State Dept. Publishes Temporary Final Rule creating fee for requesting expedited B-1/B-2 visa interviews
On June 2, 2026, the State Department published a Temporary Final Rule in the Federal Register announcing its plan to allow for expedited B-1/B-2 visa processing for an additional fee. Under the Temporary Final Rule, B-1/B-2 vis applicants may pay an additional $750 fee to secure a visa appointment within 10 business days. The expedited fee will only be available at limited consular posts.
Read the State Dept.’s Temporary Final Rule here.
State Dept. proposes mass closures of US consulates across Africa
In June 2026, the State Department released an internal memorandum announcing its plan to drastically reduce the number of US consulates in Africa that will process visa applications from 50 locations to 20 “hubs.” The consulates in the “non-hub” countries will remain open but will offer limited services. Many more African nationals wishing to obtain a US visa will now have to travel to another country for a visa appointment, which requires additional time, money, and permission to enter that country.
The 20 African consulates that will become visa “hubs” are:
Abidjan, Ivory Coast
Accra, Ghana
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Cape Town, South Africa
Dakar, Senegal
Dar-Es-Salaam, Tanzania
Djibouti, Djibouti
Johannesburg, South Africa
Kampala, Uganda
Kigali, Rwanda
Kinshasa, Congo
Lagos, Nigeria
Lome, Togo
Luanda, Angola
Malabo, Equatorial Guinea
Monrovia, Liberia
Nairobi, Kenya
Port Louis, Mauritius
Praia, Cape Verde and
Yaounde, Cameroon
USCIS’s delayed adjudication of DACA applications raises concerns over Trump Administration “quietly undermining” Dreamers
A diverse group of DACA advocates in Washington, D.C. have started to raise concerns that the Trump Administration is “quietly undermining” the DACA program by significantly delaying case adjudications. For background, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) is a Obama Administration-era program that protects certain noncitizens who arrived in the United States as children from deportation and grants them employment authorization. The program has been heavily litigated during several presidential administrations, and currently the only people who may apply for DACA and DACA-based employment authorization are those who were previously granted DACA.
A June 2026 study from immigration advocacy organization TheDream.us in June 2026 showed that USCIS is now taking six months to approve employment authorization applications for DACA recipients, whereas they previously only took two months. It is unclear whether these delays are part of a larger trend of USCIS taking longer to adjudicate other cases, or whether USCIS is specifically undermining the program.
Read the report from TheDream.us here, and Politico’s reporting on the DACA adjudications delays here.
DHS proposes fee increases and elimination of reduced/waived filing fees for Naturalization applications
On June 23, 2026, DHS published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to substantially increase the filing fees and eliminate the reduced and waived filing fees for naturalization applications. If enacted, the Proposed Rule would nearly double the N-400 Application for Naturalization’s general filing fee from $760/$710 to $1,330/$1,280 for paper/electronic filings, respectively. The Proposed rule would also eliminate the reduced filing fee and waived filing fee for income-eligible applicants. DHS claims that the filing fee changes would “recover the full cost of adjudicating the form while maintaining the fee exemptions for [certain] military service members.” However, this fee increase will likely become a significant barrier for many noncitizens to apply to naturalize, preventing them from becoming citizens when they are otherwise eligible.
The public may submit commits on the Notice for Proposed Rulemaking until August 24, 2026. Read the Proposed Rule or submit a comment here.
Supreme Court allows DHS to proceed with TPS termination for Haiti and Syria
On June 25, 2026, the Supreme Court in Mullin v. Doe reversed the lower courts grant of interim relief to TPS beneficiaries who challenged the process by which the administration attempted to terminate TPS for Haiti and Syria. Based on the Supreme Court’s decision, the lower courts will soon lift their hold on the administration’s ability to terminate TPS. A narrow reading of the ruling is that it allows the administration to continue with its termination of TPS. As a technical matter, the Supreme Court’s ruling will be sent by their Clerk to the district court 32 days from the decision. Until then, the district court’s order in Moit et al. is legally still in effect. Since the termination process will now restart, the administration could come out with a new timetable for termination. With the future termination of TPS for Haiti, many thousands of individuals will soon be subject to removal and a loss of employment authorization.
On July 1, 2026, USCIS published on its website that Haitians with TPS will have employment authorization until at least July 10, 2026. See the USCIS news alert here.
Automatic Employment Authorization Document (EAD) Extension
The validity of Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) issued under the TPS designation of Haiti with an original expiration date of February 3, 2026, August 3, 2025, August 3, 2024, June 30, 2024, February 3, 2023, December 31, 2022, October 4, 2021, January 4, 2021, January 2, 2020, July 22, 2019, January 22, 2018, or July 22, 2017 is extended per court order. Miot et al. v. Trump et al., No. 25-cv-02471-ACR (D.D.C.).
