General information

The U.S. government has recently implemented a temporary pause on processing green card applications for certain individuals, including approved refugees. This decision, part of a broader effort to enhance immigrant vetting procedures, leaves many applicants in a state of legal uncertainty.

Who is Affected?

The pause impacts individuals who have already been granted protection in the U.S., such as refugees and asylees. Refugees undergo a rigorous overseas screening process before entering the country, which includes security checks, medical examinations, and interviews that often take years to complete. Asylees, are individuals who have sought protection while already in the U.S. and have been granted asylum by an immigration judge or asylum officer. Both groups must demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution in their home countries due to factors such as political beliefs, race, or religion.

The Government’s Justification

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has confirmed the pause, stating that it aligns with executive actions aimed at reassessing immigration vetting procedures. According to DHS, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will temporarily halt finalizing certain green card applications while additional screening measures are conducted to detect potential fraud and national security risks. One of the cited presidential proclamations directs federal agencies to conduct the most thorough screening possible for all foreign nationals seeking entry or already residing in the U.S. The current pause on green card processing follows a series of measures intended to tighten legal immigration pathways, including suspensions of refugee admissions and changes to the asylum process at the U.S.-Mexico border, some of which are currently being contested in federal court.

What This Means for Applicants

For now, individuals affected by this pause may face delays in obtaining permanent residency. It remains unclear how long these additional screenings will take or whether further policy changes may impact pending applications. Those with cases in progress should stay informed about updates from USCIS and consider seeking legal guidance to navigate any potential complications. If you or a loved one is affected by this change, consulting an experienced immigration attorney can help clarify your options and next steps. We will continue to monitor these developments and provide updates as more information becomes available.

On February 25, 2025, President Trump announced his intention to end the EB-5 program and introduce a new “Gold Card” visa in its place. This announcement has caused confusion among both current and prospective EB-5 investors, especially given the limited and sometimes contradictory details surrounding the proposal.

What We Know So Far

President Trump initially stated that the Gold Card program would replace the EB-5 immigrant investor visa and grant permanent residency in exchange for a $5 million investment. However, subsequent clarifications from the Administration suggested that this new program might be linked to the existing EB-5 framework via the Department of Commerce—though specifics remain unclear. The President promised further details within two weeks of the announcement. As of now, it is uncertain whether the Administration intends to completely repeal the EB-5 program, modify it, or integrate it with the proposed Gold Card initiative.

Can the President Unilaterally End EB-5?

No. The President cannot unilaterally end or replace the EB-5 program. Established by Congress in 1990, the program was recently strengthened through the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022 (RIA). Any effort to repeal or replace it requires Congressional action. The legislative process—including introduction, committee review, debate, and voting—could take months or even years.

Moreover, the Regional Center (RC) Program was reauthorized through September 30, 2027, under the RIA. This means that, unless Congress actively repeals or amends it, the program remains in effect until that date. While there is a possibility that the RC Program will not be renewed beyond 2027, a new program with a $5 million investment minimum could only replace it through proper Congressional approval.

What Happens to Pending EB-5 Applications?

Investors who file their Form I-526/I-526E petitions before September 30, 2026, are currently protected under the RIA’s grandfathering clause. This ensures that pending petitions will be processed to final adjudication regardless of any future legislative changes. For those considering an EB-5 investment, filing before the September 2026 deadline is highly recommended to safeguard eligibility.

Investment Immigration and the U.S. Economy

Investment-based immigration remains a crucial component of the U.S. economy. According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the RC Program generated $6.1 billion in investments into rural and urban U.S. communities between the RIA’s effective date and mid-2024. This figure is expected to rise as more recent EB-5 investments are accounted for. While the prospect of a Gold Card visa has introduced uncertainty, it also presents an opportunity for meaningful discussions on the future of investment immigration. We will continue to monitor developments and provide updates as more details emerge.

