DHS to propose New Rule ending 60-day grace period for H-1B workers
On August 6, 2026, DHS submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) a Proposed Rule to end the 60-day grace period for H-1B workers whose employment ends before their H-1B validity end date. The text of the Proposed Rule is not yet available, and the Rule is not yet effective. We will provide updates on this matter as they become available.
DHS proposed new $103k fee for cap-subject H-1B petitions
On August 25, 2026, DHS published a Proposed Rule that would create a new $103,265 filing fee for cap-subject H-1B petitions. DHS states that the fee “would serve as a dedicated revenue mechanism to help recover a portion of the federal government’s costs of administering the lawful immigration system, including activities carried out by DHS, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the U.S. Department of State (DOS), and the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL).”
This new fee would be due at the time of filing and would be in addition to all currently existing USCIS filing fees for H-1B cap petitions. Both the 20,000 “master’s cap” and 65,000 “regular cap” lotteries would be subject to the fee, but the fee would not apply to cap-exempt institutions and H-1B petitions that have already been counted in the lottery.
This Proposed Rule would all but decimate the H-1B cap lottery program, making it nearly impossible for businesses to reasonably hire H-1B workers. Litigation similar to the previous $100k H-1B tax lawsuits is expected, but it is likely that this $103k H-1B cap fee will be in effect for the FY2028 H-1B cap season.
DHS has given individuals, companies, organizations, and other entities 30 days (until September 24, 2026) to comment on the Proposed Rule. Iandoli Desai & Cronin highly encourages those who will be impacted by the Proposed Rule to submit a comment on the Federal Register website.
Read the Proposed Rule or submit a comment here.
SEVIS Broadcast Messages introduce guidance that substantially narrows what qualifies as valid CPT
On August 12 and August 24, 2026, the Student and Exchange Visitor Program published two Broadcast Messages to Designated School Officials (“DSOs”) at academic institutions which introduced guidance that severely restricts what SEVP counts as valid Curricular Practical Training (“CPT”), which is the employment authorization program that allows F-1 international students to pursue internships and other experiential learning opportunities during their academic programs. In the first Broadcast Message, SEVP shared a “reminder” that DSOs should only authorize CPT for students “if its absence would make the attainment of a degree an impossibility and if the work associated with CPT is required for all students pursuing that degree.” In a subsequent message on August 24, 2026, SEVP released guidance for DSOs to use when issuing CPT. This second message states that, in addition to the program needing to be “an integral part of an established curriculum,” any instance where the elective course is optional, “the integral and required aspects of CPT would not be met” and therefore issuing CPT would not be permissible. The message further states that the practical training must be required of all students in order for the CPT authorization to be valid.
Trump Administration sues Massachusetts and other states over state laws that provide in-state tuition to undocumented students
On August 10, 2026, The U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) sued the states of New York, Connecticut, and Vermont for allowing undocumented students to claim in-state tuition benefits. The Trump Administration claims that these laws “unconstitutionally discriminate against U.S. citizens who are not afforded the same reduced tuition rates or scholarships, create incentives for illegal immigration, and reward illegal aliens with benefits that U.S. citizens are not eligible for, all in direct conflict with federal law.” DOJ similarly sued the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on June 29, 2026 for its own in-state tuition benefit law. See our previous post here about similar Trump Administration lawsuits attacking in-state tuition for students with TPS and DACA .
Read the DOJ’s press release on the NY/CT/VT lawsuit here and Boston Globe reporting on the MA lawsuit here.
DOS publishes Proposed Rule on changes to J-1 program
On July 30, 2026, the Department of State (“DOS”) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to amend the following provisions of the J-1 Exchange Visitor Program:
Exchange visitors will only have 30 days to correct SEVIS errors, instead of 120 days;
DOS can now terminate an exchange visitor’s program if their visa is revoked or canceled, or if they engage in unauthorized employment;
Program sponsors will now be required to terminate a J-1 exchange visitor’s program if the J-1 visitor falsifies information or documents or does not provide full and completely truthful information.
See the Federal Register Notice here.
Coalition of education associations and union organizations sue Trump Administration over D/S Elimination Final Rule
On August 18, 2026, a coalition of education associations and union organizations filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts challenging the Department of Homeland Security’s elimination of Duration of Status (“D/S”) for F-1 and J-1 nonimmigrants. The lawsuit argues that the Trump Administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act because it failed to properly weigh the costs and benefits associated with eliminating D/S, did not meaningfully respond to the public comments submitted during the Proposed Rule phase, did not consider less burdensome alternatives, and did not adequately justify the rule based on the stated objectives. Plaintiffs also argued that DHS exceeded its statutory authority with the new Rule.
In conjunction with the lawsuit, plaintiffs have filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to pause the Final Rule from becoming effective on September 15, 2026. As of August 27, 2026, the federal district court has not yet ruled on the motion for a preliminary injunction.
For more information on the lawsuit, see the press release from the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration here.
Massachusetts passes the PROTECT Act: reinstates sensitive location protections (including hospitals and K-12 schools), requires worker notification of I-9 audits, and more.
