The Lopez Law Firm, PLLC

Immigration Law & Policy Roundup, September 2026

Judge blocks new birthright citizenship order

What happened:

1. A federal judge in Maryland, Deborah Boardman, blocked President Trump’s second executive order narrowing birthright citizenship, issuing a preliminary injunction on September 2.
   1. The injunction is narrow. It only covers a specific certified class: children born after February 19, 2025, to a mother unlawfully or only temporarily present and a father who was neither a citizen nor a lawful permanent resident.
   1. The new order, signed August 6, tried to carve out exceptions for children of “alien enemies,” foreign government employees, and alleged “birth tourism.” Boardman found these unconstitutional under the Supreme Court’s June ruling in Trump v. Barbara.
   1. The administration is expected to appeal.

What does this mean?

• For attorneys: confirm whether a client’s child, born after February 19, 2025 to a noncitizen parent, falls within this certified class. Document birth circumstances carefully given the ruling’s narrow, prospective scope. This is not a nationwide rule.
  • For affected families: children within the certified class are protected from losing citizenship under the new order for now, but families whose circumstances fall outside the class definition should get legal advice rather than assume the same protection applies.
  • Bigger picture: this is the second time this administration’s birthright citizenship order has been blocked in this same litigation. Expect an appeal. This should not be treated as final until resolved on appeal or by the Supreme Court.

Source(s): 1) https:// www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-blocks-trump-executive-order-birthright-citizenship/ 2) https:// thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/6067819-judge-blocks-trump-birthright-order/

“Mega master” hearings drive record deportation orders

What happened:

1. Immigration courts are increasingly using “mega master” calendar hearings, where a single judge sees 100 or more people at once, to churn through the backlog faster.
   1. In-absentia deportation orders have hit record highs: over 54,000 nationwide in July, similar to June’s 56,000, both roughly 60% higher than a few months earlier. In Miami, in-absentia orders jumped 108% from May to July.
   1. The surge stems from record arrests, hearings moved up from as far out as 2027, and cases previously treated as low priority now being called.
   1. Compressed timelines make it harder for notices to reach people and for them to find a lawyer in time, driving no-shows and the removal orders that follow.

What does this mean?

• For attorneys: check the EOIR online portal for hearing dates frequently rather than relying on mailed notices, which are not reliably reaching people in time. Warn clients directly that a hearing date can move up with little or no notice, and that missing it risks an in-absentia removal order.
  • For noncitizens: check your own case status regularly. Do not assume you will be notified by mail before a hearing date changes.
  • Bigger picture: this is part of a broader effort to clear the court backlog quickly, but it is producing record numbers of in-absentia removal orders rather than resolving cases on the merits.

Source(s): 1) https:// www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/sep/04/immigration-judges-limit-time-deportations 2) https:// www.npr.org/ 2026/09/02/nx-s1-5951523/immigration-court-miami-backlog-mega-master

BIA rules Maduro’s removal is a changed country condition for Venezuelan asylum claims

What happened:

• The BIA ruled September 4 in Matter of A-E-V-M- that Nicolás Maduro’s removal from power on January 3, 2026, and the transfer of executive authority to an interim government, count as a changed country condition that immigration judges must weigh when assessing a Venezuelan asylum applicant’s fear of future persecution.
  • The Board vacated an immigration judge’s April 2026 grant of asylum to a Venezuelan woman who had cited persecution over her political opposition to Maduro, and sent the case back for further findings.
  • The ruling does not mean automatic denial of Venezuelan asylum claims. Applicants who already established past persecution keep a burden-shifting advantage, and DHS must still show the changed conditions are relevant to that specific applicant. Humanitarian asylum based on the severity of past persecution remains available even without a forward-looking fear.
• South Florida immigration attorneys are divided on the practical impact. One told the Miami Herald the ruling will make the process “much more rigorous” but reflects real changed circumstances. Others said it effectively blocks the path to asylum for Venezuelans and criticized the Board as politicized.

