Supreme Court takes up no-bond detention case, H-1B $100,000 fee blocked again, several immigration fees riseImmigration law updates · Issue 1 · September 21, 2026 – October 24, 2026
Issue 1 covers changes from September 21 to October 24, 2026: the Supreme Court agreed to hear cases on mandatory detention and third-country removals; the BIA issued a series of precedents on asylum, continuances, reopening and bond; a federal court again blocked the H-1B $100,000 fee; fees rose at USCIS, the immigration courts, ESTA/EVUS and for EB-5; and the November Visa Bulletin advanced China EB-1 and EB-3.
- The Supreme Court agreed to hear Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, which will decide whether people who entered without inspection and were arrested inside the United States can seek release on bond; the en banc Fifth Circuit has already ruled against detainees.
- On September 30, a federal district court in the Northern District of California preliminarily barred enforcement of the H-1B $100,000 fee policy; the President had earlier extended the restriction proclamation to September 21, 2027.
- The BIA issued several precedents: a pending U visa no longer creates a presumption in favor of a continuance, affidavits supporting a motion to reopen need not be presumed true, and when a hearing notice is returned the court need not look for another address.
- Fees: annual asylum fee $105 and initial work permit $570 (from October 16); BIA appeal $1,060 (from October 1); EB-5 Form I-526E rising to $7,850 (from November 30).
- The new edition of Form I-864 has been mandatory since October 1; USCIS changed filing addresses for several forms; the DS-260 adds questions including 15 years of travel history.
Rules & policy
October 22, 2026
November 2026 Visa Bulletin: China EB-1 and EB-3 advance; family categories advance significantly
What happened: The State Department released the November Visa Bulletin on October 22, 2026. Final action dates for applicants born in mainland China: EB-1 advances from July 1, 2023 to August 1, 2023; EB-3 advances from January 8, 2022 to January 22, 2022; EB-2 holds at October 1, 2021; EB-5 unreserved holds at December 1, 2016, and the rural, high-unemployment and infrastructure set-aside categories remain "current." In the family categories, F1 advances to January 22, 2021, F2B to August 22, 2020, F3 to October 22, 2015 and F4 to October 22, 2012 (each about one year), and F2A is October 22, 2026. The Dates for Filing chart for China employment categories is unchanged (EB-1 July 1, 2024; EB-2 January 1, 2023; EB-3 April 1, 2024). USCIS announced that it will use the Dates for Filing chart for both family-based and employment-based adjustment of status in November.
Who is affected: Applicants in the United States whose priority dates are earlier than the Dates for Filing chart can file Form I-485 in November. The family categories advanced substantially, so F-category applicants should watch for NVC notices.
Status: Applies to November 2026
Sources: 美国国务院：Visa Bulletin For November 2026 · AILA：Visa Bulletin for November 2026 · Wolfsdorf Rosenthal：11 月排期分析
October 14, 2026
No more automatic extensions for EAD renewals: interim rule made final
What happened: On October 14, 2026, DHS/USCIS published a final rule (Removal of Automatic Extensions for Certain Employment Authorization Documents, 91 FR 65306, FR Doc. 2026-20955, RIN 1615-AD05), adopting without change the October 30, 2025 interim final rule, effective the same day. Under amended 8 CFR 274a.13, the automatic extension of up to 540 days applies only to renewals filed before October 30, 2025; renewals filed after that date no longer receive an automatic extension, except as otherwise provided by law or by a TPS-related Federal Register notice. Automatic extensions already received are not affected.
Who is affected: EAD holders such as H-4 spouses, asylum applicants and applicants with pending I-485s should file renewals as early as possible (up to 180 days before expiration) to avoid a gap in work authorization that interrupts their employment.
Status: In effect (October 14, 2026); related litigation ongoing
Sources: Federal Register 最终规则（govinfo PDF） · AILA：USCIS Final Rule on Removal of Automatic Extensions for Certain EADs
October 14, 2026
Proposed rule: no deference to prior approvals for H-1B, L-1 and other extensions
What happened: On October 14, 2026, DHS/USCIS published a proposed rule (Removing Deference to Prior USCIS Determinations of Eligibility, 91 FR 65119, RIN 1615-AD26) that would remove 8 CFR 214.1(c)(5). That provision currently generally requires USCIS, when the parties and facts are the same, to defer to a prior approval when adjudicating an extension. The proposed rule would apply to all petitions filed on Form I-129, mainly extensions of stay and extensions of petition validity. DHS estimates it would lead to about 6,044 additional requests for evidence (RFEs) each year.
Who is affected: Extension requests for work visas such as H-1B, L-1 and O-1 may be re-examined for eligibility even if previously approved. Employers and employees should prepare complete evidence for extensions.
Status: Proposed rule; comments accepted until November 13, 2026
Sources: Federal Register：Removing Deference to Prior USCIS Determinations of Eligibility · Duane Morris 分析
October 8, 2026
Department of Labor suspends PERM labor certification processing for 8 large employers
What happened: On October 8, 2026, Vice President Vance and the Department of Labor announced that 8 large employers had been suspended from filing PERM labor certification applications, citing reasons including ongoing federal investigations and sponsoring foreign workers while conducting layoffs. The Department of Labor has not publicly identified the specific regulatory basis (20 CFR 656.31(b) allows suspension where fraud is suspected) or announced how long the suspensions will last; under the regulation, an initial suspension may last up to 180 days and may be extended. A suspension does not automatically revoke approved PERM certifications or I-140s.