Changes to 9 FAM 305.4-3(D) — Removal of Consular Consistency Requirement in 212(d)(3) Waiver Recommendations

On February 26, 2025, the U.S. Department of State’s Visa Office issued a significant update to the Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM), revising section 9 FAM 305.4-3(D) with major implications for the process of recommending INA 212(d)(3)(A) waivers. This revision removes the long-standing requirement for consular officers to ensure “consistency” when making waiver recommendations to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), marking a significant shift in how these decisions are evaluated.

What Has Changed?

The primary change in the updated provision is the removal of the consistency requirement that previously guided consular officers when submitting recommendations for waivers. Under the previous version of the FAM, consular officers were expected to align their recommendations for waivers with those made by prior officers unless there was new derogatory information, a change in the applicant’s purpose of travel, or other circumstances affecting their eligibility under INA 212(a). This policy emphasized the value of maintaining consistency in decision-making.

However, as of February 26, 2025, the revised section of the FAM mandates that each recommendation for a waiver must be made independently and anew, with a fresh evaluation of all facts and circumstances. This means consular officers can no longer rely on or give undue deference to the recommendations made by previous officers.

Why the Change?

This update is part of a broader effort to implement the directives of the January 20, 2025, Executive Order Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats. The Executive Order reflects the government’s renewed focus on national security and foreign threats, leading to a reconsideration of how waiver requests are handled.

What Does This Mean for Consular Officers and Applicants?

For consular officers, this change means they must take a more rigorous and independent approach when evaluating each waiver request. Officers will now need to review all available information and justify their decision to request a waiver, without relying on past recommendations from other officers.

Applicants may also see more variation in the decisions regarding waivers. While the change doesn’t guarantee approval or denial of waivers, it does make clear that each case will be evaluated on its own merits, with no automatic assumption that previous recommendations will influence the outcome.

Furthermore, it is important to note that the revised FAM language specifies that prior approval of a waiver does not guarantee approval for future waivers. This reinforces the idea that past decisions do not have a lasting effect on future outcomes and that each waiver request must stand on its own.

Revised FAM Provision: A Breakdown

Here’s a comparison of the revised 9 FAM 305.4-3(D) with its previous version:

Revised Version (Effective February 26, 2025):

9 FAM 305.4-3(D) (U) Prior Waivers and Weighing the Decision to Request a Waiver
(CT:VISA-2129; 02-26-2025)

• Each waiver recommendation must be made anew, independently, and based on all of the facts.
• Officers should not rely on or give undue deference to previous decisions.
• Each request must be accompanied by a supporting justification from the consular officer as the requesting official.
• Prior approval of a waiver does not guarantee that any subsequent waivers will be approved by the ARO (Adjudicating Regional Office).

Previous Version (Before February 26, 2025):

9 FAM 305.4-3(D) (U) Consistency in Requesting a Waiver
(CT:VISA-1982; 05-06-2024)

• Officers were expected to be consistent in waiver recommendations.
• If a waiver had been granted in the past for an applicant, the same recommendation should be made for future applications, unless new derogatory information, a material change in the purpose of travel, or other changes in circumstances were present.
• All requests were required to be accompanied by a supporting justification.
• Consistency did not guarantee approval by the ARO.

Impact on Legal Practice and Waiver Applications

This revision marks a critical change in the landscape of consular processing, particularly for legal practitioners advising clients on waiver requests. Attorneys representing individuals seeking INA 212(d)(3)(A) waivers will now need to be prepared for the possibility that each case will be scrutinized more closely and independently than before.

While previous consular decisions might have carried weight in the past, applicants must now be prepared for a more thorough examination of their individual circumstances. Legal counsel will need to present a well-supported, fact-specific case for each waiver request, reinforcing the importance of a detailed justification for the waiver.

Applicants who previously received a waiver may also face challenges in obtaining approval for future waivers, as past approvals no longer ensure future success. Attorneys will need to ensure that the facts of each case are fresh and persuasive, presenting clear evidence of the applicant’s qualifications for a waiver under the current national security and public safety guidelines.

For further updates on this change and how it may affect specific cases, schedule a consultation with CYA prior to scheduling your NIV interview.

