State Department issues J-1 Conrad/HHS waivers for physicians at an expedited pace in June 2026
We are pleased to share that we have seen the State Department and USCIS issue J-1 Conrad/HHS waivers for physicians at an expedited pace in June 2026. A lengthy adjudicatory pause from the US Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) earlier this year had risked the immigration status and employment authorization for hundreds of international physicians who are ending their residency programs on June 30. As we had shared last month, HHS resumed processing for these cases, and the State Department and USCIS have since quickly processed the waiver recommendations. Many of these physicians will now likely only experience a brief delay in their employment authorization. However, anecdotal reports do show that some of these cases have remained pending for a long period of time.
Peterson Institute for International Economics: “Class dismissed – the effect of international student exclusion on the US STEM workforce and economic growth”
In June 2026, The Peterson Institute for International Economics released a new Policy Brief analyzing the impact that the exclusion of international students has had on the US STEM workforce and economic growth. The report had the following four key takeaways:
The Trump Administration’s efforts to restrict immigration have resulted in a one-third reduction in student visa issuance;
The international student visa decline will have a substantial impact on the US STEM workforce, as 35% of all STEM workers with a Ph.D. were not born in the US but came here as international students;
A continuous one-third reduction in STEM graduates in the US would shrink the high-skilled STEM workforce by 6.2% overall and 11.5% for workers with doctorates; and
The reductions noted in (3) above “would cut annual US real GDP by $240 billion to $480 billion within a decade – a loss the size of a mid-sized US state like Wisconsin or Utah.”
Read the report from the Peterson Institute here.
AILA Flyer: Checklist for F-1 Students Transitioning to Cap-Subject H-1B Status
The American Immigration Lawyers Association recently published a client flyer to help international students transition from F-1 to H-1B status. The flyer makes the following key recommendations for F-1 students:
Make sure your H-1B petition is field while you are still on F-1 OPT
Stay within the OPT unemployment limits
If you are on STEM OPT, remember to complete your annual self-evaluations in a timely fashion
International travel will be restricted during this transition
Coordinate with the DSO if you want an updated Form I-20 indicating the cap-gap extension
Keep your DSO updated on any changes.
Download a copy of the client flyer here.
Reminder to international students: producing online content in US to generate income requires employment authorization
We wish to remind F-1 international students that the terms and conditions of their F-1 status place strict limits on employment activities outside of pre-degree-completion Curricular Practical Training and post-completion Optional Practical Training. The US government will likely consider any work performed with the intent to general income (or volunteer work performed that would typically generate income) to require employment authorization.
For example, the US government recently warned internet influencers coming to the US to attend the World Cup that their B-1/B-2 tourist visas do not allow them to produce content that they intend to post on social media to generate income. This warning is directly applicable to F-1 students, as both the B-1/B-2 and F-1 nonimmigrant visa categories do not grant employment authorization.
We also point out that producing online content with the intent to generate income is particularly risky because platform visibility makes it quite easy for immigration officials to view their content, and that content then serves as evidence that the influencer violated the terms of their nonimmigrant status.
We encourage F-1 international students to speak with their Designated School Officials regarding any questions they have about their business activities in connection to their F-1 status.
Update on D/S Elimination: OMB review completed, Final Rule publication expected soon
On June 16, 2026, the Office of Management and Budget finished its required financial review of the Trump Administration’s proposal to end the Duration of Stay (“D/S”) designation for F-1, J-1, and M-1 nonimmigrants. Publication of the Final Rule is expected soon, and we will provide updates as we receive them. For background information on D/S Elimination, see our previous post here.
‼️ FEDERAL COURT UPDATE‼️
Federal District Courts in Rhode Island and Massachusetts issued final rulings on two significant issues effecting immigrants and their employers.
__________________________________________________________________________________
On Friday, June 5, 2026, the Federal District Court for Rhode Island in Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island vs. USCIS set aside and declared unlawful USCIS’s January 1, 2026 policy of withholding review of petitions and applications involving individuals whose country of birth or country of citizenship is among the 39 countries subject to a partial or complete travel ban.
