DHS Proposes Additional H-1B Fee

WASHINGTON— The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is proposing to establish a $103,265 fee for all H-1B cap-subject petitions, including those eligible for the advanced degree exemption. The proposed fee would be paid at the time of filing and would be imposed in addition to all other applicable fees or payments. The proposed fee would generate revenue to recover a portion of the federal government’s costs for administering the lawful immigration system. These costs include adjudication of immigration benefits, fraud detection and national security vetting, systems modernization, records and fee collection operations, immigration court operations, consular visa processing, labor standards enforcement, and interagency coordination. DHS estimates the proposed fee would generate approximately $8.8 billion annually, based on a projected annual volume of 85,000 H-1B cap-subject petitions. “The proposed H‑1B fee is intended to recover the costs incurred across the federal government to adjudicate, vet, and support lawful immigration programs that otherwise must be funded by taxpayers,” said U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services spokesperson Zach Kahler. Under the proposed rule, the additional fee would not apply to H-1B petitions that are not subject to the cap, such as petitions filed by certain nonprofit research organizations, governmental research organizations, and institutions of higher education. The number of cap-subject H-1B visas (or grants of status) issued annually is limited to 65,000, with an additional 20,000 for aliens who have earned a master’s or higher degree from a U.S. institution of higher education. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

Fourth Circuit upholds injunction barring immigration arrests at some houses of worship

RICHMOND, Va. (CN) — The Fourth Circuit upheld Tuesday an injunction barring immigration officials from adopting a relaxed policy on enforcement actions in places of worship. The injunction, sought by groups of Quakers, Sikhs and the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, came after the U.S. Department of Homeland Security rescinded a longstanding policy of limiting immigration enforcement actions at or near houses of worship in January 2025. The injunction, granted by a Maryland-based federal judge, requires the department to revert to prior guidelines articulated in 2021 under Joe Biden. “This is an important victory for religious liberty,” Selden Smith, the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of Religious Society of Friends presiding clerk, said in a statement. “Our Quaker form of worship, in which all ministry emerges from the congregation, is strengthened by the presence of immigrants and threatened by the prospect of ICE raids.” The 2025 decision, announced in a memorandum from then-acting Secretary of Homeland Security Benjamine Huffman, instructed immigration officials to use discretion and common sense when deciding whether to conduct enforcement actions in sensitive areas. The groups argue the threat of arrest or harassment by federal agents has made some members fearful of attending worship services, infringing on their right to religious liberty. The Quakers, formerly known as the Religious Society of Friends, further claim the presence of armed law enforcement officers near meetinghouses violates their pacifist beliefs. Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Barbara Keenan agreed with the lower court that the new policy likely violates the plaintiffs’ rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and their First Amendment right to expressive association. “It reasonably can be predicted that many immigrants will decide not to attend the plaintiffs’ houses of worship because of the new policy,” the Barack Obama appointee said. The 2021 policy issued by then-Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas required agents to seek approval from their agency before taking an enforcement action near a house of worship except in circumstances including threats to national security or the pursuit of a personally observed border-crosser. The policy also instructed agents to avoid taking enforcement actions near places of worship to the fullest extent possible. The government spent much of its appeal arguing the groups lacked the standing required for injunctive relief. “Under the District Court’s reasoning, religious communities would have standing — and suffer constitutional injury — whenever the government takes any action that incidentally reduces attendance at their services, from the enforcement of criminal laws resulting in the arrest of congregants to economic policies that prompt individuals to work rather than worship,” the government wrote in its brief. “That result is plainly untenable.” The government argued the plaintiffs couldn’t prove the Huffman memorandum, rather than President Donald Trump’s other immigration enforcement initiatives, caused declines in attendance. Keenan ruled the plaintiffs need not show the Huffman memorandum was the sole reason for the decline in attendance. “The present plaintiffs showed that they already have experienced a decline in immigrant attendance at their houses of worship after issuance of the 2025 policy, and that immigrants, as well as other congregants, have stated that they are less likely to attend future services because of this policy,” Keenan said. Keenan cited the Supreme Court’s 2019 ruling in Department of Commerce v. New York. The Supreme Court ruled against the Trump administration, which sought to add a question to the 2020 census asking whether respondents are United States citizens. A group of states, counties and cities challenged the question on the theory that it would reduce participation and lead to an inaccurate population count. The high court rejected the government’s argument that the contentions were too speculative because they relied on third parties’ independent action. The majority held the plaintiffs provided enough evidence that noncitizen households have historically responded to the census at lower rates, making a decline in participation predictable because of the citizenship question. “The government’s argument in the present case about the predictable effect of the 2025 policy is even weaker than its losing argument in Department of Commerce,” Keenan said. The government also attacked redressability, arguing the injunction won’t cure the purported injuries because immigration officials can still conduct enforcement actions inside houses of worship under the 2021 guidance, albeit with more hurdles. Keenan held the plaintiffs cleared what she defined as a low bar of redressability. “As a matter of logic, at least some of the immigrants, who report they will not visit houses of worship because of the new directive articulated in the 2025 policy, will return to the plaintiffs’ houses of worship if DHS reinstates its old policy limiting enforcement actions at those locations,” Keenan said. Beyond standing, the government also disputed that the Huffman memorandum violates the plaintiffs’ rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. “The Huffman memorandum treats houses of worship the same as other common locations,” the government said. “It does not bar anyone from attending church, and plaintiffs’ parishioners’ alleged fear of immigration enforcement at plaintiffs’ houses of worship is no more than the incidental result of neutral and generally applicable government action.” Keenan disagreed with the assertion that the Huffman memorandum, which states “criminals will no longer be able to hide in America’s schools and churches to avoid arrest,” doesn’t aim to increase enforcement actions at places of worship. “The evidence showed that this increased threat of immigration enforcement at the plaintiffs’ houses of worship has resulted in substantial pressure on the plaintiffs to violate numerous beliefs,” Keenan said. The lower court declined to issue a nationwide injunction, instead limiting the ruling to the churches, meetinghouses and gurdwaras operated by the plaintiffs, including Quaker societies in Philadelphia, Baltimore and New York. U.S. Circuit Judge Pamela Harris, another Obama appointee, completed the panel. The government did not respond to a request for comment. “Religious freedom is not conditional, and it protects us when we gather to worship within a church, meeting house, temple or other house of worship,” Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which represented the plaintiffs, said in a statement. “This decision reaffirms that the Trump-Vance administration cannot force people of faith to abandon their ministries or make people worship under the constant threat of indiscriminate enforcement activities.” For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