Who is affected: H-1B employees of the affected companies who are pursuing employment-based green cards may see new PERM applications delayed. Approved I-140s are not directly affected; you can consult an attorney to evaluate changing employers or other options.
Status: Implemented, according to law firm reports; the Department of Labor has not announced the duration or conditions for reinstatement
Sources: Morgan Lewis LawFlash（2026-10-15） · Boundless：DOL Suspends 8 Employers From PERM · Mayer Brown：DOL H-1B 与 PERM 执法行动
September 23, 2026
State Department imposes visa restrictions on people involved in "birth tourism"
What happened: On September 23, 2026, Secretary of State Rubio announced a new visa restriction policy under Section 212(a)(3)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, restricting visa issuance to people who knowingly engage, have engaged, or facilitate "birth tourism." It covers owners, operators and managers of birth tourism agencies; visa "agents" who coach applicants to commit fraud; and foreign medical personnel who knowingly help arrange travel to the United States and fraudulently use Medicaid, among others. Certain family members may also be restricted.
Who is affected: People applying for tourist visas to give birth in the United States, as well as related agencies and their staff, may be refused visas. When you apply for a visa, state the purpose of your trip truthfully.
Status: In effect
Sources: 美国国务院新闻声明（2026-09-23）
September 23, 2026
USCIS changes how deadlines falling on weekends or holidays are counted
What happened: On September 23, 2026, USCIS issued Policy Alert PA-2026-15 (Definition of Day for Purposes of Filing Deadlines), which applies to paper filings received on or after October 23, 2026. For deadlines counted in days (such as a 30-day period to respond to a request for evidence), if the last day falls on a weekend or federal holiday, the deadline moves to the next business day. Deadlines tied to age, expiration of status or other eligibility conditions generally do not move. Online filings are received instantly and do not get the extension. The policy partially reverses the 2023 approach.
Who is affected: In situations such as filing before a child turns 21 or filing an H-1B extension before the I-94 expires, if the deadline falls on a weekend, file early, before the last business day, rather than counting on an extension.
Status: In effect (applies to paper filings received on or after October 23, 2026)
Sources: USCIS 政策手册更新页（政策提示列表） · Reddy Neumann Brown PC：USCIS 改变截止日计算方法
September 21, 2026
Proclamation requiring $100,000 payment for H-1B entry extended one year
What happened: On September 18, 2026, the President signed Proclamation 11069 (Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers, 91 FR 60497, published September 23), extending 2025 Proclamation 10973 for 12 months, from September 21, 2026 to September 21, 2027. The proclamation continues to restrict the entry of H-1B beneficiaries outside the United States unless the petition is accompanied by a $100,000 payment; the Secretary of Homeland Security may grant national interest exceptions for individuals, companies or industries. The same day, the White House issued a separate executive order to strengthen scrutiny of the H-1B program and interagency coordination.
Who is affected: Mainly affects employers filing new H-1B petitions for workers outside the United States. The proclamation itself has been extended, but a federal court has barred enforcement of the related fee policy (see "District courts" in this issue). For now, follow the court rulings and the latest USCIS guidance.
Status: Proclamation in effect (September 21, 2026 to September 21, 2027); fee enforcement policy barred by court; litigation ongoing
Sources: Federal Register：Proclamation 11069（govinfo PDF） · National Law Review：2026 年 9 月 H-1B 两项白宫行动
BIA & Attorney General precedent
October 22, 2026
BIA: when a hearing notice is returned, the court need not search for another address
What happened: Matter of Chamorro Castillo, 30 I&N Dec. 170 (BIA 2026) (October 22) holds that when the court mails a hearing notice to the only address in the record and it is returned, there are no other reasonably practicable notice steps available to the immigration court or the BIA, which need not search for a new address or call the respondent. Although the BIA acknowledged that the due process analysis of the Ninth Circuit's Rivera-Valdes decision applies to civil removal proceedings, it found that the notice in this case was "reasonably calculated" to reach the respondent and upheld the in absentia removal order.
Who is affected: Even if a hearing notice sent to the correct address in the record is returned, the court need not look for another address. Make sure the address in the immigration court's record can actually receive mail (after a move, file Form EOIR-33 within 5 days); otherwise you may be ordered removed in absentia, and it will be difficult to reopen later on the ground that you did not receive notice.
Status: In effect (BIA precedent)
Sources: EOIR：Matter of Chamorro Castillo, 30 I&N Dec. 170 全文
October 19, 2026
BIA: affidavits supporting a motion to reopen need not be presumed true
What happened: Matter of J-E-D-C-, 30 I&N Dec. 162 (BIA 2026) (October 19) holds that the Ninth Circuit's rule that facts stated in affidavits supporting a motion to reopen must be accepted as true unless inherently unbelievable is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's decisions in INS v. Abudu and Garland v. Ming Dai; immigration judges and the BIA may assess the credibility of affidavits in light of the record as a whole. In this case, the respondent had personally received the NTA and had been advised in Spanish of the obligation to appear at hearings; the claim that the respondent "did not understand" was not credited, and the in absentia order was upheld.
