The OpenAI settlement demonstrates that PERM recruitment can create substantial government-enforcement exposure even when an employer sponsors only a small number of foreign workers. Employers should look beyond the minimum PERM requirements and consider whether their recruitment practices genuinely resemble the way they hire for comparable positions. A proactive review of advertising, application procedures, candidate screening, documentation, and employee training can help reduce compliance risks. As both DOJ enforcement and DOL modernization efforts develop, careful and consistent PERM recruitment is likely to become increasingly important for employers sponsoring foreign nationals for permanent residence.

SOURCE: www.boundless.com/blog/openai-perm-settlement-employer-guidance

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.