University Groups File Immigration Lawsuit To Block Student Rule

University groups and labor unions have filed a lawsuit to block an immigration rule limiting F-1 and J-1 visa holders to fixed four-year periods. The final rule, published in July 2026, limits how long students can study in the United States without obtaining new permission from the U.S. government by eliminating the previous policy known as “duration of status.” Today, international students are admitted for a time to pursue a course of study, meaning they can generally stay in the United States after entering as an undergraduate, going on to a master’s and then a Ph.D., without relying on new government approvals. The new rule is part of the Trump administration’s policy to restrict all categories of legal immigration and certain temporary visa categories. The lawsuit seeks to overturn the rule before it is implemented. PROMOTED Economists and educators say the administration’s final rule will reduce international student enrollment, weaken American universities’ finances and deprive companies of talent. President Trump has spoken about the benefits of international students to America, but that’s not reflected in the rule. At U.S. universities, international students account for 80% of full-time graduate students in computer and information sciences, 75% in electrical and computer engineering, 62% in mathematics, and statistics and a majority in industrial engineering, civil engineering and mechanical engineering, according to National Science Foundation data. MORE FOR YOU ‘I Want Things To Always Be Right Between Us,’ Natalie Harp Reportedly Wrote To Trump Democratic Socialist Angie Nixon Scores Major Upset In Florida Senate Primary Northern Lights Could Be Visible From These 9 States Wednesday Frase By Forbes The plaintiffs in the case are the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration; NAFSA: Association of International Educators; Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts; American Federation of Teachers; Graduate Labor Organization, AFT Local 6516; The NewsGuild-CWA; International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America; and United Auto Workers Local 2322. Dana McSherry and Paul Hughes of McDermott Will & Emery are counsel for the plaintiffs. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. “The rule will severely undermine the contributions international students make to U.S. campuses, economies and national security,” said Fanta Aw, executive director and CEO of NAFSA: Association of International Educators, in a statement. CEO: C-suite news, analysis, and advice for top decision makers right to your inbox. Email Address Sign Up By signing up, you agree to receive this newsletter, other updates about Forbes and its affiliates’ offerings, our Terms of Service (including resolving disputes on an individual basis via arbitration), and you acknowledge our Privacy Statement. Forbes is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. “We are going to court to protect international students and scholars and to defend our member institutions’ ability to educate, train, and retain them,” said Miriam Feldblum, president and CEO of the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, in a statement. The video player is currently playing an ad. Immigration Lawsuit Filed To Block Duration Of Status Final Rule In a complaint and preliminary injunction motion filed on Tuesday, Aug. 18, plaintiffs ask for summary judgment and vacatur of the final rule. They argue the plaintiffs are likely to succeed and that the court should set aside the final rule. “For more than four decades, ‘duration of status’ has been the cornerstone of the United States’ framework for admitting international students, as well as exchange visitors and representatives of foreign media,” the plaintiffs argue in their complaint. “Under this proven system, F, J, and I nonimmigrants may remain in the country for the length of their program, not some arbitrary fixed end date. This flexible approach has allowed the United States to stay competitive in the global marketplace for academic talent, and rescues universities and immigration officials from thickets of red tape.” The plaintiffs state that the final rule “dismantles that framework, replacing duration of status with a rigid system of fixed admission periods arbitrarily capped at four years,” requiring “discretionary extensions of stay from an already overwhelmed federal immigration bureaucracy with no certainty that an extension necessary to complete the degree program they have invested in attaining will be granted.” In its replies to comments in the Federal Register, DHS demonstrated the lack of certainty students should have about the ability to extend their stay beyond four years, writing, “Students who demonstrate continued academic progress and meet F-1 eligibility criteria may apply for an extension of status to complete their programs, consistent with the realities of U.S. higher education.” (Emphasis added.) DHS stated students “may apply for an extension,” but does not promise or provide regulatory language to indicate that they have a high probability of receiving one. “The Final Rule takes a wrecking ball to many other provisions as well: it prohibits graduate students from changing academic programs, bars all students from pursuing degrees at the same or lower educational level after completing a prior degree, restricts transfers and program changes for undergraduates, and halves the post-completion grace period for F-1 students from 60 to 30 days,” according to the complaint. The plaintiffs state that the changes will be “catastrophic for universities, international students and scholars, and the Nation as a whole.” The new rule “will discourage foreign students and other nonimmigrants from coming to the United States, repelled by the intolerable prospect of losing lawful immigration status partway through their studies.” The complaint details the economic and other losses they expect the final rule to cause. They point to National Foundation for American Policy research by University of North Florida economics professor Madeline Zavodny that found, on average, for every one international undergraduate student enrolled at a public university, two additional U.S. students enroll as well. The complaint cites NFAP research that concluded approximately one-quarter of U.S. billion-dollar companies have at least one founder who entered as an international student. The plaintiffs also point to NAFSA research that found every three international students enrolled creates an additional U.S. job. “Commenters warned that if the predicted decline in enrollment—or anything close to it—in fact occurred, the consequences would be catastrophic for institutions of higher education and the Nation as a whole,” according to the complaint. “NAFSA and many other commenters noted that a study by three immigration experts (the “Clemens study”) estimated that within 10 years of eliminating duration of status, the economic costs of eliminating duration of status would reach $72-145 billion annually, dwarfing the total costs DHS quantified in the Proposed Rule (and the Final Rule). NAFSA referenced another study by the same experts predicting that, because of the importance of STEM international students to the U.S. economy, eliminating duration of status would contribute (alongside other policy changes) to lost productivity growth amounting to $220–439 billion per year by year 10.” The studies referenced in the comment were by Michael Clemens, Amy Nice and Jeremy Neufeld. DHS “acknowledge[d] that the rule may adversely affect U.S. competitiveness” but asserted that “DHS does not intend for the rule to cause significant impacts on enrollment,” according to the plaintiffs’ memorandum in support of its legal action. It cites case law to argue that it is “irrelevant” whether DHS intended to reduce enrollment significantly. The plaintiffs, citing earlier court decisions, state that “An agency … cannot simply state it ‘believes’ something to be true—against the weight of all the evidence before it—without further support.” An agency also “cannot ignore evidence that undercuts its judgment; and it may not minimize such evidence without adequate explanation.” The Arguments In The Immigration Lawsuit Plaintiffs argue the final rule and the changes it enacts are “arbitrary and capricious,” making it unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act. “They rest on purported justifications—national security concerns and preventing abuse of the system—that derive from scattered anecdotes and minuscule portions of the affected nonimmigrant population,” according to the complaint. “Simply put, DHS has failed to identify any concrete, systemic problem with the existing duration of status system that would justify a complete regulatory overhaul affecting more than two million nonimmigrants annually and likely to cost the Nation’s economy tens of billions of dollars each year.” The plaintiffs assert that DHS’s cost-benefit analysis is “fundamentally defective” because the agency acknowledged billions of dollars in costs but identified no quantified costs over ten years. It instead described “the purported benefits of the rulemaking only qualitatively—likely because those supposed benefits, which are based on nothing more than anecdote and make little sense even on their own terms, would be dwarfed by even the acknowledged costs of the Final Rule.” The plaintiffs make a strong argument in noting, “DHS also refused to quantify—and therefore largely disregarded altogether—the greatest harm of the Final Rule: the foreseeable decline in international student enrollment.” The complaint notes the administration received almost 22,000 comments. “Yet DHS’s responses to these comments were consistently conclusory, circular, and nonresponsive. That is, rather than the meaningful engagement with the regulated public and deliberative process mandated by the Administrative Procedure Act, DHS here appears to have engaged in an exercise of close-minded justification of a preordained result, batting away reams and reams of public commentary explaining why that result was misguided. But the APA demands more.” The plaintiffs cite DHS’s use of anecdotes that ignore the limited scope of its examples and its unwillingness to implement less disruptive alternatives. “The National Foundation for American Policy likewise noted that DHS’s reference to a small subset of nonimmigrants—’2,100 aliens [which] would equal 0.067% of the estimated 3.1 million people who may have entered the United States as F-1 students on visas between 2000 and 2010’—is unreliable, particularly where ‘DHS does not allege these 2,100 students have violated the law but only ‘the spirit of the law,’” according to the complaint. NFAP’s comment to the rule noted DHS could address longer-term students, to the extent they are an area of concern, by reviewing or requiring extensions for those in the United States for 8 or 10 years. NFAP noted this would address the issue DHS raised without burdening the other 99% of international students. “Regarding DHS’s reliance on visa overstay rates to argue that eliminating duration of status was necessary, numerous commenters noted that the overstay rates of F, J, and I non-immigrants are low to begin with and that ‘DHS itself found that with more time to update records, the apparent ‘overstay’ numbers dropped dramatically; by 42% over a 15-month update period for F, J, M visas,’” according to the complaint. The complaint notes, “Commenters also pointed out that DHS’s anecdotal examples were illogical. For instance, with respect to national security, the National Foundation for American Policy contended that ‘DHS’s argument is not credible’ as ‘[i]f individuals represent national security concerns, hoping that they apply for an extension after four years so that an immigration officer can review their application is a woeful or even absurd security measure. Under DHS’s reasoning, if the proposed rule is finalized, all a national security threat needs to do to avoid scrutiny is to complete their academic program quickly enough to prevent the need to file for an extension.’” NFAP provided several alternatives that DHS could have considered to address national security concerns. These alternatives included using intelligence to engage in enhanced surveillance or verification of individuals it identifies as a concern, including checking the activities and academic progress of such individuals every 6 months. DHS can conduct interviews or liaise with campus personnel on an ongoing basis to ensure that concerns about individuals or countries of interest are addressed. DHS could develop a new interagency task force that includes the FBI to gather information on international students and exchange visitors for counterintelligence and counterespionage purposes, or to address other national security issues. “These alternatives—and there are additional alternatives—would be more effective and are more plausible for addressing national security or fraud concerns than DHS relying on an adjudicator or other immigration specialist to review the academic progress of an international student or exchange visitor only if they request an extension of stay, which would likely be four years after individuals enter the United States,” noted the NFAP comment. Other commenters echoed this point. “As another commenter put it: ‘a true threat actor could easily plan their activities within a 4-year window or file an extension with perfectly clean paperwork. Meanwhile, thousands of innocent students would be treated as potential threats by default,’” according to the complaint. “And one commenting college remarked: ‘It seems irrational that an F-1 visa holder seeking to harm U.S. national security would suddenly become a more significant danger after the four-year cap as opposed to posing a danger immediately upon entry.’” The plaintiffs criticized DHS’s approach to comments. “In short, commenters addressed the few data points and anecdotes DHS offered to justify the Proposed Rule, and showed that each was lacking.” “In response to all these points, DHS asserts simply that it broadly ‘disagrees with the general premise of these comments,’” according to plaintiffs. “DHS notes that it ‘provided specific examples of fraud, national security concerns, and nonimmigrant students remaining in the United States for lengthy periods of time under the D/S framework,’ but does not discuss commenters’ points that these anecdotes and data points are unsupportive. Again, DHS entirely failed to consider aspects of commenters’ objections and provide a reasoned and reasonable response.’” A judge will need to issue a decision on the immigration lawsuit quickly if the rule is to be blocked before its effective date of Sept. 15. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

