Takeaways

  • USCIS and E-Verify have issued updated employer guidance for TPS beneficiaries from Burma, Ethiopia, Haiti, Somalia, South Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
  • For all seven countries, employers should use July 10, 2026, as the current date for Form I-9 and E-Verify purposes.
  • Employers should not assume July 10 marks the automatic end of TPS-based employment authorization, particularly for Haiti and Syria, where litigation and agency implementation remain ongoing.

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 25 decision allowing the Department of Homeland Security to move forward with terminating Temporary Protected Status for Haiti and Syria, USCIS and E-Verify have issued updated country-specific guidance for employers regarding Form I-9 and E-Verify compliance.

The agencies issued separate guidance for TPS beneficiaries from Burma, Ethiopia, Haiti, Somalia, South Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

Although the litigation affecting each designation differs, each notice instructs employers to use July 10, 2026, for Form I-9 and E-Verify purposes.

Notably, employers should not interpret July 10 as the automatic end of TPS-based employment authorization.

  • Haiti and Syria: Although the Supreme Court’s decision permits DHS to move forward with the TPS terminations for Haiti and Syria, USCIS has issued interim Form I-9 and E-Verify guidance while the district court proceedings continue. Once the district court injunctions are lifted and DHS implements the TPS termination notices, TPS-based employment authorization for affected beneficiaries will likely end, absent further judicial or agency action.

Employers with affected employees should:

  • Follow the updated USCIS and E-Verify instructions applicable to the employee’s TPS designation.
  • Use July 10, 2026, for Form I-9 and E-Verify purposes, as directed in the agency guidance.
  • Continue monitoring agency announcements and court developments before taking reverification or other employment action based on TPS expiration.

The July 1 USCIS and E-Verify guidance provides employers with interim compliance instructions while the litigation continues. Jackson Lewis attorneys will continue to monitor developments and provide updates as additional guidance becomes available.

In today’s landmark Trump v. Barbara decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that children born in the United States are citizens at birth regardless of whether their parents are present in the country unlawfully or temporarily. The Court concluded that Executive Order 14160 violates the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore cannot be enforced. Read here for further insights and implications.

Takeaways

  • DHS rule cleared by the White House and would replace the long-standing “duration of status” (D/S) framework with fixed admission periods.
  • Extension filings and increased government oversight may create additional administrative burdens and uncertainty for visa holders.
  • The proposal has not been finalized, and the current D/S system remains in effect.

A proposed Department of Homeland Security (DHS) rule that recently cleared White House review could fundamentally change how international students maintain lawful status in the United States. If finalized, the rule (“Establishing a Fixed Time Period of Admission and an Extension of Stay Procedure for Nonimmigrant Academic Students, Exchange Visitors, and Representatives of Foreign Information Media”) would eliminate the long-standing “duration of status” (D/S) framework and replace it with fixed periods of admission.

Under the proposal, most F-1 students and J-1 exchange visitors would be admitted for no more than four years (or the length of their academic program, if shorter). Individuals needing additional time to complete a degree, change academic levels, or pursue post-completion training would be required to file an extension of stay application with USCIS.

Practical implications include:

  • Greater uncertainty for employers that rely on international graduates, particularly in STEM fields, if students encounter delays or complications obtaining status extensions.
  • Additional compliance obligations for educational institutions, as authority over status extensions would shift from schools and to federal immigration authorities.
  • Increased immigration planning needs for students, employers, and universities to avoid potential gaps in lawful status.

DHS has stated that the proposed changes are intended to strengthen oversight, improve tracking of nonimmigrants, reduce overstays, and enhance program integrity. At the same time, universities, employers, and immigration advocates have expressed concerns that mandatory extension filings could increase processing delays, disrupt degree completion — particularly for doctoral and research programs exceeding four years — and make U.S. educational institutions less attractive to international students.

Although the White House Office of Management and Budget has completed its review of the proposed rule, it has not yet been published in the Federal Register and could be revised or challenged before taking effect. Until then, the current duration of status framework remains in place.