The Court noted that “the rule of law has to apply to everyone equally and, as evident here, USCIS has neither ‘followed the law’ nor ‘done things the right way.’” The Court found the USCIS’s policy was contrary to the Immigration and Nationality Act, was arbitrary and capricious, and set aside and vacated the policy in its entirety. USCIS must now resume adjudicating petitions and applications for affected foreign nationals and their employers.
__________________________________________________________________________________
On Monday, June 8, 2026 the Federal District Court for Massachusetts in a lawsuit brought by the State of California, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and 18 other states, set aside and declared unlawful the September 19, 2025 Presidential Proclamation which instituted a $100,000 additional filing fee requirement for employers filing H-1B petitions for persons outside the U.S., petitions requesting consular processing even if the sponsored individual held prior H-1B status/visas, or petitions converted to consular processing due to failure to maintain status.
The Court held that the $100,000 payment requirement “improperly levies a tax on H-1B petitions” without Congressional authorization. In addition, the Court found that the Department of Homeland Security’s implementation of the Proclamation violated the Administrative Procedure Act for failing to “offer a reasoned explanation for enacting a heavy tax on the H-1B program” and failed to “provide any explanation for imposing a tax on employers in [the education or health care sector], let alone address these employers’ reliance interests on the H-1B program as it existed before the Policy.” Like the Court in Rhode Island, the $100,000 payment requirement has been set aside and vacated in its entirety.
These rulings are of major significance and likely will be appealed by the Government. Until a higher court stays these rulings, USCIS must adhere to each Court’s vacatur and judgment.
DOS Updates List of Countries Subject to Visa Bonds to Clarify Exceptions for FIFA World Cup
On May 13, 2026, the State Department updated its Visa Bond Pilot Program webpage to clarify that the Trump Administration will waive the bond requirement for certain travelers coming to the United States to watch the FIFA World Cup. See the updated guidance on the State Department website here.
MPR News: “Fear of deportation and delays discourage some immigrants from seeking citizenship”
On May 19, 2026, Minnesota Public Radio reporter Sarah Thamer published an article on the current hesitancy many legal permanent residents are having about applying for citizenship. Despite their eligibility, Thamer reports that “fear, combined with policy changes and processing delays[,] is discouraging some eligible immigrants from applying for citizenship at all.” The policy changes include a new citizenship test with more questions and requiring a higher threshold of correct responses to pass. Naturalization application denials have also increased by 15% from 2024 to 2025, and USCIS is now taking months longer to schedule applications for their naturalization ceremonies after they have been approved during the USCIS interviews.
Read the article from Minnesota Public Radio here.
TPS updates: El Salvador, Lebanon, and Yemen
El Salvador: On April 28, 2026, USCIS updated its TPS El Salvador webpage to indicate that Salvadorans with TPS that expired on March 9, 2025 have an automatic employment authorization extension through July 22, 2026. Per AILA, Salvadoran TPS holders and their employers should print or otherwise save this webpage as evidence of work permission for I-9 and other purposes.
Lebanon: On May 28, 2026, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security published in the Federal Register that TPS holders from Lebanon would receive an automatic six-month extension of TPS protections. The Federal Register Notice states that the Secretary of Homeland Security had not decided whether to extend or terminate TPS for Lebanon because “rapidly unfolding events in Lebanon in March 2026 impacted the Department's ability to conduct a thorough review of prevailing country conditions for the Secretary's timely consideration and determination.” TPS for Lebanon is now set to expire on November 27, 2026. Read the USCIS press release here.
Yemen: On May 1, 2026, a federal district court in New York temporarily blocked TPS termination for Yemen. TPS for Yemenis was set to end on May 4, 2026, but the court order indefinitely postpones the termination. See the updated information available on the USCIS website here.
USCIS Policy Memo Attempts to Restrict and Reframe In-Country Green Card Applications 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.”[1] For background, a noncitizen can apply for a green card either abroad at a U.S. consulate through the immigrant visa process or within the U.S. through the filing of an application to adjust status to permanent residency. The Policy Memo, cloaked as a reminder to USCIS officers, represents a departure from over 50 years of practice and ignores numerous statutory updates to the AOS process, some dating back to 1960, which makes clear that Congress views AOS and consular processing as neutral alternative methods to securing permanent residence status.
