In a final rule released Aug. 10, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that employers with at least 50 U.S. employees, with more than half of whom holding H-1B, L-1A or L-1B status, must pay the Biometric Fee, $4,000 for an H-1B petition or $4,500 for an L-1 petition, for all extension-of-status petitions. Amended petitions that do not request an extension remain exempt. The rule goes into effect on Sept. 9, 2026.

Until now, DHS generally collected the fee when a covered employer first sponsored a worker or filed a change-of-employer petition but not for an extension petition. The agency said that approach improperly tied the biometric fee to a separate fraud-prevention fee. According to DHS, Congress signaled in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016 that the biometric fee also applies to extensions of status.

DHS reported that only 27% of H-1B petitions filed by covered employers between fiscal years 2018 and 2025 were charged the fee. Had the new interpretation applied during that period, approximately 75% would have been subject to the fee. DHS did not provide a comparable calculation for L-1 petitions.

Employers, particularly smaller businesses, raised cost concerns during the rulemaking process. DHS received 146 public comments and estimated that, at most, about 16% of small businesses filing H-1B or L-1 petitions could be affected. The agency acknowledged the added burden but added that the result reflects the best reading of the statute and Congress’ intent.

DHS also said the added collections are needed to implement and maintain its biometric entry-exit system, which is designed to strengthen security and detect fraudulent travel documents. It expects the rule to generate an additional $37.9 million in fiscal year 2026 and $40 million in fiscal year 2027.

Under previous congressional action (Public Law 114–113), the Biometric Fee applies to qualifying petitions filed on or before Sept. 30, 2027.

Covered employers should review upcoming extension-of-status filings now and account for the additional cost in their budgets.

Please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney with any questions.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on Aug. 5, 2026, issued Policy Alert PA-2026-05 updating and significantly shifting the USCIS Policy Manual provisions governing evidence, denials, and post-decision actions. The update clarifies that USCIS, in its discretion, may deny immigration benefit requests that lack required initial evidence or otherwise fail to establish eligibility without first issuing a Request for Evidence (RFE) or Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID). The guidance took effect immediately on Aug. 5, 2026, and applies to all pending and newly filed benefit requests.

Previously, USCIS policy generally encouraged officers to issue RFEs or NOIDs before denying filings with evidentiary deficiencies.

USCIS states that the prior guidance contributed to frivolous, placeholder, or substantially incomplete filings and increased adjudication delays, prompting the agency to restore officers’ discretion to deny deficient requests without first providing an opportunity to supplement the record.

Increased Risk of Denial for Incomplete Filings Without Additional Evidence Requests

Under the revised guidance, USCIS officers may deny a benefit request without first issuing an RFE or NOID if initial required evidence is missing or the filing otherwise fails to establish eligibility. Although officers retain discretion to request additional evidence in certain circumstances (such as refugee and asylum applications), USCIS emphasized that requestors should not assume they will have an opportunity to cure deficiencies after filing.

The guidance also confirms that officers may deny requests that lack a legal basis for approval without first providing an opportunity to supplement the record.

Changes to RFE, NOID Response Times

The USCIS update does not change the regulatory maximum response periods of 12 weeks for RFEs and 30 days for NOIDs. However, officers may establish shorter deadlines where appropriate. Additionally, USCIS no longer provides benefit requestors an additional 14 days to respond to notices mailed outside the United States.

In addition, USCIS clarifies that if a requestor submits any response to an RFE or NOID, including a partial response, the agency may treat the submission as a request for a decision based on the existing record.

Considerations for Employers

The policy change increases the importance of front-end case preparation and evidentiary review. Employers should work with immigration counsel. Employment-based petitions should be reviewed before filing to confirm that all required initial evidence and case-specific eligibility support are included. This may require earlier document collection, closer coordination with foreign national employees, and a more deliberate assessment of whether a case is ready to file or should be held until the record is complete.

Employers also should:

  • Build additional lead time into immigration timelines so counsel can identify required initial evidence, request missing documents, and resolve evidentiary gaps before submission; and
  • Evaluate filing strategy with counsel in time-sensitive situations, including status expiration, work authorization concerns, priority date considerations, and cases involving documents from foreign entities, universities, licensing bodies, or government agencies.

Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to assist with evaluating filing readiness, developing evidentiary strategies, responding to RFEs and NOIDs, and assessing the impact of the revised USCIS evidentiary standards on employment-based immigration matters.