Jackson Lewis attorneys will continue monitoring developments as the rulemaking process moves forward and are available to answer your questions.

Takeaways

  • The U.S. Supreme Court reversed preliminary injunctions preventing DHS from implementing the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haiti and Syria.
  • The Court held that the TPS statute bars judicial review of most nonconstitutional challenges to TPS designation and termination decisions.
  • However, the decision itself does not terminate employment authorization or establish new Form I-9 deadlines. Employers should await DHS implementation guidance before acting.

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the preliminary injunctions that had prevented DHS from implementing its decisions to terminate TPS designations for Haiti and Syria. Mullin v. Doe, No. 25A952, and Trump v. Miot, No. 25A999 (June 26, 2026.) In doing so, the Court concluded that interim relief was not warranted while the litigation proceeds.

The Court held that:

  • The TPS statute bars judicial review of nonconstitutional claims challenging DHS decisions regarding the designation, extension, or termination of TPS; and
  • The plaintiffs challenging Haiti’s TPS termination were unlikely to succeed on their equal protection claim and therefore were not entitled to preliminary injunctive relief.

The Court remanded both cases for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

However, the decision does not establish new employment authorization expiration dates, address the validity of existing TPS-based Employment Authorization Documents (EADs), or provide guidance regarding Form I-9 or E-Verify compliance. Those implementation issues remain subject to future DHS action and guidance.

Until DHS issues additional guidance, employers should:

  • Identify employees who currently rely on Haiti or Syria TPS-based employment authorization.
  • Monitor DHS, USCIS, and Federal Register announcements regarding implementation of the TPS terminations.
  • Avoid taking employment action based solely on the Court’s decision without confirming applicable DHS guidance.

Jackson Lewis attorneys will continue monitoring DHS implementation announcements and provide updates regarding TPS-related employment authorization, Form I-9, and E-Verify compliance as additional guidance becomes available. Please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney with any questions.

Takeaways

  • A federal district court has struck down the $100,000 fee the Trump Administration imposed on certain H-1B petitions.
  • The court ruling could allow affected beneficiaries of approved H-1B petitions obtain visas and travel to the U.S. without having to pay the exorbitant fee.
  • The government is expected to consider appellate options, and employers should continue to monitor developments.

On June 8, 2026, in State of California et al. v. Noem et al. (1:25-cv-13829), a federal district court in Massachusetts ruled that the $100,000 fee President Donald Trump imposed on certain H-1B petitions constitutes an unlawful tax and vacated the fee in its entirety.

President Trump’s Sept. 19, 2025, Presidential Proclamation, “Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers,” introduced a new $100,000 fee requirement for new H-1B petitions for foreign workers outside the United States.  The fee was one of several administrative and policy changes the Trump Administration has sought to implement with the aim of restricting and tightening rules surrounding the H-1B nonimmigrant visa program.  The fee was set to expire after one year, if not extended.

In its June 8 decision, the court referenced the recent SCOTUS ruling striking down the President’s tariffs, stating that the president does not have unilateral authority to impose taxes without congressional approval. The court declared the proclamation implementing the $100,000 fee unlawful and vacated the fee in its entirety, effective immediately.

The court also issued declaratory relief in favor of the plaintiffs but declined to enter a permanent injunction, concluding it was not necessary.

For employers, the practical impact of the court’s decision will depend largely on the outcome of any appellate review and how USCIS responds. However, the ruling vacates the $100,000 fee requirement for impacted H-1B petitions, potentially allowing employers to pursue H-1B sponsorship through consular notification without incurring the additional charge. Employers and foreign nationals who postponed H-1B sponsorship or related immigration plans as a result of the fee may now have options available in light of the court’s decision.

Jackson Lewis attorneys will continue monitoring developments, including any government appeals or further USCIS action.

Takeaways

  • A federal district court has vacated USCIS policies that paused adjudication of immigration benefit requests filed by nationals of 39 countries.
  • The court ruling could allow affected adjustment of status, employment authorization, naturalization, and certain asylum-related applications to proceed.
  • The government is expected to consider appellate options, and employers should continue to monitor developments.

