Trump Administration Introduced new $103,265 H-1B Fee and Plans Revocation of B1/B2 Visas for Asylum Seekers

In a dual effort to further tighten immigration pathways, the Trump administration has proposed a regulation mandating a $103,265 fee for H-1B visas, while simultaneously preparing for a massive visa revocation initiative targeting asylum seekers.

A Revived and Expanded H-1B Fee

On August 24, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposed a new regulation that would increase the cost of obtaining an H-1B visa by imposing a $103,265 fee.

This action follows severe legal setbacks for the administration's initial attempt to price-out tech and research employers. In September 2025, an executive order imposed a $100,000 fee on H-1B petitions requiring consular processing. However, on June 8, 2026, a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled the fee to be an unlawful tax imposed without Congressional authorization. In July 2026, an appeals court formally denied the federal government's request to resume collecting the fee while their appeal proceeds.

In response, the newly drafted DHS regulation not only brings the fee back at a higher rate but drastically expands its scope. Under the new proposal, the $103,265 fee would apply to all H-1B workers subject to the annual statutory cap—including those with master's degrees and those already in the U.S. who were selected in the visa lottery.

The Administration explained that the additional fees will be used to cover costs for processing immigration applications and funding the EOIR (Immigration Courts), the law enforcement work of ICE and CBP, overseas consulates' operations, etc.  The question is whether it is fair for the U.S. employers of technical workers to pay for these unrelated operations and programs. Currently, employers are already paying extra fees for anti-fraud operations, retraining and reeducation of American workers, and also the Asylum Program.

The proposal initiates a 30-day public comment period and is widely expected to face immediate litigation from business groups and other affected parties, who argue the program is critical for recruiting top global talent.

Mass Revocation of B1 and B2 Visas

Separately, the administration is preparing to cancel the business (B1) and tourism (B2) visas of up to 200,000 foreigners who have applied for or are currently seeking asylum in the United States.    The effort targets visas issued between 2016 and 2026.  According to the State Department, the initiative targets "bogus" asylum claims. There are more than 3 million asylum applications pending in the United States now.

The revocations will be done on a rolling basis.  Hence, holders of B1/B2 visas may not receive any notifications immediately.  The administration noted that stripping individuals of their B1/B2 statuses will not automatically trigger immediate deportations. .  Instead, most individuals with pending asylum cases will be losing their tourist or business status while their asylum claims proceed.  They are only authorized to stay while their asylum claim is pending. If their asylum application is rejected, they are subject to deportation.

(Immigration laws and policies change regularly.  If you have any questions regarding this article, please visit www.1visa1.com to schedule a legal consultation.)  

Travel at Your Own Risk: What the Supreme Court's "Parole" Ruling Means for Green Card Holders

 

For most lawful permanent residents (LPRs), coming back to the U.S. from an international trip is as simple as showing a green card at the airport. But a major 6-3 Supreme Court decision handed down this Tuesday in Blanche v. Lau has fundamentally changed the rules for green card holders facing legal trouble.

The Court ruled that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) can place returning green card holders on "immigration parole" instead of officially admitting them into the country—based only on pending criminal charges. Such a distinction has significant legal consequences.

The Case: Blanche v. Lau

The dispute centers on Muk Choi Lau, who became a permanent resident in 2007. In 2012, Lau was charged with trademark counterfeiting in New Jersey. While those charges were still pending—meaning he had not been convicted of any crime—he traveled abroad.

When Lau returned to John F. Kennedy International Airport, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers saw the pending charges. Instead of admitting him as a returning resident, they "paroled" him into the country for deferred inspection. Later, after Lau pleaded guilty to the state charges, the government used his "paroled" status to fast-track his removal from the country.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals had previously ruled in Lau's favor, arguing that the government needed "clear and convincing evidence" of a disqualifying crime at the time he crossed the border, not just accusations. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court reversed that decision.