On Aug. 5, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied plaintiffs’ request to stay USCIS’s implementation of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act’s (H.R. 1) limits on TPS-based employment authorization documents (EADs), while granting limited relief related to the new Annual Asylum Fee (AAF). Venezuelan Association of Massachusetts et al. v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services et al., No. 1:26-cv-13038.

TPS EAD Cap Remains in Effect

The plaintiffs challenged several USCIS actions implementing H.R. 1, including the July 2025 Federal Register notice establishing the one-year TPS EAD cap, the March 2026 USCIS website update applying that cap to previously issued 540-day automatic extensions, and related provisions of the April 2026 Interim Final Rule.

The court rejected each of the plaintiffs’ challenges to the TPS EAD cap. It held that USCIS was not required to engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking because the agency was implementing Congress’ statutory directive in H.R. 1. The court also concluded that applying the one-year cap to previously issued 540-day automatic EAD extensions for TPS beneficiaries from El Salvador, Sudan, and Ukraine was not impermissibly retroactive.

Finally, the court acknowledged that the new statutory framework could result in gaps in employment authorization, but it held that the possibility of such gaps did not render the Cap Policy unlawful. The court noted that USCIS could issue one-year automatic extensions to avoid gaps and that any future failure to comply with the TPS statute’s requirement that employment authorization remain effective throughout the TPS designation “may result in independent liability,” but such liability would be “independent of the mere implementation of the Cap Policy as required by H.R. 1.”

Court Stays Portions of Annual Asylum Fee Rule

The court granted a nationwide stay under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) with respect to the April 2026 IFR provisions authorizing USCIS to reject pending asylum applications and initiate removal proceedings for failure to pay the Annual Asylum Fee. The court found those consequences were not required by H.R. 1 and likely violated the APA’s notice-and-comment requirements.

Employer Takeaways

The August 5 decision supersedes the court’s temporary July 21 administrative stay. As a result, employers should continue to follow current USCIS guidance regarding TPS-based EAD automatic extensions and Form I-9 reverification. The temporary relief preserving previously extended TPS EAD expiration dates is no longer in effect, although the litigation remains pending on the merits.

Please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney with any questions.

On Aug. 5, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia confirmed that its prior order staying the termination of Haiti’s Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation is no longer in effect following action by the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. As a result, the court-ordered injunction that had temporarily prevented the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from implementing its termination of Haiti TPS has been lifted. TPS beneficiaries can no longer rely on the District Court’s stay as a basis for continued protection from the termination.

However, the underlying lawsuit has not been dismissed, as the court has to rule on the core constitutional issue concerning equal protection. The District Court has directed the parties to submit a proposed schedule for further proceedings.

In November 2025, former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem announced the termination of Haiti’s TPS designation. The termination was published in the Federal Register (90 Fed. Reg 54733 (Nov. 28, 2025)) and would have ended TPS protections for Haitian beneficiaries. A group of plaintiffs challenged the termination in federal court, arguing that the decision was unlawful and seeking to prevent DHS from implementing it while the litigation proceeded.

In February 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order staying the effective date of DHS’s termination of Haiti TPS pending judicial review. This injunction preserved TPS protections for affected nationals of Haiti while the court considered the merits of the challenge. The injunction temporarily delayed the termination and allowed Haitian TPS holders to maintain their status and corresponding employment authorization during the litigation.

On June 25, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the TPS terminations effective July 27, 2026, and remanded to the lower court to lift the stay. Mullin v. Doe, No. 25-1083. Following receipt of the D.C. Circuit’s mandate on Aug. 4, 2026, the District Court expressly stated that its prior order staying the effective date of DHS’s Haiti TPS termination “is no longer in effect.”

What This Means

Haitian TPS beneficiaries and employers should:

  • Closely monitor DHS announcements regarding implementation of the termination.
  • Review the validity of employment authorization as well as any related government guidance.
  • Evaluate whether Haiti TPS recipients may qualify for another immigration benefit or status.
  • Consult immigration counsel regarding individualized options and compliance obligations.

While the District Court’s injunction has been lifted, the case remains active, anticipating further litigation. Haitian TPS beneficiaries and employers should continue to monitor developments closely for additional court rulings, DHS guidance, or other administrative actions which may affect the timeline.

Jackson Lewis attorneys will continue to follow this matter and provide updates as new information becomes available.

Federal immigration authorities reportedly are using domestic air travel information to locate and arrest noncitizens suspected of overstaying their authorized periods of admission.