A federal district court in Rhode Island has vacated USCIS policies that paused adjudication of immigration benefit requests filed by nationals of 39 countries who were subject to the administration’s expanded travel restrictions.

USCIS implemented the adjudication pause in late 2025 as part of broader screening and vetting measures affecting nationals of the 39 designated countries. The policies placed a hold on a wide range of immigration benefit requests, including certain applications for adjustment of status, employment authorization, naturalization, and asylum-related benefits. In some cases, the agency’s actions also affected previously approved benefits and discretionary adjudications.

In its June 5 decision, the court concluded that USCIS lacked statutory authority to implement the challenged policies and found them unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act. The court vacated the following four USCIS policies:

  1. Pausing adjudication of immigration benefit requests filed by nationals of the affected countries;
  2. Pausing asylum and withholding adjudications;
  3. Requiring re-review of certain previously approved immigration benefits; and
  4. Directing officers to treat certain country-specific factors as significant negative discretionary considerations in adjudications.

The court also issued declaratory relief in favor of the plaintiffs but declined to enter a permanent injunction.

For employers, the practical impact of the court decision will depend largely on how USCIS responds. If implemented, the court’s ruling could allow long-pending employment-based adjustment of status applications and related employment authorization requests to resume adjudication. The decision may also eliminate additional discretionary scrutiny tied to the country-specific factors policy.

USCIS has yet to issue guidance regarding implementation, case processing priorities, or the treatment of applications previously subject to the pause. However, the government is expected to seek a stay of the court’s decision or pursue an appeal, either of which could delay or alter the practical impact of the ruling.

For now, employers with affected employees should:

  • Continue to monitor case developments closely;
  • Maintain compliance with Form I-9 and work authorization requirements; and
  • Evaluate contingency planning where prolonged adjudication delays have affected workforce planning.

Jackson Lewis attorneys will continue monitoring developments, including any government appeals or USCIS implementation guidance.

Takeaways

  • A new USCIS policy memorandum emphasizes that adjustment of status is a discretionary benefit and that consular processing abroad is the “ordinary” pathway to permanent residence.
  • The memo does not eliminate employment-based adjustment of status or create a formal new rule requiring all applicants to consular process.
  • Significant questions remain, including how USCIS will apply this guidance to pending applications, whether new adjudication standards will emerge in practice, and whether the policy will face litigation challenges.

USCIS released a new policy memorandum (PM-602-0199) on May 22, 2026, asserting that adjustment of status (AOS) is an “extraordinary” discretionary benefit that should not “supersede the regular consular visa-issuing process.” The accompanying agency announcement goes further, stating that temporary visitors “must return to their home country to apply” to pursue permanent residence “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

The memo appears primarily aimed at directing the agency’s adjudicators to apply more rigorous discretionary analysis in adjustment cases. Significantly, USCIS states that maintaining lawful status in a dual-intent category “is not sufficient, on its own, to warrant a favorable exercise of discretion.” Although that language may create uncertainty for otherwise compliant nonimmigrant workers pursuing employment-based permanent residence through the long-standing AOS process, the memo does not announce any new statutory bars to adjustment eligibility nor rescind existing adjustment pathways. The agency also confirms that officers must continue to conduct a case-by-case totality-of-the-circumstances analysis.

For employers and foreign national employees, the practical impact will likely depend on the facts of each case. The memo repeatedly references adverse discretionary factors, such as immigration status violations, unauthorized employment, fraud or misrepresentation concerns, failure to depart following expiration of status or parole, and conduct inconsistent with the purpose of admission.

For now, employers should anticipate:

  • Increased Requests for Evidence (RFEs) or Notices of Intent to Deny (NOIDs) focused on discretionary factors;
  • Longer adjudication timelines while USCIS applies enhanced review; and
  • Greater emphasis on documenting lawful maintenance of status, compliance history, and positive equities in AOS filings.