The Policy Memo claims, without citation, that “Congress expects aliens paroled into the United States or admitted into the United States as nonimmigrants to depart rather than pursue adjustment of status.” Based on the unsupported supposition that the statute prefers immigrant visa processing over AOS, USCIS now considers approval of an AOS application as an “extraordinary” act. Indeed, courts and immigration authorities have long held that there is nothing untoward or inherently dishonorable for a noncitizen to apply for adjustment of status if otherwise eligible. Brownell v. Carija, 254 F.2d 78 (DC Cir 1957). See also, Matter of Hosseinpour, 15 I&N Dec 191 (BIA 1975)
The Policy Memo is of questionable legality because it establishes new rules without following proper procedure, ignores long-established precedent guiding the exercise of discretion in the AOS process, and contravenes the detailed AOS statutory structure enacted by Congress. USCIS frames the Policy Memo as a restatement of law but the directive instructs officers to consider the very act of applying for AOS as an adverse factor--a new policy that has no basis in statute, regulations, or history. As courts have reminded the immigration service in the past, “[t]he mere fact that a statute gives the [agency] discretion as to whether to grant relief after application does not by itself give the [agency] the discretion to define eligibility for such relief.” Succar v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 8, 10 (1st Cir. 2005). Furthermore, the Policy Memo would likely fail even if USCIS followed the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"). The APA requires administrative agencies to pass regulations that are consistent with Congress’s intent, as evidenced by statutes and the congressional record. Contrary to USCIS’s assertions, the AOS statutory framework firmly establishes that Congress intended AOS to be generally available to nonimmigrants who are otherwise eligible to become permanent residents. In other words, AOS is not a “loophole” to allow noncitizens to evade consular processing but rather an established component of American immigration law that Congress carefully crafted and revised over several decades.[2]
USCIS’s news release announcing the Policy Memo further confuses matters by announcing that “[f]rom now on, [a noncitizen] who is in the U.S. temporarily and wants a Green Card must return to their home country to apply, except in extraordinary circumstances.” Nowhere in the Policy Memo does it provide that AOS would only be approved in extraordinary circumstances. Rather the memo juxtaposes AOS with what it believes is the ordinary process (consular processing).
Despite the Policy Memo’s legal shortcomings, the immigration bar does not yet know how USCIS officers will execute this new policy and what specific factors USCIS will use when determining whether someone meets the “extraordinary circumstances” standard set out in the press release. The new policy could force several hundred thousand nonimmigrants to apply for their green cards abroad annually, which would severely disrupt American families, key industries, and educational opportunities across the United States, in addition to the burden it places on noncitizen applicants. The policy would additionally exponentially strain the already-taxed immigrant visa processing backlog at our U.S. consulates.
In summary, the Policy Memo does not preclude individuals from filing for Adjustment of Status. However, applicants will likely face additional hurdles including Requests for Evidence on their applications. We have received early reports that USCIS field offices are enforcing the Policy Memo during adjustment of status interviews, which is typically the final step for applicants before their applications are approved or denied. It has been reported that USCIS officers have asked applicants questions such as -
Why did you apply for AOS instead of consular processing?
Are there any factors that would prevent you from pursuing consular processing?
Why did you decide not to return to your country when your period of authorized stay expired?
In the Policy Memo USCIS indicated that it may provide additional guidance on specific types of AOS applications and “discrete populations…to aid officers in identifying those applications that may or may not warrant this act of grace...”
We will provide updates on this Policy Memo as they become available.
-----
[1]U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Serv., PM-602-0199, Adjustment of Status is a Matter of Discretion and Administrative Grace, and an Extraordinary Relief that Permits Applicants to Dispense with the Ordinary Consular Visa Process (2026).
[2] Except for fiscal years 2020 and 2021, DHS statistics show that since fiscal year 2016 roughly the same number of individuals receive green cards through the AOS process as through consular processing.