On Feb. 13, 2026, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem announced that Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation for Yemen will not be extended.

This TPS designation will terminate 60 days after the notice is published in the Federal Register. During this 60-day transition period, work authorization documents based upon TPS designation will remain valid. After the 60-day transition period, barring any litigation or policy to the contrary, Yemen’s TPS designation will be terminated, and those Yemeni nationals holding only TPS and no other lawful immigration status will be expected to depart the U.S.

Secretary Noem determined that country conditions in Yemen no longer meet the statutory requirements for TPS designation.

Numerous lawsuits have been filed in response to Secretary Noem’s decisions to end TPS designations for several countries and remain pending. Similar legal challenges may be brought seeking to block the termination of TPS designation for Yemen.

Jackson Lewis attorneys will continue to monitor the situation and provide updates, including prospective litigation and issues pertaining to compliance and work authorization.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has reversed a lower court’s order vacating the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Honduras, Nepal, and Nicaragua, reinstating the DHS termination.

In granting the stay pending appeal, the Ninth Circuit concluded the government is likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal, either by demonstrating the district court lacked jurisdiction or by prevailing over the plaintiffs’ claim that the TPS terminations were arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

Background

On Dec. 31, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California vacated DHS’s decisions to terminate TPS for Honduras, Nepal, and Nicaragua, thereby setting aside the terminations.

Pursuant to that decision and order, TPS designations for Honduras, Nepal, and Nicaragua were reinstated, and affected individuals’ work authorization was restored.

DHS appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit and sought a stay of the district court’s decision pending appeal.

Ninth Circuit Stay and Immediate Impact

With the Ninth Circuit’s Feb. 9, 2026, stay, the district court’s vacatur is no longer in effect while the appeal proceeds. As a result, DHS’s prior terminations of TPS for Honduras, Nepal, and Nicaragua are reinstated — no longer set aside — during the pendency of the appeal.

The Ninth Circuit’s order addresses only the legal status of the district court’s vacatur pending appeal. USCIS has updated its TPS websites for Honduras, Nepal, and  Nicaragua to indicate that TPS has terminated and prior TPS holders no longer have work authorization.

Individuals who had continued working pursuant to the district court’s vacatur no longer have valid employment authorization based solely on TPS from those countries.

Employer Considerations

Employers that retained or rehired employees based on the district court’s order vacating the TPS terminations should promptly assess their workforce and I-9 compliance obligations in light of the Ninth Circuit’s stay and updated DHS/USCIS guidance.

If an employee’s work authorization was based solely on an expired EAD based on TPS from Honduras, Nepal, or Nicaragua and the District Court’s decision and no other independent lawful status or employment authorization exists, employers may be required to terminate employment due to lack of valid work authorization.

Employers should:

  • Review affected employees’ Forms I-9 and supporting documentation;
  • Determine whether any employee has alternative work authorization;
  • Avoid selective verification practices that could raise discrimination concerns;
  • Ensure any employment action is based on objective documentation requirements and policies are applied consistently.

Given the rapidly evolving litigation and policy landscape, employers should consult with employment and immigration counsel.

Continuing Developments

TPS policy continues to shift and remains the subject of active litigation. The Ninth Circuit’s decision does not resolve the underlying merits of the case. Additional developments are expected as the appeal proceeds.

Jackson Lewis attorneys will continue to monitor this matter closely. Please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney with any questions regarding your compliance obligations or the workforce impacts related to TPS changes.

Takeaways

  • Haitian TPS will not end 02.03.26 after a federal court stayed DHS’s 11.28.25 termination notice.
  • Venezuela TPS is not reinstated despite the Ninth Circuit ruling, because a U.S. Supreme Court stay remains in effect pending further appeals.
  • As the latest developments show, TPS rules differ sharply by country, requiring careful, individualized employer review.

On Jan. 28, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision holding that DHS lacked statutory authority to “vacate” prior Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designations for Haiti and Venezuela and then terminate TPS early based on those vacaturs.