Important issues remain unresolved. The memorandum does not clearly specify an effective date or whether it will be applied to pending cases. Litigation challenging the policy is widely expected, particularly over the agency’s interpretation of the discretionary framework governing adjustment adjudications.

Jackson Lewis attorneys continue to monitor implementation closely, including whether USCIS issues category-specific guidance or changes adjudication practices for employment-based applicants. For now, employers and foreign nationals with pending or planned adjustment filings should consult counsel regarding case strategy, timing considerations, and documentation of discretionary factors.

Please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney with any questions.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has updated its Form I‑9 Inspection guidance, changing how the agency classifies certain Form I‑9 errors during employer audits.

Although the underlying Form I‑9 requirements remain the same, several errors that were considered “technical or procedural” are now treated as “substantive,” which may result in penalties without an opportunity to cure.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), Form I‑9 errors generally fall into two categories:

  • Technical or procedural failures, which allow employers up to 10 business days to correct errors found during an ICE inspection; and
  • Substantive violations, which may result in monetary penalties with no correction period if errors are identified during an ICE inspection.

ICE’s updated fact sheet, issued on March 16, 2026, confirms that only technical or procedural failures qualify for a correction window, while substantive violations do not.

Prior ICE guidance and internal memoranda treated many common Form I‑9 mistakes, such as missing dates or incomplete fields, as technical and therefore correctable. As reflected in the updated fact sheet, the following errors are now reclassified as substantive violations and no longer fall within the statutory correction period:

Form SectionErrors Reclassified as Substantive Violations
Section 1 – Employee InformationMissing employee date of birth
Failure to date Section 1
Supplement A – Preparer/TranslatorIncomplete or missing preparer/translator information (e.g., missing name, address, signature, or date)
Section 2 – Employer ReviewMissing date of hire
Section 2 – Employer CertificationFailure to date the Section 2 employer certification
Missing employer or authorized representative title
Section 2 – Document InformationMissing required document information (even where a legible photocopy of the document is retained)
Supplement B – Rehire/ReverificationMissing rehire date
Form UsageUsing Spanish‑language Form I‑9 outside Puerto Rico

The updated guidance may limit employers’ ability to remediate routine paperwork deficiencies identified during an audit and increase the likelihood of immediate penalty exposure. Employers may wish to consider:

  • Conducting internal Form I‑9 audits to identify and remediate errors proactively;
  • Reviewing onboarding and I‑9 or E-Verify completion practices, including Form I-9 training for HR personnel and authorized representatives; and
  • Ensuring consistency and completeness in both Section 1 (employee information and attestation) and Section 2 (employer review and verification).

Employers using electronic I‑9 systems should also confirm that auto‑population features or system defaults do not result in missing or incomplete required fields.

Please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney with any questions.

The Department of Labor (DOL) has published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to revise how prevailing wage levels are calculated for the H-1B, H-1B1, E-3, and PERM employment based non-immigrant and immigrant visa programs.

The March 27, 2026, proposal seeks to increase the four-tiered prevailing wage structure for these visa programs by aligning them between the 34th to 88th percentiles of the Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS) wage survey administrated by the DOL’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), up from the current four-tiered prevailing wage structure for these visa programs between the 17th and 67th percentile of the OEWS wage survey data.

Overview

Current DOL regulations use a four-tier prevailing wage system based on the BLS OEWS survey methodology.

The NPRM would raise all four prevailing wage levels within the OEWS distribution:

  • Level I – from the 17th to the 34th percentile
  • Level II – from the 34th to the 52nd percentile
  • Level III – from the 50th to the 70th percentile
  • Level IV – from the 67th to the 88th percentile

The revised wage levels would apply equally to both temporary (H-1B, H-1B1, E-3) and permanent (PERM, including EB-2 and EB-3) employment-based visa programs by amending PERM regulations and Labor Condition Applications regulations. The revised methodology and corresponding prevailing wage levels would be prospective, applying only to:

  • Prevailing wage requests pending on the effective date
  • New LCAs or PWD requests filed on or after the effective date

If the rule is adopted in its current form, the proposed changes would codify the new four-tier wage structure in the regulations, specify each level’s wage percentile, confirm the BLS OEWS data as the primary source, remove outdated references to State Workforce Agencies, and require annual wage data updates on the OFLC website. The DOL would also keep the current option to use private wage surveys in certain cases.