Who is affected: People relying on affidavits to support motions to reopen in absentia removal orders or other cases (including in Ninth Circuit jurisdictions such as California) need to prepare more independent corroborating evidence rather than relying only on their own statements.
Status: In effect (BIA precedent; conflicts with Ninth Circuit case law and may draw appellate review)
October 16, 2026
BIA: a pending U visa no longer creates a presumption in favor of a continuance
What happened: Matter of L. Ramirez, 30 I&N Dec. 157 (BIA 2026) (October 16) overrules Matter of Sanchez Sosa, 25 I&N Dec. 807 (BIA 2012): filing a prima facie approvable U visa petition with USCIS no longer creates a presumption that a continuance should be granted. Any request for a continuance based on a pending visa application or a wait for a visa to become available is governed by the balancing test of Matter of L-A-B-R-, 27 I&N Dec. 405 (A.G. 2018); if visa availability is remote, that does not constitute good cause. The decision also reaffirms Matter of Quintero: a respondent has no right to delay the completion of removal proceedings to wait for a visa.
Who is affected: Respondents in immigration court who seek continuances based on pending U visa, family-based or employment-based applications will find continuances harder to obtain; the timing of the request, the length of the delay and whether DHS objects will all be weighed.
Status: In effect (BIA precedent)
October 9, 2026
BIA: asylum claims by nationals of developed democracies should generally be denied
What happened: Matter of B-S-A-N-, 30 I&N Dec. 145 (BIA 2026) (October 9) holds that when nationals of highly developed democracies that respect human rights apply for asylum, immigration judges should generally deny the application (except in special circumstances involving national security or foreign affairs), and can usually pretermit it at the master calendar stage. EU citizens, because they may live lawfully and indefinitely in any member state, are presumed not to merit asylum as a matter of discretion. The developed-democracy analysis also applies to withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture (CAT) protection; the EU-citizen presumption applies only to discretionary asylum. The decision lists 40 countries: the 27 EU member states plus Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland, Monaco, Andorra, San Marino, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea.
Who is affected: China is not on the list; however, people who hold the nationality of a listed country (such as Canada, Japan or an EU country), including dual nationals, will face a presumption of denial when applying for asylum in immigration court.
Status: In effect (BIA precedent, binding on immigration courts nationwide)
Sources: EOIR：Matter of B-S-A-N-, 30 I&N Dec. 145 全文 · EOIR Volume 30 目录
October 6, 2026
BIA and Attorney General issue a series of precedents denying bond
What happened: Matter of M-S-V-, 30 I&N Dec. 130 (BIA 2026) (October 6) vacated a $20,000 bond granted by an immigration judge: a Russian national who entered on a visitor visa and overstayed, and who worked as a long-haul truck driver without a valid commercial driver's license, was stopped by police after his truck failed to stop at a port of entry checkpoint on I-80 in Wyoming. He was found not to have shown that he was not a danger to the community; his sponsor was only a friend with no evidence of finances, and his flight risk was high. Separately, on September 24, the Attorney General designated as precedent BIA decisions including Matter of Morales Cuxun, 30 I&N Dec. 121 (arrest record for drunk driving and domestic violence; bond denied) and Matter of Y-M-B-, 30 I&N Dec. 99 (concealing asylum status in another country in an asylum application constituted a flight risk).
Who is affected: Detainees who overstayed, have no path to lawful status, or have driving or arrest records will find bond harder to obtain; when requesting bond, the sponsor's affidavit, financial evidence and residence documents must be consistent and credible.
Status: In effect (BIA precedent)
Sources: EOIR：Matter of M-S-V-, 30 I&N Dec. 130 全文 · EOIR：Matter of Morales Cuxun, 30 I&N Dec. 121 全文（注明 9/24 先例指定） · EOIR：Matter of Y-M-B-, 30 I&N Dec. 99 全文
September 29, 2026
BIA: immigration judges may pretermit asylum applications without a DHS motion
What happened: Matter of G-R-B-, 30 I&N Dec. 102 (BIA 2026) (September 29) holds that an immigration judge may, without a motion from DHS, pretermit applications for asylum and withholding of removal on the judge's own initiative; if the application does not present a prima facie claim, the judge need not hold an evidentiary hearing.
Who is affected: For asylum applicants in immigration court, the Form I-589 and supporting materials must on their own be sufficient to make a prima facie showing of eligibility; otherwise, the application may be denied without the applicant ever testifying.
Status: In effect (BIA precedent)
Immigration courts (EOIR)
October 22, 2026
EOIR adds 69 immigration judges and 10 temporary judges in two groups
What happened: On September 24, EOIR announced the investiture of 47 immigration judges and 6 temporary immigration judges, and on October 22 it announced 22 more immigration judges and 4 temporary immigration judges. In the October group, the Chicago Immigration Court added 1 judge (Jeremy R. Arn), and the New York Broadway and Federal Plaza courts added 4; several of the new judges (including all 4 temporary judges) have military legal (JAG) backgrounds.