What does this mean?

• For attorneys: every pending Venezuelan asylum case grounded in fear of the Maduro regime needs a fresh look. Build the individualized record now, specific ongoing threats, specific actors still in power (Delcy Rodríguez, Diosdado Cabello, and others from the prior government remain in key positions), and specific personal risk, rather than relying on general conditions under Maduro. Also develop withholding of removal and CAT claims in parallel, since those use different standards and remain available even where asylum is denied.
  • For Venezuelan asylum seekers: winning a case is no longer just about what happened under Maduro. It now requires showing why the danger is still real under the current government. Anyone who already has asylum should not assume it’s at immediate risk, but should keep evidence of ongoing risk on hand.
  • Bigger picture: this ruling affects a very large group. Hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans have sought asylum in the U.S. in recent years, and this decision changes the analysis for pending and future claims nationwide, not just this one case.

Source(s): 1) https://justice.gov/eoir/media/1460306/dl?inline=
2) https://hanfordsentinel.com/news/national/immigration-appeals-board-deals-blow-to-venezuelans-seeking-political-asylum-in-us/article_9597ac0f-79ae-5aaa-b9dc-ce30f502c5be.html

El Salvador’s TPS automatically extended six months after DHS misses its own deadline

What happened:

• Temporary Protected Status for El Salvador, in place since 2001 and the longest-running TPS designation in U.S. history, was scheduled to end September 9. Federal law requires DHS to publish a determination at least 60 days before a designation’s end date, a deadline that fell around July 11. DHS did not publish any determination to extend or terminate the designation by that date, or by September 9 itself.
  • Under the TPS statute, when DHS fails to publish a timely determination, the designation is automatically extended for an additional six months by operation of law, regardless of whether DHS makes any announcement. For El Salvador, that extends the designation to approximately March 9, 2027.

1. As of this writing, DHS has still not issued a notice confirming this automatic extension. A DHS spokesperson has said only that “an announcement on El Salvador’s TPS will be made at the appropriate time,” and that Salvadoran TPS holders retain their protection, including work authorization, in the meantime. DHS followed the same pattern earlier this year with Lebanon’s TPS designation, eventually publishing a notice in May confirming the automatic six-month extension after initially missing its own deadline.
   1. Roughly 170,000 to 232,000 Salvadoran nationals are affected, depending on the estimate cited. Most have lived in the U.S. since 2001, and many have U.S. citizen children. Salvadorans in the U.S. sent $9.9 billion in remittances to El Salvador last year, about 24% of that country’s GDP.

What does this mean?

• For attorneys: advise clients that status has not lapsed. The automatic six-month extension applies by operation of law whether or not DHS ever publishes a notice confirming it, based on the precedent DHS itself set with Lebanon earlier this year. Document this statutory argument for any client who needs it, and continue watching for DHS’s eventual confirming notice.
  • For Salvadoran TPS holders: your status and work authorization continue through approximately March 9, 2027, under the automatic extension, even without a DHS announcement. Check the USCIS TPS page directly for updates, and do not make major decisions based on the original September 9 date alone.
  • Bigger picture: this is the longest-running TPS designation in the country’s history, dating to the 2001 earthquakes, and one of the largest populations of any TPS designation. DHS repeatedly missing its own statutory deadlines, here and with Lebanon, raises real questions about whether the delay itself is a backdoor path toward eventually not renewing protections many people have relied on for decades.