Because the TPS statute does not authorize retroactive vacatur, the Ninth Circuit ruled the terminations were unlawful agency action and must be set aside nationwide.

Haiti TPS: Termination Stayed

For Haiti, the Ninth Circuit restored the pre-vacatur status quo. However, the court did not address DHS’s Nov. 28, 2025, Federal Register notice terminating Haitian TPS effective 11:59 p.m. on Feb. 3, 2026.

DHS maintained that this notice independently and lawfully ended Haitian TPS on that date. However, on Feb. 2. 2026, a federal judge in Washington, D.C. blocked DHS from enforcing its November 2025 termination notice, preserving TPS and work authorization for now.

As a result:

  • Haitian TPS does not expire on Feb. 3, 2026
  • Employment authorization tied to Haitian TPS remains valid
  • DHS may not implement the termination while the case proceeds

The District Court in D.C. concluded that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their case and would suffer irreparable harm absent a stay. The decision preserves the status quo while litigation continues.

This stay does not permanently resolve the future of Haitian TPS, but it removes the immediate expiration risk that employers were preparing for this week.

Venezuela TPS: U.S. Supreme Court Stay Still Controls

Although the Ninth Circuit ruled against DHS’s vacatur authority, Venezuela TPS is not restored, because a Supreme Court stay remains in effect pending completion of appellate review.

As a result:

  • Venezuela TPS is not broadly reinstated
  • Only the following individuals remain work authorized:
    • Individuals who re-registered under the Jan. 17, 2025, extension; and
    • have Form I-765 receipt notices dated on or before Feb. 5, 2025
  • For this group, employment authorization runs through Oct. 2, 2026

Unless the Supreme Court declines to hear the appeal, lifts the stay, or issues a merits decision, the Ninth Circuit ruling alone does not change Venezuela TPS eligibility or work authorization.

Bottom Line for Employers

  • Haiti TPS is temporarily protected by court order
  • Venezuela TPS remains limited by a Supreme Court stay
  • Continue country-specific, notice-specific I-9 and EAD reviews

Jackson Lewis attorneys will continue to monitor court developments and DHS guidance and provide updates as they occur.

California’s “Workplace Know Your Rights Act,” SB 294, introduces significant new requirements for California employers beginning Feb. 1, 2026, with important implications for immigration‑related enforcement and employee rights.

The law is intended to ensure that all employees, including immigrant workers, are informed of their protections during workplace interactions with immigration authorities and law enforcement. 

Key components of SB 294 include the following:

1. Mandatory Written Notice of Immigration‑Related Rights

On or before Feb. 1, 2026, and annually thereafter, employers must provide a stand‑alone written notice to all current employees as well as to new hires at the time of hire. The notice must include information on the following immigration-related rights:

  • Rights during immigration‑agency inspections, including notice requirements.
  • Protection from unfair immigration‑related practices, such as documenting abuse or retaliation based on immigration status.
  • Constitutional rights during law‑enforcement encounters, including protections from unreasonable searches, self‑incrimination, and due process violations.

Non-immigration rights that are also required to be given notice include (1) the right to workers’ compensation benefits, including disability pay and medical care for work-related injuries or illness, as well as contact information for the Division of Workers’ Compensation; and (2) the right to organize a union or engage in concerted activity in the workplace.

This notice must be delivered using the method normally used for workplace communications, such as email, text message, or personal delivery, as long as the employee can reasonably receive it within one business day.

The state labor commissioner has released official templates of the notice in Spanish and English, with additional languages to be made available in the future. The written notice must be provided in the language the employer uses to communicate employment-related information and that the employee understands if the template notice is available in that language, otherwise, English is fine.

2. Emergency Contact Requirement for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Arrests or Detentions

By March 30, 2026, employers must offer employees the opportunity to designate an emergency contact to be notified if the employee is:

  • Arrested or detained at the workplace, or
  • Arrested or detained offsite during work hours, when the employer has actual knowledge.