Who is affected: As new judges take the bench, scheduling and judge assignments at some courts may change; respondents with cases in Chicago or New York should watch for hearing notices and changes in the assigned judge.
Status: In effect
Sources: EOIR 新闻稿（2026-10-22，22 名法官） · EOIR 法官简历（2026-10-22） · EOIR 新闻稿（2026-09-24，47 名法官）
October 9, 2026
Administrative closure rule vacated; challengers turn to the Supreme Court
What happened: At the joint request of Texas and the Department of Justice, Judge Reed O'Connor of a federal district court in Texas entered a consent judgment vacating nationwide EOIR's 2024 rule allowing immigration judges to use administrative closure to pause removal cases, and barring EOIR from issuing a similar rule; the Fifth Circuit declined to stay the judgment. On October 9, the City of Baltimore and other cities, along with Centro Legal de la Raza, filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court (No. 26A500, City of Baltimore v. Texas) asking it to stay the judgment; on October 22, the federal government and Texas filed responses opposing reinstatement of the rule.
Who is affected: Respondents waiting for USCIS to decide U visa, family-based or other applications who want the immigration court to pause their cases currently have essentially no way to put a case on hold through administrative closure; the Supreme Court has not yet ruled.
Status: Emergency application pending at the Supreme Court
Sources: Supreme Court：No. 26A500 申请书 · SCOTUSblog（10/22 答辩报道）
Supreme Court
October 13, 2026
Supreme Court takes asylum case on the "material support" terrorism bar
What happened: The Supreme Court agreed to hear Blanche v. Ozurumba (No. 25-1343), on review from the Fourth Circuit (No. 24-2070, decided September 2, 2025). The question is whether "material support" under 8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI) triggers the bar only if it actually aids the terrorist organization's terrorist activity; the noncitizen in this case says he was forced to cook for an armed group.
Who is affected: The decision will affect whether asylum and green card applicants who provided food, money or labor to armed groups under coercion or in small amounts are categorically barred. Affected applicants should keep evidence of the coercion and watch for the outcome.
Status: Certiorari granted, awaiting argument date
Sources: Supreme Court Order List, Oct. 13, 2026 · Supreme Court Docket No. 25-1343 · Bloomberg Law 报道
October 5, 2026
Supreme Court vacates Ninth Circuit TPS ruling and remands
What happened: In Mullin v. National TPS Alliance (No. 26-48), the Supreme Court granted, vacated and remanded (GVR) the Ninth Circuit's decision holding the terminations of TPS for Venezuela and Haiti unlawful, directing reconsideration in light of this June's decision in Mullin v. Doe, 609 U.S. 324 (2026) (8 U.S.C. §1254a(b)(5)(A) (INA §244(b)(5)(A)) bars judicial review of non-constitutional claims about TPS).
Who is affected: The room for TPS beneficiaries to challenge terminations under the Administrative Procedure Act has narrowed further, leaving only constitutional claims. Readers with TPS should watch the effective termination date for their country's TPS and the validity of their work permits, and evaluate other status options early.
Status: Remanded to the Ninth Circuit
October 1, 2026
Supreme Court takes case on mandatory no-bond detention of people who entered without inspection
What happened: The Supreme Court agreed to hear Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha (No. 26-104) to decide whether 8 U.S.C. §1225(b)(2)(A) requires mandatory detention of people who entered without inspection and were arrested inside the United States, or whether §1226(a), which permits bond, applies instead. The case comes from the Second Circuit (No. 25-3141, decided April 28, 2026, 175 F.4th 61), which held that §1226(a) applies and that the person is entitled to a bond hearing. The circuits are divided on the issue, with the Fifth and Eighth Circuits siding with the government.
Who is affected: Directly affects whether people who entered without inspection years ago and are now detained by ICE can seek bond. Until the Supreme Court rules, practice varies by circuit; Illinois is in the Seventh Circuit, and a detainee's bond eligibility should be evaluated under that circuit's current case law and the facts of the individual case.
Status: Certiorari granted, awaiting argument date; on October 16 the government requested an extension of the merits briefing deadline
Sources: Supreme Court Docket No. 26-104 · Question Presented, No. 26-104 · SCOTUSblog 报道 · Second Circuit – Barbosa da Cunha v. Freden, No. 25-3141 (en banc opinions) · JURIST (2026-10-02)
September 29, 2026
Supreme Court lets third-country removals continue and agrees to hear D.V.D. case
What happened: In Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. (No. 26-426, related application No. 26A406), the Supreme Court granted the government's application for a stay, staying the February 25, 2026 judgment of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (No. 1:25-cv-10676, which had vacated the DHS/ICE third-country removal guidance), and at the same time treated the application as a petition for certiorari and granted it. The Court directed the parties to address the district court's jurisdiction, whether classwide relief and APA vacatur are available under 8 U.S.C. §1252(f)(1), and whether the guidance violates §1231(b), due process or FARRA/CAT. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson dissented from the stay. The First Circuit had largely affirmed the district court's judgment on September 18.