Source(s): 1) https:// www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/salvadoran-tps-deadline-nears-impacting-200000-immigrants-rcna596818 2) https:// www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/form-i-9-related-news/update-on-temporary-protected-status-for-el-salvador-release-sept-03-2026 3) https:// ogletree.com/insights-resources/blog-posts/salvadoran-tps-beneficiaries-retain-work-authorization-pending-further-dhs-announcement/

Fourth Circuit rejects government’s mandatory detention policy, becomes ninth circuit to do so

What happened:

• The Fourth Circuit ruled 2-1 in Lopez Garcia v. Guadian that the government’s mandatory detention policy is unlawful, becoming the ninth federal appeals court to reject it, alongside hundreds of district court rulings against the same policy.
  • The dispute is over Section 235(b) of the INA. That provision has historically applied to noncitizens arriving at the border or a port of entry, who are not entitled to a bond hearing. Noncitizens already living in the interior of the country have been understood to fall under Section 236 instead, which does allow a bond hearing before an immigration judge. In July 2025, the government adopted a new position: that anyone who ever entered without inspection, no matter how many years they have lived here, is still an “applicant for admission” subject to mandatory detention under Section 235(b), not Section 236.
  • Writing for the majority, Judge Nicole Berner rejected that reading in strong terms, invoking the 1892 Geary Act and the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II as historical examples of the government misusing the law to justify mass detention, writing that “the stain of these detentions on our nation, and the judiciary’s abdication of its obligation to protect basic freedoms, continues to haunt us.”
  • Judge Allison Rushing, a Trump appointee, dissented, arguing the terms “applicant for admission” and “alien seeking admission” apply the same regardless of how long someone has already been in the country.
  • The circuit split is now 9-2. The Fifth and Eighth Circuits have sided with the government’s interpretation, while the Fourth Circuit joins eight other circuits against it. The issue is widely expected to reach the Supreme Court.
  • The case involved habeas corpus petitions filed on behalf of two individual detainees, represented by Benach Pitney Reilly LLP, Ceartas Solutions, and Murray Osorio PLLC, joined by the ACLU and the ACLU of Virginia.

What does this mean?

• For attorneys with detained clients in the Fourth Circuit: any client detained under Section 235(b) solely because of an entry-without-inspection years ago should now have a strong argument for a bond hearing under Section 236. Raise this immediately in any pending habeas petition or custody redetermination request.
  • For noncitizens: this ruling gives many long-term residents who entered without inspection a real path to a bond hearing rather than mandatory detention, at least within the Fourth Circuit’s jurisdiction (Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia). It does not resolve the issue nationally.
  • Bigger picture: a 9-2 circuit split on a question this significant makes Supreme Court review highly likely. Until the Court resolves it, whether someone gets a bond hearing may depend heavily on which circuit they are detained in, an outcome that itself raises fairness concerns.

Source(s): 1) https:// www.aclu.org/ press-releases/federal-appeals-court-rules-against-trump-mandatory-detention-policy 2) https:// news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/trumps-mandatory-detention-policy-rejected-by-fourth-circuit 3)

https:// www.courthousenews.com/fourth-circuit-rejects-trumps-interpretation-of-immigrant-detention-policy

*Update as of October 9, 2026: on October 1, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve this exact circuit split nationally.

DHS proposes to eliminate the discretionary 60-day grace period for nonimmigrant workers

What happened:

• DHS published a notice of proposed rulemaking on September 11 to eliminate the up to 60-day discretionary grace period currently available to certain nonimmigrant workers, such as those in H-1B, L-1, O-1, E, and TN status, and their dependents, when their employment ends before their authorized stay expires.
  • DHS frames this as restoring its prior, longstanding policy of not providing that grace period, arguing it “restores a direct relationship” between a person’s nonimmigrant status and the specific job or activity that justified their admission.
  • Comments on the proposed rule are due by November 10, 2026. This is a separate, later procedural step from the Office of Management and Budget’s review of the same proposal, which had already cleared in late August.

What does this mean?

• For attorneys: any client in an affected nonimmigrant category should be advised now that losing a job could mean an immediate, rather than gradual, departure from status if this rule is finalized. Comments are open through November 10, and this is worth flagging to affected employer clients as well, since it removes the current cushion for finding new employment or changing status after a layoff or termination.
  • For nonimmigrant workers in H-1B, L-1, O-1, E, or TN status: right now, the current 60-day grace period is still in effect. This is only a proposal, not yet final. If finalized as proposed, losing a job could end lawful status immediately rather than allowing up to 60 days to find new work or change status.
  • Bigger picture: this is one of several 2026 changes narrowing nonimmigrant workers’ margin for error (alongside the new H-1B fee proposal and the end of duration of status for F, J, and I categories), continuing a pattern of tying nonimmigrant status more tightly and immediately to a person’s specific job or program.