Trump Officials Now Restricting All Legal Immigration Categories

The Trump administration is restricting all legal immigration categories in an effort to reduce the flow of immigrants to America. The restrictions include freezes by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and State Department officials refusing to process applications abroad. The policies affect U.S. citizens sponsoring spouses, children and other family members to join them in America, as well as employers seeking workers. Analysts note the U.S. economy requires more workers to grow, but the administration's actions reduce the labor supply. Led by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, the chief architect of Donald Trump's immigration agenda, the policies are having a significant impact. "The Trump administration's policies will reduce legal immigration to the United States by an estimated 33% to 50%, or by 1.5 million to 2.4 million legal immigrants, by the end of Donald Trump's four-year term," according to a January 2026 National Foundation for American Policy analysis. An earlier NFAP report factored in labor contraction due to other immigration policies, including on deportation and ending Temporary Protected Status, and concluded, "Due to fewer workers in the labor force, the Trump administration's immigration policies would lead to a potential labor loss to the U.S. economy of approximately 19 million worker years by 2028 and 102 million worker years by 2035. The policies would reduce the projected cumulative goods and services produced in America by $1.9 trillion, or $5,612 per person, from 2025 to 2028, and by $12.1 trillion, or $34,369 per person, from 2025 to 2035." The analysis found the policies would also reduce economic growth by approximately one-third and increase the federal debt. Immigration Restrictions Cut Across Categories The Trump administration's policies affect all immigration categories. Trump officials have refused to process cases for approximately 55,000 Diversity Visas, a category the administration sought to eliminate during Donald Trump's first term. Instead of trying again to change or abolish the category through legislation, officials have barred anyone from entering or adjusting status as a Diversity Visa winner. Then-DHS Secretary Kristi Noem justified suspending the category by citing a shooter at Brown University who gained permanent residence in the Diversity Visa lottery eight years earlier. The individual killed two people at Brown, an MIT professor and himself. The Washington Post editorialized, "Taken together, the Trump policy seems to be: wait for something bad to happen, and then restrict as much immigration as possible." Applicants enter the lottery from countries underrepresented in other immigration categories. Israel, Australia, Finland, France and Japan are among the places with citizens eligible for the FY 2026 Diversity Visa lottery. Despite lawsuits, it appears the administration will run out the clock and nullify the category. "Selectees who do not receive visas or status by September 30, 2026, will derive no further benefit from their DV-2026 registration," according to the State Department. The Trump administration also has stopped all refugees from entering the United States except white people from South Africa. Allowing only white people to become refugees is a development even Trump's fiercest critics failed to predict before Trump's second term. NFAP estimates that by freezing and then reducing annual refugee admission levels to well below the 125,000 ceiling established in the last year of the Biden administration, the Trump administration reduced projected legal immigration by about 470,000 over four years. The most significant impact of a Dec. 16 proclamation will be on the individuals affected, employers that wish to hire them, U.S. citizens who want to sponsor close relatives for immigration and U.S. universities hoping to enroll these individuals as students. Under the proclamation, nationals of 39 countries cannot enter the United States, to varying degrees, on immigrant or temporary visas. The 39 countries include Nigeria, Africa's most populous nation, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Afghanistan and Haiti. On January 14, 2026, the administration announced, "The State Department will pause immigrant visa processing from 75 countries whose migrants take welfare from the American people at unacceptable rates. The freeze will remain active until the U.S. can ensure that new immigrants will not extract wealth from the American people." There is overlap between the 75 countries on the "freeze" list and the 39 countries in the Dec. 16 proclamation, totaling 93 countries across the two lists. According to the NFAP analysis, 481,460 individuals from the 93 countries received permanent residence in FY 2023, including 206,550 as spouses, children or parents in the Immediate Relatives of U.S. Citizens category. In June, a federal judge vacated the USCIS policy of holding and declining to adjudicate applications from many countries and categories, including asylum, in Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS. In July, a federal district court also denied the Trump administration's motion to stay the ruling. More in Politics A NATO commander says training Ukrainian soldiers is showing his forces that skills neglected after the Cold War matter again Business Insider 97 Forty-five Reapers lost as Iran's defenses expose a costly weakness TechRadar 696 House Republican on USS Abraham Lincoln concerns: ‘I don’t make much of it’ The Hill 673 Candle Light Inn trivago Ad Three class action lawsuits have upcoming motions or hearings challenging the policies. Red Eagle Law v. Edlow in the Northern District of California challenges the USCIS policy of holding and refusing to process applications for individuals from numerous countries. Curtis Morrison of Red Eagle Law notes in an interview that the Dorcas decision enjoins the USCIS holds, but the government has appealed that order. Judge Charles R. Breyer took the hearing off the calendar and will decide on the briefs, said Morrison. Medani et al. v Trump, also in the Northern District of California, challenges the Diversity Visa category suspension and holds. A hearing is set for August 27 with Judge Edward J. Davila. Syed et al. v Trump in the California Central District challenges the 75-country suspension. A hearing is set for September 21 with Judge John A. Kronstadt. Red Eagle Law is lead counsel on the three class actions. The government failed to respond to Red Eagle Law's motions for preliminary injunction and to certify the class by the August 10 deadline in Syed et al. v Trump. Judge Kronstadt wrote, "Consequently, on or before August 19, 2026, Defendants shall file any oppositions or notice of non-opposition to the Motions. If no oppositions are filed by that deadline, the Motions will be deemed unopposed." Using The Public Charge Rule To Restrict Immigration In July 2026, Trump officials published a final rule on "public charge." DHS rescinded the 2022 public charge ground of inadmissibility in favor of granting government officials greater freedom to deny individuals permanent residence in the United States. As a result, U.S. citizens will likely be blocked from sponsoring a spouse, child, parent or sibling based on speculation of future earnings or public benefits use. This will happen even though family-based immigrants experience rapid earnings growth and are typically ineligible for federal means-tested benefits for their first five years in the U.S. or longer. "Real earnings increased by 76% over 12 years for immigrants from countries where family sponsorship is the primary method of immigrating to the United States," according to an NFAP study by economist Mark Regets. "The public charge rule would provide even more discretion to officers to deny adjustment of status applications in light of the USCIS memo that indicates that adjustment of status requires extraordinary discretion," according to an analysis by immigration attorneys Cyrus Mehta and Damira Zhanatova. "The Trump administration has been open about disfavoring immigration to the U.S., whether legal or illegal. The new public charge rule provides the Trump administration another powerful tool to restrict legal immigration to the U.S." In a new Board of Immigration Appeals decision, the Trump administration has stated that individuals will no longer be allowed to leave the country on advance parole and reenter the United States with lawful admission. This could prevent a DACA recipient from marrying a U.S. citizen and gaining permanent residence after leaving on advance parole and returning with a lawful entry, notes Charles Kuck of Kuck Baxter. In an effort to meet arrest quotas, Immigration and Customs Enforcement is arresting people with pending applications, including individuals sponsored for permanent residence by their U.S. spouse. Miriam