Who is affected: Until a final decision, DHS may continue sending people with removal orders to third countries with which they have no connection. People with final removal orders who fear being sent to a third country should evaluate with an attorney as early as possible whether to raise fear-based claims such as Convention Against Torture (CAT) protection.
Status: Certiorari granted; stay in effect; argument set for December 9, 2026
Sources: Supreme Court Order List, Sept. 29, 2026 (No. 26-426) · Question Presented, No. 26-426 · SCOTUSblog 评论（Chemerinsky）
September 21, 2026
Government brings two more cases to Supreme Court: bond in prolonged detention and habeas jurisdiction
What happened: On September 21, the Solicitor General filed two petitions for certiorari. In Genalo v. D.C. (No. 26-379), the original case, Genalo v. Black (No. 25-886), was dismissed by agreement of the parties after one individual had departed the United States and another received a pardon from the Governor of New York, and the government said on September 11 that the case was moot; the government now asks the Court to bypass the court of appeals and decide whether people in prolonged detention under §1226(c) have a constitutional right to a bond hearing. In Trump v. Suri (No. 26-380, from Fourth Circuit No. 25-1560), the government asks the Supreme Court to decide whether federal district courts have jurisdiction to hear a detention challenge that also contests the grounds for removal. The response deadline in Suri has been extended to November 20.
Who is affected: If the Supreme Court takes the cases and sides with the government, the path for detainees to win release through habeas petitions in federal district court may narrow. Both cases are only at the petition stage and have not been granted.
Status: Petitions for certiorari pending
Sources: Supreme Court Docket No. 26-380 · Petition, Trump v. Suri · SCOTUSblog：Genalo v. D.C. 申请
Courts of appeals
October 23, 2026
En banc Fifth Circuit: detained applicants for admission have no constitutional right to a bond hearing
What happened: On October 23, 2026, the en banc Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 10-7 in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Vergara (Nos. 26-50183, 26-50219, 26-50221) that for people detained as "applicants for admission" under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not require a bond hearing on danger and flight risk. The court reversed the writs of habeas corpus previously granted by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas and held that the detention periods in these cases, from 3 weeks to 3 months, were not unconstitutional, but did not decide how long detention would have to last to become unconstitutional.
Who is affected: Applies in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, where the path to a bond hearing for ICE detainees has narrowed sharply. The statutory interpretation question still awaits the Supreme Court's decision in Barbosa da Cunha. Illinois (Seventh Circuit) is not directly bound by this ruling.
Status: En banc decision (10-7); Supreme Court review may be sought
Sources: Bloomberg Law 报道 · Reuters 报道（Galveston County Daily News 转载） · Fifth Circuit en banc opinion, No. 26-50183 (2026-10-23) · Texas Tribune (2026-10-23)
October 19, 2026
Second Circuit declines to reinstate pause on immigrant visas for 75 countries
What happened: In the appeal in CLINIC v. Rubio (2d Cir. No. 26-2573; below, S.D.N.Y. No. 1:26-cv-00858, where Judge Vargas vacated the 75-country immigrant visa pause policy on August 21), Judge Sullivan of the Second Circuit on October 19 granted in part and denied in part the government's request for an administrative stay: the vacatur of the policy is not stayed, so the policy remains without effect, but the portion requiring reconsideration of cases refused solely because of the policy is temporarily stayed. The full stay motion has been referred to a three-judge panel. The district court had denied a stay on September 25.
Who is affected: Immigrant visa applicants from the affected countries can still be scheduled for interviews as usual, but reconsideration of cases previously refused solely because of the policy (more than 43,000, according to the government) is on hold pending the panel's ruling.
Status: On appeal; administrative stay granted in part; panel ruling pending
Sources: CourtListener 2d Cir. No. 26-2573 · CourtListener S.D.N.Y. 1:26-cv-00858 · Maki Law 案件追踪
September 21, 2026
Ninth Circuit: asylum seekers who passed credible fear interviews may challenge no-bond detention
What happened: In its published decision in Padilla v. ICE (No. 24-2801, from W.D. Wash. No. 2:18-cv-00928), the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the government's motion to dismiss: 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(A) does not bar constitutional challenges to mandatory detention under §1225(b)(1)(B)(ii); DHS v. Thuraissigiam applies only to people stopped at the threshold of entry, and asylum seekers who were arrested inside the United States and passed credible fear interviews remain protected by due process. The court did not decide whether every class member is entitled to a bond hearing.
Who is affected: Applies in the states of the Ninth Circuit (including California and Washington). Asylum seekers who passed credible fear interviews, were placed in regular removal proceedings and are subject to mandatory detention can continue to seek bond hearings through the class action.
Status: Published decision; case remanded to the district court for further proceedings
Sources: Ninth Circuit opinion No. 24-2801
District courts
October 14, 2026
Court orders State Department to reopen DV-2027 green card lottery registration
What happened: In Red Eagle Law, L.C. v. Rubio (No. 3:26-cv-04738), Judge Jinsook Ohta of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California issued a preliminary injunction, finding that the State Department's indefinite postponement of DV-2027 registration was likely "arbitrary and capricious." The court ordered the Department to announce registration arrangements by October 29, open a 30-day registration period on November 1, and notify selectees in December. The government filed an appeal on October 19 and requested a stay.