Source(s): 1) https:// www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/09/11/2026-18631/eliminating-the-discretionary-60-day-grace-period 2)

https:// www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2026/09/11/dhs-proposes-immigration-rule-to-end-60-day-h-1b-grace-period

Judge blocks DHS rule ending “duration of status” for international students, day before it was set to take effect

What happened:

1. A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction on September 14, one day before DHS’s rule replacing “duration of status” with a fixed four-year admission period for F-1 students, J-1 exchange visitors, and I nonimmigrants was scheduled to take effect.
   1. Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, ruled in a lawsuit brought by a coalition including NAFSA, the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, the American Federation of Teachers, and the UAW. The relief is nationwide, not limited to the plaintiff organizations or their members. It blocks DHS and ICE from implementing the rule anywhere in the country while the case continues, and reflects the judge’s view that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits.
   1. At the September 3 hearing, Saylor had already voiced skepticism of the government’s stated national security justification for the rule, calling the supporting evidence anecdotal and saying he struggled to see a rational connection between it and the policy change.
   1. The underlying rule, published July 17, would have ended the decades-old practice of admitting F-1, J-1, and I nonimmigrants for the duration of their program and replaced it with a fixed period of up to four years, after which an extension would be required.

What does this mean?

• For attorneys: for now, “duration of status” remains in effect for F-1, J-1, and I nonimmigrants. Advise clients accordingly, but continue monitoring the case, since this is a preliminary injunction, not a final ruling, and the government may appeal or the case may still be decided against the rule later.
  • For F-1, J-1, and I nonimmigrants: nothing changes on September 15 because of this injunction. The prior duration of status framework continues to apply while the litigation proceeds.
  • Bigger picture: this is the second major “no grace period” style rule this year to face immediate legal pushback, after the August I-864 rollout. A court intervening one day before a major rule’s effective date shows how compressed these timelines have become for both the government and the people challenging its rules.

Source(s): 1) https:// www.statnews.com/2026/09/14/court-halts-dhs-visa-limits-foreign-scholars/ 2) https:// www.presidentsalliance.org/duration-of-status-litigation/

*Update as of October 9, 2026: on September 30, the government formally appealed to the First Circuit and asked to expedite the appeal. A status conference was held October 2, with both sides due to file on next steps by October 9.

Supreme Court stays injunction, allows third-country removals to resume while it hears the case

What happened:

• The First Circuit ruled on September 18 largely rejecting the government’s challenge to limits on its third-country removal policy, leaving in place a district court order (Judge Murphy, D. Mass.) requiring advance notice and a meaningful opportunity to challenge removal to a country where someone may face persecution or torture.
  • The government returned to the Supreme Court, which on September 29 stayed Murphy’s injunction, allowing third-country removals to resume while the litigation continues. This is the second time the Court has stepped in to lift a lower court block on this same policy.
  • The Court also agreed to hear the case on the merits, with argument set for December 2026. The parties were directed to brief whether Murphy had jurisdiction and authority to grant classwide relief, and whether the government’s third-country removal guidance is lawful.
  • Plaintiffs’ counsel, Trina Realmuto of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, said the ruling leaves people facing third-country removal “at immediate risk of being sent to places where they have no meaningful opportunity to seek protection.” The Court’s stay will end once it rules on the merits.

What does this mean?

• For attorneys: third-country removals can resume now, before the Court rules on the merits in December. Any client at risk should be advised of this immediately, and any available claim for protection should be raised as early as possible rather than relying on the notice and opportunity procedures the injunction had required.
  • For noncitizens with final removal orders: the government can resume sending people to third countries without the notice and hearing procedures the lower courts had required.