Authorities have made at least 27 arrests of noncitizens suspected of overstay at airports in at least nine states across the country, from California to Virginia, according to an ABC News report. Several individuals detained by authorities reportedly had no criminal history and possessed valid employment authorization or parole documents.

The report follows the release of a previously undisclosed agreement between the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Signed in May 2025, the agreement establishes a framework for TSA and ICE to share passenger information, including for immigration enforcement purposes. The information could enable ICE to determine when and where targeted individuals are scheduled to travel.

Important Distinctions

An expired visa stamp does not necessarily mean an individual has overstayed. The visa permits travel to a U.S. port of entry, while the Form I-94 generally controls the duration of stay in the United States. An individual may continue to be in lawful status after the visa stamp expires if the I-94 is valid and the individual continues complying with the terms of admission. Conversely, an unexpired visa does not authorize an individual to remain beyond the I-94 expiration date.

Consider an individual who lawfully entered the United States as a B-1/B-2 visitor and later applied for asylum or a family-based green card. Once the individual’s I-94 expires, the pending application generally does not extend or restore B-1/B-2 status. Filing the application may place the individual in a period of authorized stay for certain purposes and make them eligible for an employment authorization document. Nevertheless, the individual may still lack lawful nonimmigrant status and may be detained or placed in removal proceedings while the application is pending, even if they ultimately could qualify for adjustment of status as the immediate relative of a U.S. citizen.

More generally, the existence of a pending immigration application, employment authorization document, or parole document does not automatically shield an individual from detention or removal proceedings. The legal effect of any application or immigration benefit requires individualized review and analysis.

Considerations for Employers

Employers should consider consulting immigration counsel before a sponsored employee undertakes domestic travel if the employee’s immigration status has expired or their ability to remain in the United States depends on a pending application, parole, deferred action, or another form of temporary protection.

Employers also should:

  • Confirm the employee’s current status using the I-94 and applicable approval notices;
  • Consider alternatives to nonessential air travel when counsel identifies a material enforcement risk;
  • Ensure potentially affected travelers have appropriate immigration documentation and emergency contact information; and
  • Develop a response protocol in the event an employee is detained during business travel.

Employers should avoid conducting ad hoc immigration inquiries or reverifying Form I-9 documentation based solely on an employee’s nationality or travel plans. Because employment authorization and immigration status are distinct legal issues, workplace practices should be applied consistently and without discrimination.

Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to assist with evaluating immigration status, domestic travel risks, and appropriate contingency planning.

A recent reminder to international travelers that the contents of their phone may be subject to inspection when entering the United States came from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

In United States v. Eta, No. 25-1891 (7th Cir. July 6, 2026), the court held that Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers may conduct a manual search of a traveler’s cell phone at the border without a warrant or individualized suspicion under the well-established border search exception to the Fourth Amendment.

Background

Daniel Eta was under investigation for allegedly leading a transnational cyber fraud and money laundering scheme. Federal authorities stopped him on his return to the United States from Nigeria, and CBP officers manually searched three cell phones he was carrying upon arrival at Atlanta’s airport. The search uncovered evidence later used in the government’s prosecution.

Eta argued that the warrantless search violated the Fourth Amendment and sought to suppress the evidence. Both the district court and the Seventh Circuit rejected that argument.

Seventh Circuit Decision

Relying on its prior decision in United States v. Mendez, the Seventh Circuit concluded that a manual review of a traveler’s electronic device is a routine border search. Because the search occurred at the border, CBP did not need a warrant, probable cause, or even individualized suspicion, the court stated.

Why This Matters

Today, phones can contain years of emails, text messages, social media activity, photographs, travel records, and business communications. The Eta decision underscores that travelers entering the United States have reduced privacy expectations at the border, and CBP officers retain broad authority to inspect electronic devices, without a warrant and without individualized suspicion.

For visa holders, permanent residents, and foreign nationals seeking admission to the United States, information found on a device could prompt additional questioning or scrutiny regarding prior travel, employment, immigration history, or representations made in immigration filings.

With electronic devices storing more personal and professional information than ever before, this evolving area of law merits close attention from immigration attorneys and international travelers.

Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to assist in answering questions specific to your organization’s situation.

The Department of State has announced a significant restructuring of visa operations across Africa, effective Aug. 1, 2026. Under this initiative, routine immigrant and nonimmigrant visa processing at certain U.S. embassies and consulates will be consolidated into designated regional visa processing hubs or centers. According to the Department of State, this realignment is intended to promote greater consistency in visa screening, vetting, and adjudication, while aligning resources with U.S. foreign policy and security priorities.