Jordan of the New York Times reported on a Russian-born woman with a green card application pending after applying for asylum and marrying an American citizen. ICE arrested her off a domestic flight and placed her in detention. "Trump 2.0 is actively choosing to persecute a U.S. citizen and his future-citizen spouse, while diverting law enforcement resources away from actual lawbreakers," said Doug Rand, a former DHS official, in a statement. Employer-sponsored immigrants are also facing new problems. A proposed rule may price many H-1B visa holders and employment-based immigrants out of the U.S. labor market by changing prevailing wage levels. A rule placed on the regulatory agenda to change labor certification could make it more difficult for employment-based immigrants to obtain permanent residence by expanding employer obligations for PERM or permanent labor certification. Trump officials have significantly reduced legal immigration in 2026 and will continue to do so in 2027 and 2028. American citizens barred from living in the United States with close family members, including spouses, will bear the brunt of the policies, along with the economy. "What amazes me about Trump's mass deportation agenda is how much of the focus and financial resources are really on eliminating legal immigration," said Curtis Morrison of Red Eagle Law. "And they're not embarrassed about that." This article was originally published on Forbes.com View comments (79) Terms and Privacy PolicyYour Privacy ChoicesCA Privacy NoticeAbout Our Ads Up next The Independent Follow Trump has this to worry about if Congress flips in the midterm elections John Bowden Tue, August 18, 2026 at 3:14 PM PDT 5 min read Add Yahoo as a preferred source to see more of our stories on Google. Add Yahoo on Google 793 Key takeawaysPowered by Yahoo Scout. Yahoo is using AI to generate key points from this article. This means the info may not always match what’s in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Donald Trump fears Democrats regaining power in Congress, which could lead to a third impeachment effort and the reshaping of government. See more Donald Trump has told voters his greatest fear: Should Democrats return to power in both chambers of Congress next year, he'll face a third impeachment effort, watch Democrats pack the Supreme Court and see his enemies end the legislative filibuster. What prominent Democrats on the Hill are promising, however, is something more akin to a death by a thousand cuts, as the constraints of Congress close around him. November's midterms are increasingly looking like they'll result in the worst possible outcome for Republicans: The destruction of two congressional majorities, including a hard-fought Senate majority that the GOP won with a crushing victory in the 2024 election cycle and election analysts, at the time, warned could require a multi-cycle effort by Democrats to undo. The 2026 map shifted quickly under Republicans' feet, however, driven by retirements, the interference of the president, and the recruitment of formidable Democratic candidates in red-purple states like Texas and Alaska. Just listen to Sen. Jim Justice, a conservative Republican, who warned his party in comments to reporters this week that the ongoing war with Iran was doing more damage to Republicans than they realized. "This situation in Iran is causing repercussions like you can't imagine," Justice told reporters on Monday, according to Punchbowl News. He added that his party was "scared to death about the midterms". But while the president warns of the expansion of a massive progressive effort to reshape government if his party loses, Democrats on key committees say that there are better ways to rein in Trump's more radical urges while still leaving open the possibility of taking positive action to reverse some of the reshaping that has already occurred, thanks to the efforts of Elon Musk's DOGE and the Trumpification of the Department of Justice. Rep. Grace Meng, a New York congresswoman and the senior Democrat on the Justice subcommittee of the powerful Appropriations panel, told The Independent that under a Democratic speaker, her committee and the chamber's Oversight panel would work together to halt efforts like the planned DoJ "anti-weaponization" fund, and the use of the Justice Department as the president's personal "criminal defense firm". "Oversight and appropriations go hand in hand," said Meng. "The process on the appropriations committee is not the most exciting necessarily, but we've been able to hold them accountable, and sometimes with our bipartisan Republican House colleagues." Meng said that the Appropriations process could be used to re-establish oversight on many parts of the administration which saw those guardrails eroded or removed over the course of 2025 and early 2026. Rep. Grace Meng said that Democrats can use the appropriations process to rein in Donald Trump (Getty) Rep. Grace Meng said that Democrats can use the appropriations process to rein in Donald Trump (Getty) "We will, for example, make sure that we are ramping up oversight for agencies like ICE," said the congresswoman. "It's not my subcommittee, but it's also part of the appropriations process." "There are a lot of ways, not necessarily the most sexy ways and the most exciting, but this is an effective way that we can hold them accountable." And the congresswoman predicted that Republicans would show more of an appetite to work with Democrats come January, especially if the president's approval ratings continue to slide, including among GOP voters. She cautioned, however, that GOP support, like the bipartisan opposition that emerged against the anti-weaponization fund, came with an asterisk attached. More in Politics Judge swapped in Trump's defamation case against BBC "I think it depends on, quite frankly, the way that let's say an amendment or a rider is written," said Meng. "Like the language that we use, so that it's not something that sounds like it's only targeting President Trump, but that would apply to all presidents in the future." On the issue of the actual investigations Democrats plan to launch, the list of targets is long. Among the most prominent are the Trump family's crypto schemes and the other lucrative financial dealings that caused his family's net worth to explode in 2025, the pardons issued by Trump after he took office for a second time, and the Trump administration's handling of the Epstein case — including the transfer of Ghislaine Maxwell to a lower-security facility around the time she spoke with Todd Blanche, the new attorney general. Plenty of other potential targets could follow. Democrats are still working to prevent Trump and Todd Blanche, his attorney general, from implementing a fund that could benefit January 6 rioters (AFP/Getty) Democrats are still working to prevent Trump and Todd Blanche, his attorney general, from implementing a fund that could benefit January 6 rioters (AFP/Getty) Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat, served on the Oversight panel during Trump's first term and is now set to clash with Blanche on the Judiciary panel (Reuters) Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat, served on the Oversight panel during Trump's first term and is now set to clash with Blanche on the Judiciary panel (Reuters) Democrats will likely find the Justice Department unwilling to enforce subpoenas they issue for administration officials or Trumpworld allies, but at the same time the White House and broader administration are unlikely to abandon the Hill entirely. Meng and Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat serving as ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, both pointed to the firings of Trump Cabinet officials after appearances in congressional hearings as proof that their party could conduct effective oversight of the administration even if the DoJ wasn't, as Meng put it, a "willing partner". Raskin, who formerly served on the Oversight panel during Trump 1.0, is now one of the leading Democratic voices in the House against the potential DoJ fund to reward January 6 rioters. "Even in the minority, we have been playing offense against the Administration on a daily basis. The House Judiciary Committee has conducted oversight hearings with two cabinet secretaries—Attorney General Bondi and Secretary Noem. Both were fired shortly after Judiciary Committee Democrats powerfully exposed and condemned the corruption and lawlessness pervading the work of these two cabinet officials," Raskin told The Independent in an emailed statement. "Our efforts in this Congress will continue and expand next Congress. We already have a strong team of investigators and experienced counsel engaged in this work, and that capacity will expand significantly in the Majority." For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

ICE detained a Venezuelan soccer pro. His case shows the immigration backlog crisis