Against this legal backdrop, there seems to be a movement in Congress to protect Haitian TPS holders. A bi-partisan bill (HR 1689) passed the House several weeks ago to that effect and Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) introduced a similar bill in the Senate. Since so many non-Haitians will be impacted by this ruling there is the potential for a legislative solution. Iandoli Desai & Cronin highly encourages constituents to contact their federal legislators to voice their support for TPS.
Iandoli Desai & Cronin also shares the heartfelt sentiment of American Immigration Lawyers Association President, Jeff Joseph, who stated in a press release on June 25, 2026:
“Temporary Protected Status exists because people cannot safely return home to countries that have been devastated by war, political instability, natural disasters, humanitarian crisis, and the collapse of essential infrastructure. Even the Department of State says that no part of Syria is safe, and has issued security advisories due to unrest in Haiti. Conditions are likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. Yet, the Supreme Court’s decision today could force these individuals back to these devastating conditions in a matter of days. It also allows the Administration to arbitrarily terminate all other TPS designations with impunity going forward. There are more than a million people with TPS who are legally working and living in the United States. They are our neighbors, coworkers, business owners, healthcare workers, caregivers, parents, and community leaders. Many have built their lives in the United States, raised U.S. citizen children, purchased homes, started businesses, and contributed billions of dollars to our economy. We are also eliminating potentially hundreds of thousands of workers from our payrolls in jobs going unfilled by US workers. Today's decision is not merely a legal setback; it is a catastrophic loss.”
Update on May 21, 2026 USCIS Policy Memo Framing AOS as “Extraordinary Relief”
On May 21, 2026, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) issued Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199 (“Policy Memo”) that purports to severely restrict the availability of the Congressionally created Adjustment of Status (in-country green card application) (“AOS”) process by casting AOS as “extraordinary relief.” See our previous post on the Policy Memo here.
The week after the May 21, 2026 Policy Memo, an anonymous DHS spokesperson informed the New York Times that the Policy Memo would not result in a widespread change to how USCIS adjudicates Adjustment of Status applications, and that the Policy Memo was “‘just a reminder to officers of their discretionary authority, which has always existed on a case-by-case basis.’” The DHS spokesperson refused to be named in the article. Read the New York Times article here.
Since the Policy Memo was released, our office and numerous colleagues have seen USCIS grant several AOS applications in the absence of any extraordinary circumstances. However, there are also reports of delays in final AOS adjudication. We will continue to monitor this policy development and provide updates as we receive them.
June 2026 update on President Trump’s $100,000 H-1B payment
On June 8, 2026, the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts held that President Trump’s Presidential Proclamation imposing a $100,000 payment on certain H-1B petitions was illegal because it violated both the US Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act. See our previous post on the lawsuit here.
Since our last update, the Trump Administration has appealed the district court’s decision to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals. The $100,000 payment is now back in effect pending further litigation. We will continue to provide updates on this lawsuit as they become available.
Dorcas v. USCIS: USCIS starts adjudicating cases that were previously paused for foreign nationals from travel ban countries
On June 5, 2026, the US District Court for the District of Rhode Island vacated the Trump Administration’s two Policy Memoranda that imposed USCIS adjudication restrictions on foreign nationals from 39 countries. See our previous announcement on Dorcas v. USCIS here. USCIS has since started to comply with the June 11, 2026 final judgment in Dorcas, and our office has started to receive approvals for immigration applications and petitions filed by and for foreign nationals from the 39 travel ban countries. Most of our office’s approval cases so far have been for physicians.
Dorcas is a major win for foreign nationals from the 39 travel ban countries. Many of these individuals have been waiting since Fall 2026 to receive a decision on their immigration applications and petitions, which has greatly impacted their ability to work and live in the United States.
Read USCIS’s Press Release on Dorcas here.
Trump v. Barbara: Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship
On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court held in Trump v. Barbara that, under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, children born to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present in the US are US citizens by birth. The Court’s ruling struck down President Trump’s January 2025 Executive Order that attempted to block birthright citizenship for the children of certain noncitizen parents. Read the opinion here, or see below for our firm’s summary of the opinion’s key points.
In a majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court explains that US citizenship originated from the English common law principle of jus soli, that any child “born within the dominions” [on English soil] was a subject of the King and therefore a “natural-born subject.” Trump v. Barbara, 609 U.S. _____, 3 (2026). Roberts states that “This view crossed the Atlantic with the colonists—and was adopted with little fanfare after the Revolution, as ‘subject[s]’ of the sovereign became ‘citizens’ of the States.” Id. at 4. The US continued to turn to the English common law principle of jus soli to determine whether the children of Native Americans and immigrants were US citizens, and it was the Southern slave states that changed their reasoning of how to determine citizenship so that they could deny birthright citizenship to enslaved Black Americans. See id. at 6. The Supreme Court adopted the southern States’ reasoning in the infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856)by ruling that a Black American’s lack of citizenship was due to the enslaved status of at least one parent. Id. at 7.