Who is affected: Eligible people (those born in mainland China are not eligible; those born in Hong Kong, Macau or Taiwan generally are) should watch for the official announcement by October 29. If the court of appeals grants a stay, the timetable may change. Register only on the official dvprogram.state.gov website and beware of scam sites.
Status: Preliminary injunction; government has appealed and requested a stay
Sources: CourtListener docket 3:26-cv-04738 · Newsweek：政府上诉
October 7, 2026
Court restores biometrics collection for detained applicants
What happened: In the class action J.Z. v. DHS (No. 1:26-cv-01510), Judge Amir Ali of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia stayed DHS's policy, in place since December 2025, of no longer collecting fingerprints and other biometrics from people in ICE detention with pending USCIS applications (USCIS Policy Alert PA-2025-28). The court found the policy likely "arbitrary and capricious," restored the prior collection process, and ordered the government to file a compliance report by October 21.
Who is affected: Detained people with pending applications such as green card, U/T visa, SIJ or asylee relative petitions can again complete biometrics collection and avoid denials for missed appointments. The order itself does not approve any application or release anyone from detention.
Status: Policy stayed while litigation proceeds; appealable
Sources: CourtListener docket 1:26-cv-01510 · AILA 摘要
September 30, 2026
Another federal court blocks the H-1B $100,000 fee policy
What happened: In Global Nurse Force v. Trump (No. 4:25-cv-08454), Judge Haywood Gilliam of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted a preliminary injunction in part, finding that the agency policies of USCIS, CBP and the State Department implementing Proclamation 10973 and its extension, Proclamation 11069 (which extends the fee to September 21, 2027), likely violate the Administrative Procedure Act, and barring their enforcement until notice-and-comment procedures and a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis are completed. Judge Sorokin of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts had previously vacated a similar policy in June.
Who is affected: Employers filing new H-1B petitions for beneficiaries outside the United States do not, for now, need to pay $100,000 under the proclamation, but the government can appeal, and DHS has also issued a proposed rule for a fee of about $103,000. Employers should check the latest status before filing.
Status: Preliminary injunction, appealable
Sources: CourtListener docket 4:25-cv-08454 · Forbes 报道（含判决摘录） · JURIST 报道
ICE enforcement
October 20, 2026
State Department: more than 300,000 visas revoked since January 2025
What happened: According to Reuters, State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott said on X on October 20, 2026 that more than 300,000 U.S. visas have been revoked since the start of President Trump's second term in January 2025; the figure announced on August 10 was more than 175,000, and the pace has picked up in recent weeks. The government has not released a breakdown by visa category (such as student visas).
Who is affected: Holders of nonimmigrant visas such as F-1, J-1 and H-1B should note that a visa revocation usually affects reentry, while whether lawful status inside the United States is affected must be assessed separately; revocation may be accompanied by termination of the SEVIS record or immigration enforcement. If you receive a revocation notice, confirm your status as soon as possible with your school's international student office or an immigration attorney.
Status: Public statement by State Department spokesperson (according to Reuters); no official breakdown released
Sources: Reuters via SRN News (2026-10-20) · Business Today (2026-10-21)
October 14, 2026
Fines for failure to depart: after court blocks interim rule, DHS issues final rule
What happened: On September 30, 2026, Judge George O'Toole of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, in the class action Maria L. v. Noem (No. 1:25-cv-13471), stayed DHS's June 27, 2025 interim final rule on civil fines and the fines imposed under it, finding that the rule likely conflicts with the Immigration and Nationality Act because it does not consider individual circumstances (such as whether the failure to depart was "willful"); reportedly, some individual fines reached about $1.8 million. On October 14, DHS (ICE) and the Department of Justice published a final rule (91 FR 65390, effective the same day) finalizing the interim rule: fines apply to failure to depart after a removal order, failure to depart within a voluntary departure period, and unlawful entry. A person must file a written appeal within 15 business days with a supervisory official who did not take part in the original decision, and cannot appeal to the BIA; a late appeal may be accepted if the person shows that a mailing delay was not their fault. DHS also issued a notice (91 FR 67325, made available for public inspection on October 23 and published on October 26) ratifying fines imposed under the interim rule from June 27, 2025 through October 13, 2026.
Who is affected: People with removal orders or voluntary departure deadlines who have not departed may receive notices of fines and must watch the 15-business-day appeal deadline; objections to the ratification notice must be submitted to ICE by November 16, 2026. How the court's order relates to the final rule and the ratification notice has yet to be resolved by the courts; if you receive a notice, consult an attorney as soon as possible.