Homero Calderón used to spend his days training at the gym and on the soccer pitch. The professional soccer player built a long career, playing for clubs in Venezuela, Portugal, Cyprus and, most recently, Italy. But for the last five months, Calderón has spent his days inside an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center in Folkston, Ga. He's a father of two U.S. citizens, ages 1 and 3. Stuck in detention, his family says he's growing despondent. He recently missed his daughter's first birthday. "I've been 17 years with Homero," his wife Daniela Molina said in a video published on social media. "I had never heard him cry or ask for help like he has." Calderón was driving to a car shop in Florida in late February when he was pulled over for speeding by the Marion County Sheriff's Office and arrested for driving without a valid Florida license, the Department of Homeland Security told NPR in a statement. Molina said her husband had a valid international driving permit. Calderón was eventually transferred to ICE custody. He's been in detention ever since. In a statement to NPR, DHS said Calderón had "permission to stay until September 5, 2025" but that "he overstayed his welcome in violation of our nation's laws." But Calderón was in the middle of two pending immigration cases when he was detained: he had applied on Aug. 25, 2025 for an extension of his tourist visa, and had also applied for a visa for people with extraordinary abilities. Called EB-1A visa, it allows people with extraordinary ability or achievement in fields including athletics, science, arts, education, and business to stay in the U.S. with a green card. Neither open case kept him from being swept up in President Trump's immigration crackdown. His case represents a broader pattern, said Shev Dalal-Dheini, the senior director of government relations at the American Immigration Lawyers Association. "His case is symbolic of so many other individuals who are stuck in processing backlogs at USCIS (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) — individuals doing the right thing by filing their applications timely," Dalal-Dheini said. "But it's taking many, many, many months, if not in certain instances years, to have a case processed." She believes the slow pace is by design. "It's an easy way for the government to meet their quota to detain and deport individuals when they know who individuals are because they've done the right thing and applied for something," Dalal-Dheini said. The backlog of cases at USCIS now stands at a staggering 11.3 million pending cases. The backlog was already high before President Trump took office, but since 2025 it has increased by more than 1.6 million cases, according to an analysis by the American Immigration Council. And even though USCIS has received fewer immigration petitions, it also processed about 41% fewer cases at the beginning of the 2025 fiscal year, the group found. "As the government takes longer to process applications, that means people are vulnerable to being arrested by ICE because they don't have a set status approved by the federal government," said Adriel Orozco, a senior policy counsel with the American Immigration Council. Homero Calderón, second from left to right, poses with his family. Ramón Calderón / Homero Calderón, second from left to right, poses with his family. According to Homero Calderón's family, the man has never committed a crime in the U.S. or in any other part of the world. NPR found no evidence of any past or pending criminal cases. In the past, people like Calderón with pending USCIS applications or immigration court cases weren't priorities for detention. "The government would allow those individuals to continue to follow that process," Orozco said, adding that going after them is "a waste of resources because at the end of the day, those individuals could be potentially approved for those statuses." But Orozco says under the Trump administration that has shifted. Now every immigrant — despite the status of their immigration case — could be detained. Waiting for his release Ramón Calderón told NPR his brother Homero is disciplined, a skill honed after years of playing soccer professionally. "When he was 2-years-old I remember when I used to play, he was running around the field," Ramón Calderón said. At 16, Homero Calderón signed his first professional contract with Sport Club Guaraní in Venezuela, his brother said. Most of his career he's played midfield. He last played professional soccer last year for the Italian team A.S.D. Arboris Belli 1979. Throughout his life, his brother said, Homero Calderón has always followed the rules and laws no matter in which country he was. That's what he did when he came to the U.S., Ramón Calderón said. "He followed every single step of the process legally to obtain the legal status," he said. Ramón Calderón himself is a U.S. citizen. He said his brother and mother have been coming to the U.S. since they were little kids. They never overstayed their visas, he said. "We've done everything under the legality of what the immigration laws are," Ramón Calderón said. "So it's very, very hard and very difficult for our family to see him go through this nightmare." It's unclear for how long Homero Calderón will remain in detention. In a statement, DHS said Calderón will remain in ICE custody "pending the outcome of his immigration proceedings." His brother hopes a resolution comes soon. "We thought his case was strong, that we will get him out on bail and then follow his process and everything was going to be good there, but it's been six months," Ramón Calderón said. "We just need his process to have an answer, a final answer on his visa and his residency case. Whatever that result is going to be, we will accept." For more infotmation, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

The Trump administration is reducing legal pathways for immigrant kids to stay in the US

The Trump administration is narrowing the options for undocumented children to stay in the United States — putting up procedural hurdles that make it increasingly difficult for them to get either residency or asylum. In recent months, the Trump administration has issued administrative rulings preventing immigration courts, which are part of the executive branch, from delaying cases if children are waiting on in-process visas, and reassessing whether all children who came to the United States by themselves can be classified as unaccompanied minors. While those moves have been public, immigration courts are now invoking these rulings particularly broadly as reasons for quick deportations. Lawyers for some of these children argue the application by the courts has been overly broad and essentially steamrolls over the children’s legal rights. “It’s a full on assault on children,” said Kel White, who leads public engagement and training efforts at the Acacia Center for Justice, which until last month, upon the expiration of its contract with the government, oversaw the representation of thousands of children in immigration court. “This is a cruel and massive orchestration to strip children of their rights to have a fair and child-centered proceeding.” The efforts in the aggregate seem poised to erode a long-held principle of the immigration system — that children are uniquely vulnerable and as such are entitled special rights and procedural safeguards. The Department of Justice’s Board of Immigration Appeals, an internal body that reviews cases from the nation’s immigration courts, has prevented judges from pausing deportation cases while children pursue Special Immigrant Juvenile Status visas — which are given to children who have suffered abuse or neglect. The board argued that the multi-year State Department backlog in issuing those visas makes waiting unfeasible. And broadly speaking, some immigration judges are beginning to reassess whether children immigrants who entered the country by themselves can be classified as unaccompanied minors if they were later reunited with their parents in the United States. Changing that would block them from a number of benefits, including the ability to have their asylum cases heard by staff at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services who are better trained to interview children. That alone could affect the adjudication of thousands of children’s asylum claims. “The vast majority of our kids are seeking relief through SIJS or asylum,” said Jennifer Hojaiban, a senior policy adviser at Kids in Need of Defense, one of the largest nonprofits representing unaccompanied children in deportation proceedings. “We’re going to have to figure out these strategies to appeal these decisions. And someone’s going to have to bring this to federal court and try to get a ruling that constrains the immigration judges.” Already, those rulings are affecting deportation cases working their way through the courts. At the Executive Office for Immigration Review courthouse in Annandale, Virginia, last week, a judge employed those jurisprudential limits in a number of cases. Judge Paul McCloskey, who held master calendar hearings in nearly 50 cases Wednesday and Thursday of last week, cited these recent legal changes as rationales not to issue continuances and in some cases used them to preliminarily deny asylum claims. The Executive Office for Immigration Review, which oversees the nation’s immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals, declined to comment on individual cases, but did say in a statement that “unnecessary delay hurts both aliens with meritorious claims and the American public who wish to see aliens with non-meritorious claims removed as quickly as possible. As it continues to add new immigration judges, EOIR will continue to make scheduling adjustments to ensure all cases are handled in a timely and lawful manner.” The Justice Department added in a separate statement that “reducing the immigration court backlog remains one of the highest priorities for this administration” and that it “is restoring integrity to our immigration system by hearing cases fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly, in accordance with the law.” “Board of Immigration Appeals decisions reflect straightforward interpretations of clear statutory language,” the statement continued. “The BIA is now recommitted to following the law and fulfilling its core adjudicatory mission.” The restrictions imposed so far affect a large swath of children. Adults have a series of paths to obtaining legal status — including marrying a U.S. citizen or permanent resident or finding an employer that will sponsor them — that children do not. The Special Immigrant Juvenile Status Visa is available to unauthorized immigrant children who have a protective order from a state probate court affirming that they have been abused, abandoned or neglected by their parents. Lawyers have previously asked immigration judges to halt cases while their clients await those visas, which are capped under federal law. The March ruling on delaying cases means that some children who were approved in 2023 for that visa may be subject to deportation, even though they could receive it from the State Department in the coming months, especially since the department has improved its pace of processing those applications. As of now, the State Department’s visa bulletin says that it is only dealing with approved visa applications dated on or before Oct. 15, 2022. The State Department did not respond to requests for comment. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services directed POLITICO to the Justice Department. Lawyers in many cases in Annandale last week objected to McCloskey’s interpretations of the law. The attorneys argued that the visa bulletin changes regularly, and sometimes dramatically, and that an immigrant’s status as an unaccompanied child is not a fluid designation that can change during proceedings. The judge noted their objections for the record, but at no point diverged from his interpretation of the Board of Immigration Appeals rulings. Some children in removal proceedings theoretically qualify for a “T visa” if they can prove they were a victim of human trafficking. That visa would allow them to stay for four years in the U.S. and grants a path to a green card. But the standard for proving that is high. Watch: The Conversation Dasha Burns presses Mike Johnson on the economy, Iran and Trump's agenda Play Video37:20 Dasha Burns presses Mike Johnson on the economy, Iran and Trump's agenda In the meantime, advocacy groups are working with other nonprofits to compile evidence of bias from immigration judges against children in removal proceedings and have begun suing the federal court using habeas corpus petitions to secure the release of children who have spent several months in Health and Human Services facilities. While Board of Immigration Appeals rulings can be appealed to the federal circuit courts, those appeals will likely only further strain already stretched immigration lawyers. Hojaiban warned that recent disruptions to federal funding for the network of organizations representing these children pro bono may further limit the ability to appeal decisions, even if they believe the Board of Immigration Appeals is wrong. “We may have to close those cases even if there are grounds for appeal,” Hojaiban said. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