USCIS has issued a 60-day notice about a new proposal to collect social media identifiers (“handles”) and the names of platforms from applicants. The goal is to help with identity verification, national security, public safety screenings, and other related inspections. Comments on this proposal are due by 5/5/25.

The Federal Register comment period is a way for the public to give feedback on proposed rules and regulations. When an agency like USCIS wants to create or change a rule, it publishes a notice in the Federal Register that explains the proposal. After that, there’s usually a 30-60 day window for the public to submit comments. Once the comment period ends, the agency looks at all the feedback and can adjust the proposal before finalizing it. The final rule is then published, sometimes with changes based on public input. This gives everyone a chance to have a say in how federal rules are made.

In a couple of months, USCIS will decide whether applicants will need to include their social media handles in their applications.

President Trump signed the Laken Riley Act into law, a significant development impacting immigration enforcement in the United States. The new legislation mandates the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to detain anyone who entered the country unlawfully and is subsequently charged with, arrested for, convicted of, or admits to committing certain crimes. These offenses include:
• Burglary
• Theft
• Larceny
• Shoplifting
• Assault on a law enforcement officer
• Any crime resulting in death or serious bodily injury

What Is Mandatory Detention?
Under the Laken Riley Act, mandatory detention means that individuals fitting these criteria will be held in an immigration detention facility without the option to request a bond. They will remain detained while contesting their deportation cases before an Immigration Judge.

Key Questions:

Will This Law Be Applied Retroactively?
It’s currently unclear whether the Laken Riley Act will affect those with a prior criminal history. DHS has yet to announce whether retroactive enforcement will be a part of this new policy.

Who Does This Law Affect?
• Lawful Entrants: If you entered the U.S. lawfully, this law does not apply to you.
• Entered the U.S. without documentation: If you entered the U.S. without immigration documentation and have future encounters with law enforcement involving the listed crimes, you will be subject to mandatory detention. If you entered without immigration documentation and have past criminal charges or convictions related to these offenses, it is uncertain whether you will be affected.

What About My Right to Defend Against Deportation?
It’s important to note that the Laken Riley Act does not eliminate your right to defend yourself against deportation. However, it does affect whether you can be released from immigration custody while your case is pending in Immigration Court.

What Should You Do?
If you believe this law might impact you or someone you know, it’s crucial to consult with an immigration attorney to understand your rights and options under this new legislation. Staying informed and prepared is essential in navigating the complexities of U.S. immigration law.

The processing timeline for H-4 and L-2 dependents and H-4 and L-2 employment authorization documents is about to change significantly. Two years ago, USCIS entered into a settlement agreement called Edakunni, et al. v. Mayorkas, No. 21-cv-393-TL (W.D. Wash.). In this agreement USCIS agreed to bundle the processing (i.e. process together) of applications to change or extend nonimmigrant status for H-4 or L-2 dependents, as well as applications for employment authorization filed by H-4 or L-2 spouses when filed at the same time and location as the underlying H-1B, L-1A, or L-1B nonimmigrant worker’s application. This bundling applied to applications filed under both standard and premium processing.

Unfortunately, this settlement is set to expire on January 18, 2025, two years after the settlement agreement’s effective date. 

USCIS has not said whether the agency will continue to bundle the processing of these forms after the settlement agreement expires.  While USCIS is not required to stop bundling these cases after the expiration of the settlement agreement, it is expected that the agency will do so. This means that H-4 and L-2 dependents can expect greater processing times for their immigration applications, especially for cases that would have been filed with premium processing.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has announced 18-month extensions of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Ukraine, Sudan, and Venezuela. To maintain TPS and Employment Authorization Documents (EADs), eligible individuals must complete the re-registration process. Detailed re-registration procedures and eligibility criteria will be provided in upcoming Federal Register notices. Additionally, DHS has released an advance copy of a notice extending TPS for El Salvador, effective from March 10, 2025, through September 9, 2026. This notice is scheduled for publication in the Federal Register on January 17, 2026.