Roberts then explains that after the American Civil War, the Reconstruction Congress and United States sought to formally overturn the birthright citizenship holding in Dred Scott first by enacting the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and then by ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 7-9. Roberts quotes extensive, well-documented evidence that the Reconstruction Congress knew that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment would confer birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants, and it did not make any difference in how they proceeded with the Act or Amendment. See id.Roberts also points out that even the language of the Fourteenth Amendment mirrored the language of English common law, further proving that the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment never made any change in the way they thought of birthright citizenship. Id. These are key findings, as the Supreme Court and Constitutional Law scholars frequently look to legislative intent to determine what a law or amendment means.
The majority opinion and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s concurring opinion both soundly rebut the fringe arguments attempted in the dissenting opinions. “Domicile” was a key issue debated during this case’s oral arguments, and Roberts dismisses its application to the Fourteenth Amendment. He explains that the “domicile” discussion presented in the previous leading case on birthright citizenship (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)) originated from post-Fourteenth Amendment scholars’ “international law” theory, where a child’s citizenship is tied to their parents’ citizenship. Id. at 14. In other words, “domicile” in relation to the international theory of citizenship could not have been something that the Reconstruction Congress or United States intended to use to determine citizenship because it had not yet been invented. Roberts also rejects the Trump Administration’s assertion that the United States’s concept of allegiance (and therefore citizenship) at some point broke from English common law; Roberts points out that there is “scant evidence” in the record showing this break, and writes that “the Government and the dissent identify no source that defined allegiance at birth as being based on domicile in the period from 1776 to 1866.” Id. At 18.
Also of particular note is Justice Jackson’s concurrence addressing Justice Thomas’s dissenting opinion, which makes a race-based distinction between who the Reconstruction Congress intended to confer citizenship to. Jackson writes:
“Despite his longstanding endorsement of a ‘colorblind’ Constitution, Justice Thomas now surprisingly suggests that the Citizenship Clause was a race-conscious remedial measure, relating only to ‘freed slaves such as Dred Scott’ . . . but that narrow vision of the Fourteenth Amendment bears little relationship to the history of its ratification. Even worse, Justice Thomas’s telling elides the entire point of the Second Founding: The Reconstruction Amendments were an anticaste, antisubordination reset for the Nation, not a mere spot treatment for the dark stain of slavery.”
Trump v. Barbara, 609 U.S. _____, 1-2 (2026) [Justice Jackson, concurring]. Jackson then highlights and recognizes Black Americans' key influence and efforts in abolishing slavery and ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment:
“Freed Blacks did not advocate for a unique set of rules that catered only to their situation. Nor did they seek to advance their own position relative to, or at the expense and exclusion of, other marginalized groups. Instead, those whose gatherings helped galvanize the push for full equality understood that ‘a diverse origin does not disprove a common nature, nor does it disprove a united destiny.’”
Id. at 10. To conclude her opinion, Jackson states in one of the last paragraphs that
“this alternative account [the dissenting opinion] pitches Black Americans against immigrants when the advocates who promoted the Fourteenth Amendment did no such thing. Freed Blacks fought for the shared humanity of all people. And the Great Emancipator eventually foresaw that the only path forward that could prevent a return—in any form—to slavery and race-based subordination was to link the fates of all.”
Id. at 19.
Visa Bulletin Update
The Department of State publishes a monthly Visa Bulletin which operates as the “waiting list” for green cards (immigrant visas), with an individual’s Priority Date serving as their place in line. The Bulletin identifies all immigrant visa “preference” categories and indicates whether a backlog exists for that category. When a backlog exists, an individual in that category may not apply for a green card (or “adjust status”) until their Priority Date becomes “current.” A priority date is current when it is earlier than the date listed in the Visa Bulletin. The Bulletin lists family-based (“FB-”) preference categories and employment-based (“EB-") preference categories. These categories are further separated into two charts: the Final Action Dates chart and the Dates for Filing chart. The Final Action Dates chart indicates whether an individual can expect USCIS to make a decision on their application soon, whereas the Dates for Filing chart, if USCIS chooses to use it that month, indicates whether an individual may file their adjustment application and receive the benefits associated with having a green card application pending with USCIS.
In July 2026, USCIS will be using the Dates for Filing chart for family-based preference categories and the Final Action Dates chart for employment-based categories.
This month, there were notable retrogressions for the EB-1 India and EB-2 India Final Action Date categories, and slight advancements in the EB-3 and Other Workers categories for India and China. These changes were as follows:
EB-1:
China: advanced 2 months
India: retrogressed 2 months
All Other, Mexico, Philippines: no changes
EB-2:
India: Unauthorized (no visa numbers can be issued)
China, All Other, Mexico, Philippines: no changes
EB-3:
China: advanced 4.5 months
India: advanced 2 weeks
All Other and Mexico: advanced 2 months
Philippines: no change
Other Workers:
China: no change
India: advanced 2 weeks
All Other, Mexico, and Philippines: advanced 1 month
See the July 2026 Visa Bulletin here.
If you have questions about planning, please schedule a consultation with one of the attorneys at Iandoli, Desai & Cronin (info@iandoli.com).