ACLU, others urge judge to block Trump's latest birthright citizenship orders

Groups say Trump executive orders should not undermine earlier injunction Supreme Court found Trump's original executive order unconstitutional White House says executive orders comply with Supreme Court decision Aug 11 (Reuters) - The ACLU and other groups ​asked a federal judge to block U.S. President Donald Trump from enforcing new executive orders to ‌limit the number of people eligible for birthright citizenship. In a Tuesday court filing, the groups called Trump's orders an improper attempt to evade the U.S. Supreme Court's June 30 rejection of his effort to end birthright citizenship for children whose parents were not American citizens or legal permanent ​residents, known as green card holders. The Reuters Daily Briefing newsletter provides all the news you need to start your day. Sign up here. The Supreme Court said Trump's original executive order, issued the day the ​Republican began his second White House term last year, violated the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. "Despite the ⁠Supreme Court’s clear direction, the President continues to claim for himself the power to identify categories of children ​whose citizenship he intends to deny," the filing said. "The court should underscore that the government may not strip away class ​members’ citizenship through any executive orders or other similarly flawed assertions of executive power over birthright citizenship." A White House spokesperson said: "The Trump Administration has always followed court orders. All actions taken by the President since the recent Supreme Court rulings are consistent with the holdings and ​analysis set forth by the court.” Limiting birthright citizenship has been a top priority in Trump's immigration crackdown. Trump's latest orders ​from August 6 take particular aim at "birth tourism," in which women travel to the United States to give birth so their children ‌can ⁠obtain automatic citizenship. Citizenship would be denied to children whose parents work for foreign governments in the United States, engage in fraud to obtain citizenship, or are classified as "alien enemies." TRUMP CALLED BIRTH TOURISM A DISGRACE Speaking in the Oval Office on Thursday, Trump called the Supreme Court decision "very unfortunate" and said "people are building businesses around" birth tourism. "It's a disgrace," Trump said. "They're buying ​their way in, and we're ​not going to let ⁠it happen." Trump's original executive order targeted immigrants in the country illegally or even temporarily, including students and people with work visas. Tuesday's filing in the federal court in Concord, New Hampshire, ​asks the presiding judge to clarify that Trump's latest orders do not threaten the ​citizenship of children ⁠protected by an earlier injunction. "President Trump may not like the fact that birthright citizenship is a constitutional right," Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, said in a statement. "That is really beside the point. It’s well past time ⁠for these ​illegal and cruel attacks on children’s citizenship to end.” The Center for ​Immigration Studies, which supports less immigration, estimated in 2020 that between 20,000 and 26,000 mothers enter the country for "birth tourism" annually. There were 3.61 million U.S. ​births in 2025, U.S. government data show. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

USCIS To Require Electronic Filing of Forms: Strengthening National Security

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is introducing an interim final rule (IFR) that allows U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to mandate electronic filing, or e-filing, for certain immigration forms. Under this IFR, USCIS may require future filings of any immigration form that has been available for e-filing for at least 180 days to be submitted online. USCIS will notify the public on its website at least 60 days before requiring e-filing of a form. Filers must use an online account to submit an immigration form to USCIS, either by completing the form online or by uploading a PDF of the completed form and related evidence. This initiative will eliminate reliance on the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s physical lockbox services and accelerate the shift to electronic fee payments. The transition should deliver substantial cost savings and greater efficiency for the federal government. By making data easier to receive, store, and access than with paper forms, e-filing enhances fraud detection, streamlines identity management, and improves national security screening through faster data access and expanded analytical capabilities. E-filing also reduces errors, incomplete submissions, and application decision times. The adjudication process becomes more secure, more transparent, and more efficient. Electronic filing is already common for many USCIS forms. This is not a new process for aliens to file electronic benefit requests. Requestors who cannot file electronically may request a waiver. Waivers are granted at USCIS’ discretion for undue hardship. This Interim Final Rule is effective on Aug. 11, 2026, and DHS will consider public comments submitted on or before Oct. 13, 2026. For more information, see the interim final rule.

Trump’s immigration crackdown has detained more than 50 military spouses and parents