Parole vs. Admission: Why the Distinction Matters

To understand why this ruling is so significant, you have to look at how the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) treats noncitizens. The law essentially features two different tracks for removing someone from the U.S.:

Admitted Individuals: Individuals who have been admitted legally to the U.S. are subject to more legal protection when the Government wants to remove them from the country. They are subject to grounds of deportability under the INA. They are presumed to have the right to remain in the country unless the Government can prove otherwise. The Government (DHS) must prove deportability by "clear and convincing evidence" that a person is deportable, which is a relatively high bar. To be deported for a crime, the law generally requires a formal, finalized conviction in a court of law. Mere accusations, arrests, or pending charges are usually not enough to trigger deportability.

Paroled Individuals: In contrast, paroled individuals are considered legally outside the country despite their physical presence. The foreign national must prove "clearly and beyond doubt" that they are legally entitled to enter the U.S. and that no grounds of inadmissibility apply to them. The grounds for inadmissibility are vastly broader than those for deportability. A formal conviction is often not required. An immigration officer can declare someone inadmissible simply if the person admits to committing the essential elements of certain crimes (like drug offenses or crimes involving moral turpitude). Furthermore, for drug trafficking, an officer only needs a "reason to believe" the person is involved.

By placing a green card holder on "parole," the government effectively halt their entry. The individual is physically allowed to go home, but legally, they are still standing at the border. If the pending criminal charges later result in a conviction, DHS can seamlessly move to deport them under the harsher "inadmissibility" rules rather than the standard deportation process designed to protect established residents.

The Supreme Court's Ruling

The Court's 6-3 majority sided with the administration, emphasizing an expansive view of executive authority over immigration at the border.

The ruling establishes that border officers do not need clear and convincing proof of a crime at the exact moment a green card holder returns. Suspicion of a crime—such as a pending state charge—is legally sufficient for an immigration officer to deny standard admission and use the parole loophole. The government successfully argued that requiring border agents to definitively prove criminal conduct on the spot, often without full access to local evidence, was an impractical burden.

Warning: Travel at Your Own Risk

This decision is a massive red flag for any lawful permanent resident dealing with the criminal justice system. The legal presumption that a green card guarantees smooth reentry has officially given way to border enforcement discretion.

If you are an LPR with unresolved criminal charges, accusations, or pending court dates, traveling internationally carries severe immigration risks. Leaving the U.S. could result in your being placed you in expedited removal proceedings upon your return.

Always consult an immigration attorney before booking a flight if you have any pending matters in the criminal justice system. When in doubt, stay in the U.S. until your legal matters are completely resolved.

(Immigration laws and policies change regularly.  If you have any questions regarding  this article, please visit www.1visa1.com to schedule a legal consultation.)  

Biden Plan to Grant Deportation Relief for Immigrant Spouses of U.S. Citizens

 

In a significant move, the Biden administration announced a plan to grant work authorization and deportation relief to undocumented spouses of U.S. citizens. According to DHS, the program will eventually provide a path for applicants to apply for permanent resident status (green card). This policy shift could impact hundreds of thousands of families currently living under the shadow of immigration uncertainty.

1.1 Million Undocumented Immigrants Have U.S. Citizen Spouses

According to Fwd.us, an immigration advocacy group, approximately 1.1 million undocumented immigrants are married to U.S. citizens. These individuals currently face significant legal hurdles due to their undocumented status, which affects their ability to work legally and exposes them to the risk of deportation. Under existing immigration law, many of these spouses are ineligible to apply for a green card, leaving them in a precarious legal situation despite their marital ties to American citizens. Typically, these individuals have entered the U.S. illegally without inspection by an immigration officer, which makes them ineligible to be legalized even though they are married to American citizens.

Program will Benefit Spouses and Step Children

The Biden Administration plans to grant these undocumented spouses "parole in place." Parole is an executive authority that would allow them to stay in the country temporarily without fear of deportation and enable them to obtain employment authoriziation. This initiative seeks to stabilize the lives of many mixed-status families, providing them with economic opportunities and reducing the constant fear of family separation due to deportation. This program will also confer benefits to step-children of U.S. citizens.  According to NPR, an estimated 500,000 undocumented spouses and 50,000 non-citizen stepchildren would qualify for this relief. 