Key Changes

Beginning Aug. 1, 2026, routine immigrant and nonimmigrant visa services will discontinue at the following 25 posts:

  1. Antananarivo
  2. Abuja
  3. Asmara
  4. Bamako
  5. Banjul
  6. Brazzaville
  7. Bujumbura
  8. Conakry
  9. Cotonou
  10. Durban
  11. Freetown
  12. Gaborone
  13. Harare
  14. Juba
  15. Libreville
  16. Lilongwe
  17. Lusaka
  18. Maputo
  19. Maseru
  20. Mbabane
  21. N’Djamena
  22. Niamey
  23. Nouakchott
  24. Ouagadougou
  25. Windhoek

Applicants from these countries will be required to schedule visa appointments and pay applicable fees through the designated regional visa processing hubs listed below.

Regional Visa Processing Hubs

Routine visa services will be centralized at the following U.S. embassies and consulates:

  1. Abidjan
  2. Accra
  3. Addis Ababa
  4. Cape Town
  5. Dakar
  6. Dar es Salaam
  7. Djibouti
  8. Johannesburg
  9. Kampala
  10. Kigali
  11. Kinshasa
  12. Lagos
  13. Lomé
  14. Luanda
  15. Malabo
  16. Monrovia
  17. Nairobi
  18. Port Louis
  19. Praia
  20. Yaoundé

Impact on Embassies, Consulates

This realignment does not close any embassy or consulate. Posts affected will remain operational and will continue providing limited/selected consular services.

Many posts will continue to offer:

  • American Citizen Services (ACS)
  • Limited nonimmigrant visa services

The Department of State has noted that Bangui will provide emergency ACS services only. Additionally, there are currently no consular operations in Bangui or Khartoum.

Guidance for Current Applicants

Applicants with Existing Appointments

Applicants who already have visa appointments scheduled at affected posts should monitor their email for country-specific instructions from the Department of State regarding appointment transfers, rescheduling procedures, or other case-related instructions.

MRV Fee Considerations

Applicants who have already paid the Machine Readable Visa (MRV) fee at a post transitioning to limited visa services must schedule an appointment by July 31, 2026. According to the Department of State, MRV fees will not be refunded if an appointment is not scheduled before the transition date.

Although affected embassies and consulates will remain open and continue providing certain services, most routine immigrant and nonimmigrant visa applications will be processed through regional centers. Applicants should review their case status carefully, monitor communications from the Department of State, and plan for potential travel to a regional visa hub when scheduling future visa appointments.

Because this realignment may significantly affect visa processing logistics, applicants and sponsoring employers should prepare for possible additional travel requirements, increased costs, appointment scheduling adjustments, changes in processing timelines, and potential delays associated with scheduling appointments, obtaining travel documents, and coordinating travel to regional processing locations.

Please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney with any questions.

The Department of Homeland Security has published a final rule replacing the long-standing “duration of status” (D/S) framework for F-1 academic students and J-1 exchange visitors with fixed periods of admission. Effective Sept. 15, 2026, the rule also establishes a new extension of stay process administered by USCIS for individuals who need additional time to complete their academic or exchange programs. Please see our full legal update for more analysis, insights and implications.

Takeaways

  • Federal courts have temporarily blocked or postponed TPS terminations for, Burma (Myanmar), Ethiopia, Somalia, South Sudan, Syria and Yemen that were scheduled to end between November 2025 and May 2026.
  • TPS beneficiaries from these countries retain legal status and work authorization, for now.
  • Employers should review affected Form I-9s and complete Supplement B reverification, where required, using the applicable court-ordered employment authorization extension date.

Due to ongoing litigation and court-issued stays, TPS beneficiaries from the following countries continue to maintain TPS status and employment authorization while litigation are pending:

  • Burma (Myanmar)
  • Ethiopia
  • Somalia
  • South Sudan
  • Syria
  • Yemen

As a result:

  • TPS beneficiaries from the above countries retain their legal status.
  • Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) in categories A12 and C19 remain valid and extended.
  • USCIS will continue to verify TPS-related employment authorization.
  • E-Verify remains available for employment eligibility verification consistent with the updated TPS guidance.

(A12 – Granted TPS and issued an EAD based on approved Temporary Protected Status; C19 – Applicant for TPS or an individual whose TPS-related employment authorization is connected to a TPS application process. USCIS treats both A12 and C19 as TPS-related categories for employment verification and automatic extensions.)