President Donald Trump’s administration has detained dozens of parents and spouses of active-duty U.S. troops as it rolls back immigration protections for military families to pursue its mass deportation agenda, an Associated Press investigation found. More than 50 parents and spouses of active-duty service members have been detained since Trump took office for a second term, and at least six have been deported and one self-deported, the AP found in the first accounting of such detentions, which the government does not track. At least eight immediate family members of U.S. service members remain in federal immigration custody. Parents and spouses of people in the military have generally been shielded from deportation under bipartisan consensus for decades. But the AP found they’re now routinely being detained for months as they try to adjust their legal status through the policies available to service members’ close relatives and even as the military continues to recruit by advertising immigration benefits for enlistees’ families. Experts warn that the reversal could undermine military preparedness even as the U.S. is at war in Iran. It’s left military members without emotional support and caretakers for their children, delayed deployments and forced some to take leave. Army Sgt. Hedar Leonel Turcios Juarez, whose wife Cristy has been detained by immigration authorities, poses for a photo at home in El Paso, Texas, July 21, 2026. (AP Photo/Ryan Romero) Army Sgt. Hedar Leonel Turcios Juarez, whose wife Cristy has been detained by immigration authorities, poses for a photo at home in El Paso, Texas, July 21, 2026. (AP Photo/Ryan Romero) “How can I even focus on my military career because I have to worry about how my wife is doing?” said Army Sgt. Hedar Leonel Turcios Juarez, who was stationed in Fort Bliss, Texas, when his wife was detained outside a Walmart in front of their 6-year-old daughter in July. A handful of detentions of service members’ spouses have prompted public backlash and led to intervention by Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin to secure their release. Related Stories Takeaways from AP’s review of military families detained under Trump’s immigration crackdown Takeaways from AP’s review of military families detained under Trump’s immigration crackdown 2 MIN READ Detainees tell their lawyer an ICE officer shot a Houston driver through a passenger window Detainees tell their lawyer an ICE officer shot a Houston driver through a passenger window 3 MIN READ Lawsuit says US illegally shared confidential information on Iranian asylum seekers with Iran Lawsuit says US illegally shared confidential information on Iranian asylum seekers with Iran 3 MIN READ The Department of Homeland Security has said it does not compile data on these cases. The AP obtained information by analyzing thousands of federal court records compiled by Habeas Dockets, a project run by the Immigration Justice Transparency Initiative; by reviewing existing media coverage; and by verifying information with family members and attorneys. The actual number is likely much higher than the 52 cases AP found. The AP asked for comment from DHS on each case, including the individuals’ immigration and criminal history. The agency did not provide specific information about the majority of cases but noted that at least seven people had been removed from the U.S. before, at least eight had removal orders and at least two had drunken-driving or drug-related convictions. “DHS and ICE value the contributions of all those who have served in the U.S. military,” DHS said in a statement. “U.S. military service alone does not automatically grant lawful immigration status, or exempt aliens from the consequences of violating U.S. immigration laws.” The Pentagon declined to comment on the AP’s findings. Sign up for Morning Wire: Our flagship newsletter breaks down the biggest headlines of the day. Email address Email address Sign up Service members are losing their safety net Air Force Tech. Sgt. Wendy Gbeve, 30, said she hasn’t had a good night’s sleep since her father, Luis Alberto Ramirez Zavala, was detained by immigration officials last month. Gbeve was there when he was arrested at a routine interview with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in Missouri about his pending application for legal status. She spent hours refreshing the USCIS page to track where the government was taking her father: from a county jail in Missouri to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility in Texas. Finally, roughly two weeks after he was detained, she found out he had been deported to his native Mexico. “It’s the most frustrating, helpless feeling,” Gbeve said. Have a news tip? Tell our investigators AP’s global investigative team accepts tips securely and confidentially. Choose the method that works best for you. Email investigative@ap.org Signal +1 (202) 281-8604 Secure and confidential Gbeve said ICE still hasn’t informed her family why her father was removed so quickly. Ramirez Zavala spent most of his life in the U.S. working as a ranch hand in rural Illinois. Ramirez Zavala’s wife of 30 years, a legal permanent resident, is considering returning to Mexico to be with her husband. For Gbeve, whose husband is also in the Air Force, that would leave no one to watch their children, ages 2 and 4, if both were deployed. “That would be our entire safety net,” she said. Military members have had to take leave or delay a deployment Some service members have been left caring for children alone. Army Staff Sgt. Alexis Jaramillo, an aviation operations specialist who has served for more than a decade, said he would normally be involved in training soldiers at Fort Polk, Louisiana. Instead, he is on administrative leave, caring for his 5-year-old stepson, Noah, after his Brazilian wife, Maisa Lopes Eliaser, was detained in early July. It happened during what the family thought was a routine appointment at a USCIS office in Alabama. Eliaser arrived in the U.S. on a tourist visa in 2019, and the couple was trying to change her status. Army Staff Sgt. Alexis Jaramillo visits his wife, Maisa Lopes Eliaser, a Brazilian national who is being detained by ICE, at the South Louisiana ICE Processing Center in Basile, La., Sunday, Aug. 2, 2026. (AP Photo/Joseph Vidrine) Army Staff Sgt. Alexis Jaramillo visits his wife, Maisa Lopes Eliaser, a Brazilian national who is being detained by ICE, at the South Louisiana ICE Processing Center in Basile, La., Sunday, Aug. 2, 2026. (AP Photo/Joseph Vidrine) Immigration officials asked Jaramillo and his stepson to leave the room. Minutes later, they were told that Eliaser had been detained. The next time they saw her was inside a detention facility. “It is really overwhelming because I need to take care of my kid by myself. No one is here to help me out,” Jaramillo said. At least one active-duty soldier halted her imminent deployment after her husband was detained by immigration officers, leaving no one to care for their then-5-year-old son, court records show. A judge eventually ordered the husband released. Trump’s policy is a reversal even from his first administration A new policy, implemented in April 2025, states that “military service alone does not exempt aliens from the consequences of violating U.S. immigration laws.” Experts in military immigration law said this marks a stark shift from previous administrations across the political spectrum, including Trump’s first administration. Dan Gividen, who served as ICE’s deputy chief counsel from 2016 to 2019 under Trump, represents a soldier’s father who has been in ICE custody for more than eight months. He said that during his time as an ICE prosecutor, immigration authorities rarely detained service members’ immediate family members unless they had committed violent crimes. “We would not place them into removal proceedings, period. That’s insane,” Gividen said. “The fact that they’re doing it now is just outrageous.” ICE previously generally canceled past removal orders and allowed parents or spouses of troops to adjust their legal status, said Margaret Stock, an immigration attorney and retired lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve. She said that’s because the government wanted to ensure troops focused on their duties. “It’s the same thing that happens if you don’t provide healthcare to the troops, or you don’t provide housing to the troops,” she said. If soldiers are preoccupied with detained or deported family, “they’re not concentrating on their job anymore.” Even some congressional Republicans who are otherwise largely supportive of Trump’s aggressive immigration crackdown have pushed for the release of service members’ relatives. “The immigration system is failing the honorable and good Americans,” Florida Republican Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar said at a news conference in July advocating for the release of the wife of retired Staff Sgt. Wilmer Trujillo, who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. DHS said she illegally reentered the U.S. after being deported in 2005. Her attorney says they are seeking to rescind the removal order because she was not provided proper notice of the hearing that led to it. Although DHS said it does not have data on active-duty troops, it has released figures for former service members, who also qualify for immigration benefits along with their immediate families. From Jan. 20, 2025, through Jan. 26, 2026, immigration authorities detained 125 military veterans — placing 34 into removal proceedings — and arrested more than 150 immediate family members, DHS said in a letter to several Democratic senators. Anh Dung Cong Tran, known as “Tony,” had both a father and son who served in the military. Tran came to the U.S. in 1990 through a program for children of American military personnel born in Vietnam. Tran, 56, was deported in July, having lived in the U.S. for decades with regular check-ins with immigration authorities after an assault conviction soon after his arrival. His son Antonio Tran said his father persuaded him to enlist in the military in 2022. “He has a totally different view on America now,” said Tran, who was discharged as an Army specialist in March after a serious injury. “Whatever your family have done for this country, to keep this country safe, to give the people, Americans, the freedom to walk around and to sleep safe at night, well, we don’t care about that,” Tony Tran told the AP in a video call from Vietnam. Benefits for service members include what’s known as parole-in-place Military recruiters tout immigration benefits for troops’ families as a selling point to enlist. Army Sgt. Hedar Leonel Turcios Juarez, whose wife Cristy has been detained by immigration authorities, holds a necklace he gave to her at home in El Paso, Texas, July 21, 2026. (AP Photo/Ryan Romero) Army Sgt. Hedar Leonel Turcios Juarez, whose wife Cristy has been detained by immigration authorities, holds a necklace he gave to her at home in El Paso, Texas, July 21, 2026. (AP Photo/Ryan Romero) One of the military’s most highly advertised immigration benefits is “military parole-in-place,” which allows the spouses, children and parents of active-duty service members and veterans to obtain legal immigration status from within the country. Not everyone qualifies: Those who overstayed visas or who already applied for legal status at the border, for example. The policy was implemented under Republican President George W. Bush during the U.S. war with Iraq in 2007 and codified under Democratic President Barack Obama. DHS agencies can grant it on a case-by-case basis. Under Trump, the average time it takes to receive military parole-in-place has more than doubled to 12 months, according to USCIS data. That leaves military families more vulnerable to being placed in ICE custody. Congressional Democrats and organizations that help military families facing deportation, including Repatriate Our Patriots, said that the AP’s findings were alarming. “It’s the job of the military to ensure that families are being taken care of — and this is not the way you take care of families,” said California Rep. Gil Cisneros, a former undersecretary of defense for personnel who introduced legislation this year aimed at making it harder to deny parole to troops’ relatives. “This administration just doesn’t care, and they are not thinking about people who are putting their lives on the line for the country and to defend our nation.” Recruiters are still promoting immigration benefits The AP found that troops’ immediate family members have repeatedly been detained by ICE while applying for parole-in-place or seeking to adjust their status, including during immigration appointments. Marine Cpl. Jose Manuel Vilchis-Valle’s mother, Ursula Borja Valle, was detained at an appointment in August 2025 and deported to Mexico within a week. She had lived in the U.S. since the 1990s without a known criminal record. Her son was attempting to help her clear up a decades-old removal order through the immigration benefits that military recruiters had used to help persuade him to enlist. “They basically told me that if you serve, and if you served honorably, you can help your parents,” said Vilchis-Valle, 23, who was honorably discharged shortly after his mother was deported. “In a perfect world, I wished, because of my service, they could have pardoned her.” Army Staff Sgt. Alexis Jaramillo shows photos of his wife, Maisa Lopes Eliaser, a Brazilian national who is detained by ICE, near the South Louisiana ICE Processing Center where she is currently held, in Basile, La., Sunday, Aug. 2, 2026. (AP Photo/Joseph Vidrine) Army Staff Sgt. Alexis Jaramillo shows photos of his wife, Maisa Lopes Eliaser, a Brazilian national who is detained by ICE, near the South Louisiana ICE Processing Center where she is currently held, in Basile, La., Sunday, Aug. 2, 2026. (AP Photo/Joseph Vidrine) In other cases, ICE has detained people who had already been granted protection, with the agency later arguing in court filings that their parole status had been revoked. In June 2025, the Marine Corps officially stopped advertising enlistment as a way to protect immigrant family members, in response to inquiries from the AP. But recruiters for the Army and the National Guard still promote it. “For some service members, enlisting isn’t just about serving their country,” read an Instagram post published in late July by an official Army recruiter based in California. “It’s also about doing everything they can to help protect their parents who sacrificed everything for them.” Recruiters are expected to highlight the benefits of service to attract applicants and military parole-in-place remains in effect, Army spokesperson Christopher Surridge said. The National Guard said it does not track detentions of its troops’ relatives or which recruiters advertise immigration benefits and referred additional comment to DHS. A soldier who helped patrol the border grapples with his father’s detention For U.S. Army Specialist Romero Ralios, his father’s detention has left him remorseful about his deployment last year to the Joint Task Force Southern Border, where he spent nine months supporting U.S. Customs and Border Patrol. His father, Sebastian Ralios Tino, a Guatemalan landscaper with no known criminal record, was detained this summer. He lived in the U.S. for nearly two decades without legal status. Ralios’ commanding officer, Capt. Mohamed Elmaola, told the AP he wanted to speak up because Ralios is a “phenomenal soldier” whose father should receive due process. “It’s very hard to communicate and to have credibility as a leader when your own subordinates are unable to get support,” Elmaola said. “Considering he enlisted his time and his life into supporting and defending the United States Constitution, it is the right thing to do to support soldiers and their families.” Romero Ralios struggles to sleep at night due to the stress and wishes he had not been involved in immigration enforcement, even though he was just following orders. “It was karma. I should’ve known,” Ralios told the AP. “All those families I broke. I have regrets.” ___ Brook is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