Program Requirements

Not all undocumented spouses of U.S. citizens would qualify for this Biden plan.  To qualify for parole in place status, the applicant must have been present in the United States for at least 10 years as of June 17, 2024.  It is unclear if physical presense must be continuous at this point. Furthermore, the applicant must have been married to a U.S. citizen on or before June 17, 2024.  Individuals who pose a threat to national security or public safety will not be eligible for this process.  It should also be noted that an applicant who entered the United States legally may apply for permanent resident status through adjustment of status.  These applicants do not need to apply under Biden's parole program. 

Discretionary Adjudciation

According to DHS, this is a discretionary application and will be adjuducated on a case-by-case basis. 

DHS will take into consideration the applicant's previous immigration history, criminal history, the results of background checks and national security, and any other relevant information available to or requested by USCIS. Fraudulent applications will also be screened out of the process.  Individuals with a criminal record and those with serious immigration violations will likely not be eligible for the program. 

Program Rationale and Challenges

The rationale behind this potential policy shift is multifaceted. Advocates argue that providing legal status and work authorization to the spouses of U.S. citizens is not only a humane approach but also economically beneficial. Allowing these individuals to work legally can contribute to the economy and reduce the exploitation often associated with undocumented labor.

Moreover, supporters emphasize the importance of family unity. Keeping families together is a cornerstone of U.S. immigration policy, and providing relief to these spouses aligns with this principle. It also addresses the emotional and psychological toll that the threat of deportation imposes on families.

Challenges and Next Steps

 Implementation of the program is expected to start in late summer, after a formal publication of the details in the Federal Register.  Implementing such a program would not be without challenges.  Opponents of the program will argue such executive actions overstep legal boundaries, as immigration relief should be addressed through legislative channels. The executive branch's authority to grant broad immigration relief without congressional approval may face challenges in court.  Additionally, there would be logistical hurdles in processing and verifying the eligibility of a large number of applicants.  

Conclusion

The Biden administration's plan to grant work authorization and parole status to undocumented spouses and step-children of U.S. citizens represents a significant potential shift in immigration policy. While it promises to alleviate the hardships faced by many families, it also underscores the ongoing challenges of addressing immigration reform in a deeply divided political landscape.

(Immigration laws and policies change regularly.  If you have any questions regarding this article, please visit www.1visa1.com to schedule a legal consultation.)  

From Application Denials to Deportation

On June 28, 2018, USCIS released a guidance allowing a Notice to Appear (NTA) to be issued when an application is denied and the applicant has lost his or her legal status in the U.S. An NTA is serious -- it calls for the recipient to face an immigration judge in court and begins formal removal procedures. The guidance's wording suggested officers would have substantial leeway to issue the document upon denying an application. USCIS further clarified this new policy through a recent memo and a public conference.  

Under the recent memo, removal proceedings can be initiated for application denials due to fraud, abuse of public benefits, criminal issues (for N-400), and threats to national security. It will also apply to those without lawful status after having their case denied.  USCIS has begun implementation the new policy since October 1st. This covers I-485, I-539, and N-400 applications.

Enter your email address:

TPS denial and subsequent unlawful status will still result in an NTA, as the 2003 memo dictates. The Oct. 1 implementation does not cover I-129, I-140, and asylum cases. DACA is also not covered in this memo.

As mentioned above, criminal issues are a targeted basis of issuing an NTA. Specifically, crimes of moral turpitude (based on having evil intent) and multiple criminal convictions are grounds for deportation. On October 1st, USCIS also gains the authority to issue NTAs on cases of egregious public safety or crimes instead of referring them to ICE.

USCIS will generally wait 33 or 18 days (periods for filing appeals and motions) after denial before issuing an NTA, or after the decision on an appeal or motion if applicable. Adjudicators can also consult a panel of immigration officers and legal counsel (prosecutorial discretion review panel) to help make the decision. Cases involving children will similarly be looked at by such a panel. 

Immigrant and non-immigrant workers sponsored by their employer as well as asylum seekers are not subject to the new guidelines. Still, any non-immigrant should carefully consider their options and take any application seriously.