This requirement applies to onsite and remote employees working in California and applies only if the employer has actual knowledge of the employee’s arrest or detention.

3. Recordkeeping Expectations

Employers must maintain proof of notice, including dates and methods, for at least three years.

4. Penalties for Non‑Compliance

Violations carry meaningful fines for employers:

  • Up to $500 per employee for failing to provide the written notice
  • Up to $10,000 per employee for failing to notify the designated emergency contact after an arrest or detention

5. Immediate Next Steps for Employers

  • Ensure dissemination of the template notice by Feb. 1, 2026.
  • Incorporate the template notice into onboarding and annual communications.
  • Implement workflows to collect and update emergency‑contact authorizations.
  • Train HR and managers on how to handle ICE activity and protect employee rights.
  • Prepare to track and retain distribution records.

Attorneys at Jackson Lewis are ready to address any questions you may have regarding the impact of SB 294 on your business practices.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has issued an Interim Final Rule (IFR) that removes the long‑standing requirement that R‑1 nonimmigrant religious workers who have exhausted the maximum five‑year period in R‑1 status must spend one full year abroad before becoming eligible to return in R‑1 classification.

Under the IFR, an R‑1 nonimmigrant who has spent five continuous years in the United States must still depart the country. That requirement remains unchanged.

However, DHS has removed the mandatory one‑year physical presence abroad before readmission. Now, once a new R‑1 petition is approved, the religious worker need only to depart the United States, apply for a new visa stamp (if necessary), and may immediately apply for readmission to the United States and begin a new initial period of stay.

Admission remains subject to all applicable eligibility and admissibility requirements, but religious workers are no longer required to remain abroad for any minimum period of time.

This change represents a significant shift from prior practice. Previously, the one‑year absence often disrupted religious staffing, delayed important ministries, and created burdens for both workers and their organizations.

The rule does not remove the maximum five‑year stay limitation for R-1 workers. R-1 workers who have reached their five-year maximum period of stay must depart the United States. Extensions of stay are not permitted beyond this limit. Any subsequent admission following departure is treated as a new period of R-1 stay, subject to the statutory maximum.

This regulatory update streamlines the process for returning R‑1 nonimmigrants and reduced operational disruptions for faith communities.

Please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney with any questions.

On Dec. 31, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California vacated the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) decisions to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Honduras, Nicaragua, and Nepal, finding that the terminations violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court concluded that DHS failed to conduct an objective assessment of country conditions and did not consult with other federal agencies. National TPS Alliance, et al. v. Noem, et al., No. 25-cv-05687 (N.D. Cal.).

As background, the National TPS Alliance and other individuals (the plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit on July 7, 2025, after DHS announced the termination of TPS for individuals from Honduras, Nepal, and Nicaragua. Their legal status and work authorization were set to end within 60 days of the DHS announcement. TPS terminations would have resulted in the loss of legal status and work authorization within 60 days, and approximately 60,000 individuals were expected to be impacted. The plaintiffs argued that the TPS terminations were preordained decisions, not based on current country conditions, and that the terminations deviated from prior agency practice without explanation. DHS provided only a 60-day transition period, in contrast with long-standing agency practice of providing at least six months.

In its Dec. 31, 2025, decision, the court sided with the plaintiffs, stating, in light of the procedural failures, the TPS terminations for Honduras, Nepal, and Nicaragua were arbitrary and capricious agency actions under the APA. As a result, the terminations for Honduras, Nepal, and Nicaragua were deemed unlawful and vacated.

Still, DHS has continued to move forward with TPS terminations for other countries. Most recently, on Jan. 13, DHS announced the termination of TPS for Somalia. It concluded that country conditions have improved such that Somalia no longer meets the statutory requirements for TPS. Under the announcement, Somalia’s TPS designation is set to expire on March 17, 2026, impacting approximately 1,100 current TPS beneficiaries, with an additional 1,400 applications pending as of early December 2025. DHS indicated that Somali nationals with other lawful status may remain in the United States, while others were encouraged to depart the country following the end of TPS protections.