Status: Final rule effective October 14, 2026; related litigation ongoing
Sources: Federal Register 2026-21024 (91 FR 65390) · Federal Register 2026-21751 Ratification of Civil Penalties · Newsweek (2026-10-13)：DHS 称逾 8.2 万人自行离境 · Reuters via U.S. News (2026-10-05) · JURIST (2026-10-06) · 法院裁定 PDF（Reuters 托管） · Bloomberg Law 报道 · AILA：DHS and DOJ Final Rule on Civil Penalties（91 FR 65390） · Federal Register（govinfo PDF） · Clinch Law 报道（9 月 30 日裁定）
September 30, 2026
Federal court vacates ICE policy on arrests at immigration courts
What happened: On September 30, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment in African Communities Together v. Lyons (No. 25-cv-06366), holding that ICE's 2025 policy of making civil arrests in or near immigration courts violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as "arbitrary and capricious." The court also vacated the portions of the January and May 2025 guidance that rescinded the April 2021 guidance, restoring the 2021 policy of generally not making arrests at immigration courts, with only limited exceptions. The ACLU announced the ruling on October 1, describing it as nationwide and immediately effective. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California had issued a similar nationwide vacatur in Pablo Sequen v. Albarran (No. 25-cv-06487) in June 2026, which is now on appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
Who is affected: For people who attend their immigration court hearings as scheduled, the risk of a civil arrest by ICE inside the courthouse should, as a matter of law, return to the limited exceptions under the 2021 policy framework; however, the government may appeal, and the "limited exceptions" still exist. In any event, attend court on time; failing to appear can lead to serious consequences such as an in absentia removal order.
Status: Final district court judgment; government may appeal
Sources: ACLU 新闻稿 (2026-10-01) · NYCLU 新闻稿 · Courthouse News (2026-10-01) · NILA Litigation Navigator (9/26–10/2/2026)，含案号与判决内容
Forms
October 16, 2026
USCIS fee schedule Form G-1055 updated to 10/16/26 edition
What happened: To coincide with the fiscal year 2027 inflation adjustment of the statutory fees under H.R. 1, effective October 16, 2026, USCIS released a new edition of the G-1055 fee schedule (edition date 10/16/26), listing the adjusted fees, including the annual asylum fee, parole fee, initial work permit and TPS fees.
Who is affected: Applications mailed on or after October 16 should be paid according to the new fee schedule; underpayment may result in rejection.
Status: In effect
Sources: USCIS Form G-1055（10/16/26 版 PDF） · USCIS 公告：FY 2027 通胀调整
October 15, 2026
USCIS changes filing addresses for Forms I-130, I-485, I-765 and others
What happened: On October 15, 2026, USCIS changed the filing addresses for some applicants filing Forms I-130, I-131, I-360, I-485, I-765, I-601, I-824 and I-864, and on October 20 it updated the I-824 address again; on September 21 and 22 it had also changed addresses for forms including N-400, N-600 and I-821. AILA issued a practice alert on these changes on October 23.
Who is affected: Before filing on paper, always check the latest address under "Where to File" on each form's page; mailing to the wrong address can lead to rejection or delay.
Status: In effect
Sources: USCIS：Lockbox and Service Center Filing Location Updates · AILA 近期发布列表（Practice Alert: USCIS Lockbox Updates Mailing Address）
October 13, 2026
DS-260 immigrant visa form adds questions on 15 years of travel history, siblings and more
What happened: The State Department recently updated Form DS-260, the immigrant visa application, and AILA issued a practice alert on October 13, 2026. New or expanded content includes: foreign travel history extended from 5 to 15 years (including cities, dates, length of stay and who paid); passports and nationalities held or renounced in the past 15 years; civil or domestic partners; nationalities of spouse and children; and siblings' names, dates of birth and nationalities. After the new form went live, there were technical problems with the nationality menu and saving.
Who is affected: Immigrant visa applicants going through consular processing (for example, at the Guangzhou consulate) should gather 15 years of travel records and family member information before completing or updating the DS-260, and make sure it is consistent with materials submitted earlier.
Status: Live, according to the AILA practice alert; the State Department has not formally announced a launch date
Sources: AILA 近期发布列表（Practice Alert: New DS-260 Questions and Technical Fixes） · Wildes & Weinberg：国务院扩大 DS-260 信息要求
October 9, 2026
New edition of "Gold Card" petition Form I-140G released
What happened: On October 9, 2026, USCIS posted a new edition of Form I-140G (Immigrant Petition for the Gold Card Program), edition date 09/11/26, on its forms updates page. USCIS had earlier requested public comment in the Federal Register on March 10, 2026 (91 FR 11559); the draft removed the question asking petitioners to choose between the EB-1A and EB-2 NIW categories, expanded the source-of-funds questionnaire, and added a section on the spouse and children.
Who is affected: Investors considering a "Gold Card" petition should use the latest edition and prepare more detailed source-of-funds documentation. The Gold Card program itself remains in litigation.
Status: New edition released; no guidance seen on whether the prior edition is still accepted
Sources: USCIS I-140G 表格页 · H1B Visa Lawyer Blog：2026 USCIS Forms Updates（引用 USCIS 表格更新页） · AILA：USCIS 关于修订 I-140G 的通知（91 FR 11559）
October 1, 2026
Grace period for new Form I-864 ends; only the 08/24/26 edition accepted from October 1
What happened: The new edition of the Form I-864 Affidavit of Support that USCIS released on August 31, 2026 (edition date 08/24/26, including a provision authorizing USCIS to obtain credit reports from credit bureaus) became the only accepted edition after the grace period ended on September 30; Forms I-864A and I-864EZ were updated at the same time. Filings submitted on or after October 1 using the old edition (10/17/24) may be rejected or receive a request for evidence (RFE). A lawsuit filed by AILA and others in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is ongoing.