Trump’s deportation agenda raised prices, contracted local economies, immigration group says

President Donald Trump’s mass deportation campaign has caused the costs of groceries, homes and healthcare to rise and local economies to contract, according to a new report from the pro-immigration advocacy group America’s Voice. The group deems those added costs the “ICE Tax” — a reference to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement — and on Wednesday released data, first shared with CNBC, putting dollar figures on the ways they say Trump’s policies are hurting the economy. “Forcibly deporting hundreds of thousands of essential workers means extra dollars at the grocery checkout, the home that costs six figures more to build, the corner store that goes quiet after a raid, the job that disappears when a coworker never comes back to work,” Vanessa Cardenas, executive director of America’s Voice, said in a statement. “Instead of working to bring costs down and make America more affordable, they’ve chosen a deportation machine that terrorizes our communities, hurts our businesses, and sticks every family with the bill,” Cardenas continued. Read more CNBC politics coverage ChatGPT dominates early AI spending in Congress as lawmakers weigh regulation Trump slams Pirro after she moves to drop Reflecting Pool vandalism case Analysis: Markets heard a dovish Warsh. Fed chairman’s words suggest a rate hike The report calls for Congress and the White House to end the “ICE Tax,” a messaging campaign launched three months before the 2026 midterm election, in which the cost of living and Trump’s immigration policies are both key issues. In CNBC’s latest edition of the All-America Economic Survey, which polled 1,000 voters in early July, 60% disapproved of Trump’s handling of the economy. Immigration and border security ranked as the third-most important issue facing the country right now, according to respondents. Trump in his second term has set an aggressive goal of deporting 1 million individuals annually. ICE last month took more than 46,000 individuals into custody for alleged immigration violations, a monthly record high under Trump, CBS News reported. ICE has repeatedly come under fire this year for its aggressive tactics and after a series of high-profile killings at the hands of officers that prompted calls from Democrats and activists for reform. But in its latest report, America’s Voice makes an economic case for change within the agency. Lauren Bis, a White House spokesperson, questioned the report’s findings and pointed the finger at President Joe Biden. “Thanks to the Biden administration releasing millions of illegals into our country, rent increased, car insurance premiums skyrocketed, the quality of our health care and education declined, and wages dropped for American workers,” Bis said by email. “President Trump is ending the affordability crisis caused in part by the Biden administration’s open border policies by putting American citizens first.” The Department of Homeland Security, which includes ICE, referred CNBC to a December 2025 post on X that says: “Want affordable housing? Help report illegal aliens in your area.” America’s Voice analyzed 12 months of federal price data ended in June and found costs are rising fastest for foods whose production relies heavily on immigrant labor. The price of lettuce is up 32.1%; canned fruit has risen 7.9%; and fresh citrus and apples have spiked 6.3% and 7.1%, respectively. That all came as core inflation, which excludes food and energy, rose 2.6% in the same period. The report notes there are other factors besides deportations contributing to higher prices, including weather and fuel costs. “No single figure proves the case on its own. But category after category, the products and services that rely most on immigrant labor are the ones pulling away from the rest of the economy. That’s a cost with a cause, not a coincidence,” the report says. In other sectors, too, the report doesn’t prove causality but identifies rising costs where immigrant labor is key. Construction employment fell 1.3% in the five states most reliant on immigrant labor from the start of the second Trump administration through June, while it grew 3.3% throughout the rest of the country, the report found. In the Northeast, whose construction workforce is comprised of 23% immigrant laborers, new permits for single-family homes fell 23.5% from March 2025 to June 2026, while new home prices in the same region were up 15.4% between the first quarter of 2025 and the first quarter of 2026, according to the organization’s analysis. Home healthcare, a sector in which 40% or workers are immigrants, has seen a 10.7% cost increase over the past year, the report found. And local economies are suffering. America’s Voice cites a University of Pennsylvania Wharton School of Business study, published in May, which found that after ICE enforcement hits a metro area, spending lags 6.2% below normal levels and foot traffic hovers 2.7% below normal at the average business. That loss of business translates to 8.1 billion fewer customer visits and up to $14 billion in foregone spending in a single year, the Wharton report found. “That is the ICE tax. It is not a line item anyone votes on or a rate anyone sets. It is the diffuse, compounding cost that lands on families when the government pours its resources into deporting workers instead of into bringing costs down: pricier groceries, a house that costs more to build, costlier care for aging parents, a shuttered bakery on the corner, a job site gone quiet,” the America’s Voice report says. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal

Good afternoon, We recently updated the following USCIS form(s): Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal 07/28/2026 04:28 PM EDT https://www.uscis.gov/i-589 Edition Date: 07/28/26. Starting Aug. 28, 2026, we will accept only the 07/28/26 edition. Until then, you can also use the 01/20/25 edition.