On August 5, 2026, the Massachusetts State Legislature passed the PROTECT Act, which substantially increases protections for immigrants in Massachusetts and limits state cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. As a brief summary, the Act:
Reinstates sensitive location protections for K-12 public and charter schools, healthcare facilities, courthouses, and childcare facilities;
K-12 public and charter school protections take effect on September 1, 2026 or the first day of school, whichever is sooner.
Requires employers to notify employees of an I-9 audit within 48 hours of receiving the Notice of Inspection from ICE (effective immediately);
Severely restricts state and local government involvement in immigration enforcement actions;
Increases access to legal counsel for detained immigrants;
Allows parents and guardians to appoint standby guardianship for their children in the event of detention or deportation;
Enables individuals whose constitutional rights were violated by ICE and other federal officials to sue those officials in state court; and
Creates a state immigration commission to study immigration-related issues in Massachusetts.
These provisions take effect on a rolling basis between the Act’s signing and mid-February 2027.
For more information on the Act, click herefor a one-page summary of the Act from the Massachusetts Governor’s office or click here for a three-page summary from the Massachusetts Immigrant & Refugee Advocacy (“MIRA”) Coalition.
Update on DOS mass closure of consulates in Africa – implementation FAQs
As mentioned in last month’s newsletter, the Department of State is conducting a restructuring of visa operations across Africa, effective August 1, 2026. 25 posts are discontinuing immigrant and nonimmigrant visa processing, with these processes now exclusively taking place in 20 “hubs”. This policy change comes at a time when the Trump administration is already limiting or outright banning travel to the United States for many African nationals.
The Department of State has given additional information on the implementation of these changes. Below is a summary of the provided questions and answers:
Q: Is the State Department closing any consulates or embassies? No, all posts mentioned above will remain open.
Q: Which posts will serve as hubs? Routine immigrant and nonimmigrant visa services will be provided at the U.S. embassies and consulates in Abidjan, Accra, Addis Ababa, Cape Town, Dakar, Dar-Es-Salaam, Djibouti, Johannesburg, Kampala, Kigali, Kinshasa, Lagos, Lome, Luanda, Malabo, Monrovia, Nairobi, Port Louis, Praia, and Yaoundé.
Q: Which posts will now only provide American Citizen Services (ACS) and limited nonimmigrant visa services? Antananarivo, Asmara, Bamako, Bangui (emergency ACS only), Banjul, Brazzaville, Bujumbura, Conakry, Cotonou, Durban, Freetown, Gaborone, Harare, Juba, Libreville, Lilongwe, Lusaka, Maputo, Maseru, Mbabane, N’Djamena, Niamey, Nouakchott, Ouagadougou, Windhoek. There are no consular operations in Bangui and Khartoum.
Q: What type of visa services are no longer offered at the 25 non-hub posts? All routine visas services, for both nonimmigrant and immigrant visas, will no longer be offered. Visa services will likely only be available in exceptional cases at these posts.
Q: What should I do if I have an appointment scheduled at a post where routine visa services are being discontinued? The Department of State will be in contact with those affected by these changes via email.
Q: If I have paid the machine-readable visa fee at a non-hub post from August 1, but do not schedule an appointment by July 31, will my fee be refunded? No. You must schedule an appointment by July 31.
Q: Does this affect my current valid visa? No. This does not affect any currently valid visas.
Q: Where will applicants conduct their immigrant visa medical exams? Applicants can complete their medical exam in either their home country if available or in the designated hub.
New Trump Administration trend: DOS revokes visas for minor law enforcement encounters
Our office and numerous colleagues in the American Immigration Lawyers Association have noticed a new alarming trend with the State Department revoking the visas of foreign nationals who have had minor or not fully adjudicated law enforcement encounters. By visa, we mean the physical visa foil that is printed in a foreign national's passport, and not a foreign national's actual immigration status, making this solely an issue with a foreign national’s ability to return to the United States after international travel. In many of these situations, the law enforcement encounter would not typically be grounds for a visa revocation. These revocations are occurring both while foreign nationals are in the United States and after they have departed for international travel.
In light of this new trend, we would like to remind foreign nationals that there is always some level of risk present when traveling internationally. If you have had any prior encounters with law enforcement, this risk has risen significantly under the current administration. We will continue to provide updates on this trend as we receive them.
Trump Administration considers instituting $100,000 bond for IV consular processing
According to reporting from the Wall Street Journal, the Trump administration is considering imposing a $100,000 bond on immigrant visa applicants who are applying for a green card from abroad. The report’s sources claim that the bond would act as a form of collateral. Immigrants would only receive the money back once they become U.S. citizens. If enacted, the policy would expand upon the $5000 to $15,000 bond imposed on tourists and business visitors from roughly 50 countries, most of which are in Africa. While no official action has been taken, the policy coincides with the Trump administration’s broader efforts to restrict immigrants of limited means from entering and staying in the United States. We will continue to monitor any updates regarding the requirement of bond payments for immigrant visa applicants.
Please see the Wall Street Journal’s report here for more information.