Who is affected: Sponsors in family-based cases should use the new edition and check in advance whether they have a credit freeze in place; if asked, lift it promptly to avoid delays in the case.
Status: New edition mandatory; litigation ongoing
Sources: USCIS I-864 表格页 · Manifest Law：USCIS 给予新版 I-864 30 天宽限期
Fees
October 16, 2026
USCIS raises statutory fees for annual asylum fee, work permits, TPS, parole and more
What happened: On October 1, 2026, USCIS published in the Federal Register its notice of the fiscal year 2027 inflation adjustment to the statutory fees under H.R. 1 (91 FR 62540), applicable by postmark date from October 16. The annual asylum fee rises from $102 to $105; the Form I-131 parole fee from $1,020 to $1,050; the initial work permit fee for asylum applicants, parolees and TPS from $560 to $570; and the Form I-821 TPS application from $510 to $520. The $100 initial asylum fee for Form I-589, the $275/$280 work permit renewal fees, the $250 SIJ fee and the $24 I-94 fee are unchanged.
Who is affected: The applications listed above mailed on or after October 16 must be paid at the new amounts. The postmark date controls, not the date of receipt.
Status: In effect (October 16, 2026)
Sources: USCIS 公告：FY 2027 Inflation Increase for Certain Immigration-Related Fees · AILA：USCIS 通知（91 FR 62540） · Reddy Neumann Brown PC：费用对照表
October 16, 2026
ESTA rises to $40.62, EVUS to $31.75
What happened: On October 1, 2026, CBP published its fiscal year 2027 inflation adjustment notice (91 FR 62534), effective October 16: the ESTA fee rises from $40.27 to $40.62 ($10.62 for denied applications); the EVUS enrollment fee required of holders of Chinese 10-year B1/B2 visas rises from $30.75 to $31.75; and the parole-on-entry fee rises from $1,020 to $1,050. The $24 statutory I-94 fee is unchanged. ICE separately published a notice (91 FR 62542) increasing two fees charged to people arrested after an in absentia removal order and to inadmissible noncitizens apprehended between ports of entry.
Who is affected: Travelers holding Chinese passports with 10-year visas must pay the new fee when enrolling in or updating EVUS on or after October 16.
Status: In effect (October 16, 2026)
Sources: AILA：CBP 通知（91 FR 62534） · AILA：ICE 通知（91 FR 62542） · Erickson Immigration Group：费用对照
October 1, 2026
Fees rise for immigration court and BIA appeals, motions and more
What happened: Under its August 21, 2026 final rule (91 FR 54211) and its September 29 notice (91 FR 61447), EOIR raised fees effective October 1, 2026: BIA appeals (EOIR-26, EOIR-29) from $1,030 to $1,060; motions to reopen or reconsider an immigration judge's decision from $1,065 to $1,095, and of a BIA decision from $1,030 to $1,060; EOIR-42A from $710 to $730; and EOIR-42B from $1,640 to $1,690. The statutory fees for DHS forms filed in immigration court were also adjusted for inflation: I-485 from $1,540 to $1,590, the annual asylum fee from $102 to $105, I-601 from $1,070 to $1,100, and I-821 (TPS) from $510 to $520. The initial asylum application fee remains $100.
Who is affected: Appeals and motions filed with the immigration court or the BIA on or after October 1 must be paid at the new fees; check the amount in the EOIR payment system before paying.
Status: In effect (October 1, 2026)
Sources: EOIR 联邦公报通知列表 · AILA：EOIR 通知（91 FR 61447） · Lehigh Valley Immigration Law：EOIR 新费用表 · Federal Register：91 FR 61447（2026-19841）
September 30, 2026
EB-5 fee final rule: Form I-526E rises to $7,850
What happened: On September 30, 2026, USCIS published the EB-5 fee final rule (91 FR 61940, FR Doc. 2026-20016, RIN 1615-AC93), applicable by postmark date from November 30, 2026. Key fees: I-526 from $3,675 to $7,615; I-526E from $3,675 to $7,850; I-829 from $3,750 to $5,000; regional center Form I-956 from $17,795 to $44,115, I-956F rising to $42,675, and I-956G falling to $2,165; and a new $10,330 fee for Form I-527. The fees for initial I-526 and I-526E filings already include a $75 technology fee, and the integrity fund fee increases by 10%. The rule also codifies certain provisions of the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022.
Who is affected: Investors planning to file EB-5 petitions can pay the current fees if they mail before November 30; after that, the new fees apply.
Status: Final rule, effective November 30, 2026
Sources: Federal Register 最终规则（govinfo PDF） · BAL：USCIS Finalizes EB-5 Fee Rule
Could these changes affect you? Book a consultation › Phone (312) 519-1115 / (312) 888-7888, WeChat WangLawpllc.
General legal information only — not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Rules, case law and enforcement policies change quickly; rely on official sources and consult a lawyer about your situation.