DHS is expected to appeal the California district court’s decision vacating the TPS terminations for Honduras, Nepal, and Nicaragua. In the meantime, employers and TPS beneficiaries should be aware that TPS policy continues to shift rapidly and remains the subject of ongoing litigation. Please feel free to reach out to Jackson Lewis attorneys as we closely monitor further developments.

The Department of State is expected to pause consular immigrant visa processing for nationals of 75 countries starting Jan. 21, 2026, according to multiple public reports. This development represents a significant expansion of the Trump Administration’s efforts that include more intensive screening and review of overseas visa applicants.

The government reportedly is undertaking a wide‑ranging reassessment of consular processing procedures, including fraud‑prevention practices, national‑security vetting, and public‑charge review standards. The countries expected to be affected span multiple regions. Consular posts within these jurisdictions will likely suspend scheduling and adjudication of immigrant visa interviews until new protocols are finalized.

This anticipated pause follows the Administration’s implementation of Presidential Proclamation 10998, which imposed full or partial visa‑issuance restrictions on 39 countries effective Jan. 1, 2026. Although this proclamation restricted both immigrant and certain nonimmigrant visa categories for designated nationalities, the expected Jan. 21 action reaches a far broader group and halts immigrant visa processing entirely at impacted consulates.

Full list of the countries impacted:

  1. Afghanistan
  2. Albania
  3. Algeria
  4. Antigua and Barbuda
  5. Armenia
  6. Azerbaijan
  7. Bahamas
  8. Bangladesh
  9. Barbados
  10. Belarus
  11. Belize
  12. Bhutan
  13. Bosnia
  14. Brazil
  15. Burma
  16. Cambodia
  17. Cameroon
  18. Cape Verde
  19. Colombia
  20. Cote d’Ivoire
  21. Cuba
  22. Democratic Republic of the Congo
  23. Dominica
  24. Egypt
  25. Eritrea
  26. Ethiopia
  27. Fiji
  28. Gambia
  29. Georgia
  30. Ghana
  31. Grenada
  32. Guatemala
  33. Guinea
  34. Haiti
  35. Iran
  36. Iraq
  37. Jamaica
  38. Jordan
  39. Kazakhstan
  40. Kosovo
  41. Kuwait
  42. Kyrgyzstan
  43. Laos
  44. Lebanon
  45. Liberia
  46. Libya
  47. Macedonia
  48. Moldova
  49. Mongolia
  50. Montenegro
  51. Morocco
  52. Nepal
  53. Nicaragua
  54. Nigeria
  55. Pakistan
  56. Republic of the Congo
  57. Russia
  58. Rwanda
  59. Saint Kitts and Nevis
  60. Saint Lucia
  61. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
  62. Senegal
  63. Sierra Leone
  64. Somalia
  65. South Sudan
  66. Sudan
  67. Syria
  68. Tanzania
  69. Thailand
  70. Togo
  71. Tunisia
  72. Uganda
  73. Uruguay
  74. Uzbekistan
  75. Yemen 

Jackson Lewis attorneys will continue to monitor developments and provide updates as further implementation guidance is issued.

The U.S Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed on Jan. 5, 2025, to fast-track the appeal of the recent federal court ruling upholding the Trump Administration’s imposition of a $100,000 fee on certain H-1B visa petitions.

On Dec. 24, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia upheld the legality of the $100,000 H-1B visa fee requirement. The requirement was introduced through Presidential Proclamation on Sept. 19, 2025. The lower court concluded that the Trump Administration’s imposition of the fee falls within the broad authority Congress delegated to the executive branch and the president to restrict the entry of noncitizens into the United States.