NPRM’s Rationale

The NPRM cites to Presidential Proclamation No. 10973, “Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers,” 90 Fed. Reg. 46027 (Sept. 19, 2025), directing the secretary of labor to initiate rulemaking to revise prevailing wage levels under the H-1B visa program. DOL asserts that the current methodology for setting prevailing wage levels does not appropriately account for relevant statutory factors, including experience, education, and level of supervision required for a particular role or occupation. It also states that the current methodology and structure undermines the DOL’s statutory responsibility under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to ensure that employment of foreign nationals does not impose adverse effects on the wages and working conditions of comparable U.S. workers by allowing employers to pay foreign nationals “significantly less” than what similarly qualified U.S. workers earn for the same jobs in the same area of intended employment.

Although DOL expects the rule to result in billions of dollars in annual wage transfers from employers to workers over 10 years, it states that direct compliance costs will be minimal aside from familiarization expenses.

Potential Impact on H-1B, H-1B1, E-3 Non-Immigrant Visa Filings

If implemented, the rule will likely increase the minimum wage requirements for new LCAs based on OEWS data. The DOL estimates average wages will rise by about $14,000 per worker annually, with even larger increases for entry-level and mid-level positions.

Potential Impact on PERM (EB-2 and EB-3) Immigrant Visa Sponsorship

Higher prevailing wages during recruitment may affect labor market test results, require higher wages on ETA 9089 applications, and increase long-term green card costs for sponsored employees.

Employer Action Items

The NPRM invites comments on the proposed rule on wage levels, alternative methods, and concerns about reliance by May 26, 2026; it is especially interested in whether the proposed methodology “appropriately accounts for education, experience, and responsibility levels” required under the applicable provisions of the INA.

Employers should consider reviewing their impacted nonimmigrant and PERM-based immigrant visa cases to assess whether roles would remain cost-effective to sponsor, how wage increases may affect internal pay structures, potential impacts on U.S. worker compensation, and whether to adjust the timing of upcoming nonimmigrant or PERM-based filings impacted by the proposed rule.

We will monitor the rulemaking process and provide updates.

USCIS and E-Verify have updated their previous coordinated employer guidance with respect to handling I-9 and E-Verify compliance for current TPS beneficiaries from Burma, Ethiopia, and Somalia.

Below are updated instructions.

Form I-9

Complete Section 1 and Section 2 on I-9s as follows:

New Hire Instructions:

  • Section 1 (“Expiration Date”) – input “as per court order”
  • Section 2 (“Expiration Date (if any)”) – input as follows:
    • For Burmese TPS holders: “April 15, 2026”
    • For Ethiopian TPS holders: “April 13, 2026”
    • For Somalian TPS holders: “May 18, 2026”

Existing Employee Instructions:

  • Additional Information Box or Supplement B: Add a note referencing the court stay and USCIS guidance with the applicable expiration date.

E-Verify

The E-Verify updates (see Burma, Ethiopia, and Somalia) echo the I-9 approach for new hires:

  • When creating or updating a case for a TPS holder, use the following expiration dates from the I-9 in the E-Verify case:
    • For Burmese TPS holders: “April 15, 2026”
    • For Ethiopian TPS holders: “April 13, 2026”
    • For Somalian TPS holders: “May 18, 2026”
  • Do not treat the earlier printed date on the EAD as the controlling expiration for E-Verify purposes.

Do not run a second E-Verify case for existing employees.

Jackson Lewis attorneys will continue to monitor related developments in litigation and E-Verify/USCIS guidance and provide updates as they occur.