Most of these court actions are tied to broader litigation and are expected to be revisited following the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 25, 2026, decision in Mullin v. Doe[MS1] , No. 25-1083.

July 17, 2026, USCIS and E-Verify guidance replaces earlier placeholder dates for these countries and provides employers with interim compliance instructions while the litigation continues. 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. TPS and work authorization now remains extended by court order until:

  • Somalia – 7/24/26
  • Syria – 7/24/26
  • Yemen – 7/24/26
  • Burma (Myanmar) – 7/27/26
  • Ethiopia – 7/30/26
  • South Sudan – 7/30/26

Employer Compliance Considerations

Employers with employees whose TPS-related employment authorization has been extended pursuant to these court orders should review their Form I-9s to determine whether reverification is necessary.

Consistent with recent USCIS and E-Verify guidance, employers updating Form I-9 should:

  • Complete Supplement B (Reverification and Rehire), if applicable;
  • Record the applicable employment authorization expiration date reflected in the chart;
  • Enter a notation such as “EAD EXT Court Order” or “Extended by Court Order” in the Additional Information field to document the basis for the extension; and
  • Retain supporting documentation related to the automatic or court-ordered extension with the employee’s Form I-9 records.

Employers should not request additional documents beyond those required for I-9 compliance and should continue to apply standard anti-discrimination and document acceptance rules.

Jackson Lewis attorneys will continue to monitor developments and provide updates as additional guidance becomes available.

Takeaways

  • Colorado’s new HB26-1283 prohibits employers from confiscating or improperly retaining government-issued identification documents, subject to limited statutory exceptions.
  • The law does not change employers’ federal Form I-9 obligations, but it does require Colorado employers to provide a written notice and obtain a written acknowledgement during the I-9 process.
  • Employers should review onboarding, I-9, and document-handling procedures and train HR personnel on the law’s new requirements.

Colorado has enacted House Bill 26-1283, “Protections Regarding Seizures of Identification Documents,” establishing new restrictions on how employers may handle government-issued identification documents. The law takes effect on June 3, 2026 and creates an additional compliance consideration for employers conducting onboarding and employment eligibility verification.

At its core, HB26-1283 prohibits an employer or its agents from demanding, confiscating, retaining, or otherwise requiring employees, applicants, migrant workers, seasonal workers, or other individuals seeking work to surrender a government-issued identification document, subject to limited exceptions established by law. The statute is broadly written and applies to a wide range of employment relationships.

HB26-1283 does not prohibit employers from examining original government-issued identity documents or making copies when permitted by law. Rather, it permits employers to temporarily retain an original government-issued identification document for up to 10 hours to verify employment eligibility and make a copy. Employers may also retain copies of those documents as otherwise permitted by law.

Importantly, there is one additional obligation that will impact employment eligibility verification. When verifying an individual’s employment eligibility, Colorado employers must provide a written notice informing the individual of the statute’s prohibition on confiscating or improperly retaining government-issued identification documents and obtain the individual’s written acknowledgment. This written acknowledgement is then required to be retained in the employee’s employment file.  The statute does not require the notice to adhere to an exact format, and Colorado has not published a model notice to date. Employers should work with counsel to develop a compliant notice and acknowledgment for use during employment eligibility verification.

HB26-1283 creates potential criminal liability—a person who knowingly violates the prohibition commits a Class 2 misdemeanor. The law further provides that certain conduct may constitute a bias-motivated crime if, with the requisite intent and based on an individual’s actual or perceived protected characteristics, a person confiscates an identification document or provides or threatens to provide the document to federal immigration authorities, except where otherwise required or permitted by law. Such violations may constitute a Class 1 misdemeanor, and the statute preserves any other remedies otherwise available under law.

Employers should: review onboarding, I-9, and document-handling procedures to ensure original identity documents are returned promptly after lawful verification. Human resources personnel and managers should understand that while federal law requires employers to examine identity and work authorization documentation during the Form I-9 process, the law does not authorize employers to confiscate or indefinitely retain those documents. Employers should ensure they comply with the statute’s notice, acknowledgment, and record-retention requirements whenever verifying an individual’s employment eligibility.

As states continue to enact worker-protection legislation affecting employment authorization verification practices, employers operating in Colorado should ensure that their onboarding procedures, employee communications, and document-handling practices comply with both federal employment verification requirements and Colorado’s new restrictions.

Please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney with any questions.