The plaintiffs, U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Association of American Universities, appealed the lower court’s decision and requested the process be expedited in light of the upcoming annual H-1B registration and lottery in March, a once-per-year opportunity for U.S. employers to register for H-1B sponsorship. In agreeing to fast-track the case, Court of Appeals set an expedited schedule under which appellants must file their appellate brief by Jan. 9, 2026, and the Trump Administration must respond by Jan. 30, 2026, with oral arguments expected in Feb. 2026.

Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security announced a final rule on Dec. 29, 2025, that it will apply a new “Weighted Selection Process” for the FY 2027 H-1B visa registration and lottery.

Jackson Lewis attorneys will continue to monitor the lawsuit and provide timely updates.

Please reach out to your Jackson Lewis attorney with any questions regarding the impact of the $100,000 fee or the upcoming changes to the H-1B cap lottery process. Our attorneys are available to advise and strategize on these developments.

U.S. consulates abroad have recently begun postponing a wide range of H‑1B and H‑4 visa interviews, resulting in significant delays in visa processing. Consulates in India have been among the most affected, as India remains the largest source of H‑1B visa holders worldwide.

Beginning in the second week of December, applicants with interviews scheduled between Dec. 15 and Dec. 26 began receiving unexpected rescheduling notices. These changes occurred shortly before the implementation of new “online presence review” requirements on Dec. 15. In response to the updated procedures, U.S. consulates in India cancelled existing appointments and issued new dates set far into the future.

To support the expanded vetting process, the Department of State now instructs all applicants for H‑1B and H‑4 visas, as well as applicants in the F, M, and J nonimmigrant categories, to adjust the privacy settings on all social media accounts to “public.”

The Department explains that it uses all available information when screening visa applicants to identify individuals who may be inadmissible to the United States. Applicants who may be inadmissible may present national security or public safety concerns. The online presence review now applies to all H‑1B professionals and their dependents, in addition to students and exchange visitors who were already subject to such review.

On Dec. 9, the U.S. Embassy in India publicly advised applicants not to appear for their previously scheduled interviews if they had received a rescheduling email. The Embassy cautioned that applicants who attempted to attend based on their original appointment date would not be admitted, even if they had already traveled to another city for the interview.

The new vetting procedures increased the time required for each applicant, which has resulted in fewer interviews being conducted each day. Reportedly, appointments that had been secured well in advance have now been rescheduled to dates between March and June 2026. Some applicants have even received new appointments scheduled for October 2026.

As of Dec. 17, some applicants have reported limited success in obtaining emergency appointments. Certain H‑1B applicants with children have received expedited appointments after explaining that their child would miss school due to the rescheduling. Others have attempted to request medical exceptions.

The expanded review requirements could continue to affect visa processing timelines in the months ahead.

Jackson Lewis attorneys will continue to track updates. Applicants or employers with questions regarding visa processing changes should contact their Jackson Lewis attorney.

A federal judge has granted the Trump Administration’s motion for summary judgment and upheld the legality of the $100,000 fee requirement for certain H-1B visa petitions. Chamber of Commerce of the USA v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, No. 1:25-cv-03675 (D.D.C. Dec. 23, 2025).

President Donald 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.

This court’s decision was in response to an Oct. 16, 2025, lawsuit the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Association of American Universities filed challenging the legality of the Proclamation, questioning the Administration’s authority to levy the $100,000 fee, and arguing that the fee would cause significant and potentially irreparable harm to American businesses.

In upholding the legality of the Proclamation, U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell determined the Administration’s imposition of the $100,000 fee was within the broad power Congress delegated to the executive branch and the president to restrict entry of noncitizens into the United States.

As a result of the court ruling, the new H-1B fee remains in effect.

Two additional lawsuits challenging the legality of the Proclamation are pending. The first is an Oct. 3, 2025, lawsuit a coalition of immigration advocacy organizations and affected employers filed in federal court in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The second is a Dec. 12, 2025, lawsuit a coalition of 20 states filed in federal court in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Please reach out to your Jackson Lewis attorney with any questions regarding the impact of the $100,000 fee.