This is temporary while the case proceeds, not a final ruling, but it is the operative rule right now.

• Bigger picture: this reverses the practical effect of item 8 as it stood after the First Circuit’s September 18 ruling. The Supreme Court’s eventual December ruling on the merits will determine whether this is temporary or permanent, and is worth building toward as a firm date for what the final rule will be.

Source(s): 1) https:// www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-trump-third-country-deportation-policy/ 2) https:// www.nbcnews.com/ politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-allows-trumps-third-country-deportation-policy -rcna599724 3) https:// www.washingtonpost.com/ politics/2026/09/29/supreme-court-allows-trump-administration-now-resume-third-country-deportations

*Update as of October 9, 2026: the case is now formally docketed as Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., No. 26-426, with oral argument set for December 9.

DHS General Counsel warns AILA over “frivolous” asylum claims, AILA fires back

What happened:

• DHS General Counsel James Percival sent AILA a letter on September 16 warning against what DHS calls frivolous and meritless asylum claims, citing a backlog of roughly

3.5 million pending immigration court cases and 2.3 million pending asylum claims as of July 2026. Percival warned that filing a frivolous asylum application can render someone permanently ineligible for most immigration relief, and that DHS will “vigorously pursue all available remedies” against attorneys involved.

• DHS posted on X the same day that it is “assuring asylum is granted to those who deserve it, not those who game the system.”
  • AILA Executive Director Ben Johnson responded directly, rejecting the premise. He said DHS itself broke the asylum system, pointing to firings of immigration judges, pressure on new judges to deny relief faster, restricted judicial discretion, and resources diverted from adjudication into detention and mass deportation instead. He also said DHS pushed cases from trained asylum officers into overwhelmed courts, sought early dismissals before people could present evidence, and arrested people outside courtrooms after they showed up for required hearings.
  • Johnson argued that an asylum claim is not fraudulent simply because the government dislikes the outcome, and that fraud requires proof of knowing deception, not an adverse ruling, trauma related inconsistencies, translation gaps, or missing evidence from a collapsing state. He pointed out that the government has separately described conditions in Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti, and Nicaragua as a serious regional security threat, while telling asylum seekers fleeing those same conditions that their claims are not credible.

What does this mean?

• For attorneys: this is a direct, public escalation between DHS’s top lawyer and the national bar association representing immigration attorneys. Document your basis for every asylum filing carefully and be prepared for DHS to scrutinize claims more aggressively going forward, particularly ones involving generalized violence, domestic violence, or country conditions in Western Hemisphere countries.
  • For asylum seekers: your case is not fraudulent just because it might ultimately be denied. A denial or a weak point in your case, such as a translation issue or an inconsistency tied to trauma, is not the same thing as fraud, whatever DHS suggests. That said, expect closer scrutiny of these claims than in the past.
  • Bigger picture: this dispute mirrors a broader pattern already seen this year, DHS attributing a backlog largely of its own making to attorneys and applicants, while directing new resources toward enforcement and detention rather than adjudication capacity. AILA’s response signals it intends to defend its members publicly rather than let the “frivolous claims” framing stand unanswered.

Source(s): 1) https:// x.com/DHSgov (September 16, 2026 post) 2)https:// x.com/DHSGenCounsel (James Percival, September 2026 posts) 3) https:// www.facebook.com/share/ p/193Q9nhu5E/ (AILA Executive Director Ben Johnson statement) 4) https:// blog.cyrusmehta.com/2026/09/when-government-threats-collide-with-the-ethics-of-asylum-representation.html

New public charge rule took effect September 18 as scheduled, despite a 22-state lawsuit

What happened:

• DHS’s new public charge rule and a required new edition of Form I-485 both took effect September 18, 2026, as scheduled. USCIS is rejecting any I-485 that is not the new 09/18/26 edition, with no grace period. Applications postmarked or e-filed before September 18 remain governed by the more favorable 2022 rule, no matter how long they take to decide.
  • Under the new rule, USCIS officers can weigh a much broader range of public benefits, including food stamps, Medicaid, and housing vouchers, not just cash assistance. Benefits received before September 18 are still evaluated under the narrower 2022 standard. The test looks only at the applicant’s own use of benefits, not benefits used by a U.S. citizen child in the same household.
• On September 14, four days before the rule took effect, New York Attorney General Letitia James led a coalition of 22 states and Washington, D.C. in a lawsuit to block the rule, arguing DHS exceeded its statutory authority under the Administrative Procedure Act. A separate lawsuit was filed the same day by New York City, Chicago, San Francisco, Santa Clara County, Seattle, King County, and the Public Rights Project.
  • As of this writing, no court has blocked the rule. It remains in effect while both lawsuits proceed.

What does this mean?

• For attorneys: the filing date is now the single most important fact for any pending or new I-485 that could raise public charge concerns. File before September 18 and the client gets the 2022 standard, even if adjudicated years later. File after, and the broader standard applies regardless of the applicant’s specific circumstances. Watch both lawsuits for any injunction, since a court order could change this quickly.
  • For green card applicants: this affects adjustment of status applications specifically. If your case was filed before September 18, you are still evaluated under the older, narrower rule. If you file on or after that date, a much wider range of public benefits can now be weighed against you, though using benefits does not automatically mean denial.
  • Bigger picture: DHS estimates more than 950,000 people nationwide may disenroll from or decline to enroll in public benefits out of fear, according to the lawsuits, a chilling effect the states argue causes real harm well beyond the immigration system itself, including lost federal funding tied to program enrollment.

Source(s): 1) https:// www.uscis.gov/newsroom/alerts/uscis-issues-guidance-on-making-public-charge-inadmissibility -determination 2) https:// www.cnn.com/2026/09/14/us/immigration-public-charge-green-card-lawsuits 3) https:// www.ilrc.org/ public-charge/latest

DHS expands “pop-up” immigration courts in unmarked federal buildings, limiting public access

What happened:

• Bloomberg Law reported that the White House directed DHS this summer to make space available across its component agencies, including FEMA and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, to serve as makeshift immigration courts as the administration works to speed deportations. The scope of the directive had not been previously reported.

1. Immigrants with active cases have received just days’ notice that their hearings were moved up and relocated to these new venues. Missing a hearing risks a final removal order issued in absentia.
   1. Rep. Greg Stanton (D-AZ) said he was initially denied entry to a FEMA building in Washington, D.C. being used as a pop-up court, and was only allowed in later without his staff. He and Rep. Jamie Raskin sent a letter raising what they called serious concerns about limited public access and lack of notice to immigrants at the new location.
   1. AILA’s senior director of government relations, Greg Chen, said the pop-up courts are not listed as courts, are run by DHS rather than the court system, and are largely blocked off from transparency and observation, saying the administration is “operating these key institutions out of the public eye, literally under a shroud of secrecy.” Chen separately said a CBP-operated Online Detainee Locator System has been making it difficult for attorneys to locate detained clients.

What does this mean?

• For attorneys: confirm hearing location as well as date and time for every client, since a case may be moved to an unmarked federal building with little notice. Build in extra time to locate the actual venue, and document any access problems, since members of Congress have already reported being denied entry.
  • For noncitizens with pending cases: a hearing notice may direct you to an unfamiliar federal building rather than the immigration court you expected. Confirm the exact location as soon as you receive any notice, and do not assume the address is a mistake.
  • Bigger picture: this compounds the “mega master” docket compression already covered in this roundup. Moving hearings to unmarked, hard-to-access federal buildings, on top of compressed timelines, makes it harder for the public, the press, and Congress itself to observe what is happening in immigration court, not just harder for respondents to prepare.

Source(s): 1) https:// news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/dhs-expands-pop-up-immigration-courts-blocking-public-access-100 2) https:// www.aila.org/ immigration-news/daily-immigration-news-clips-september-29-2026

ICE stops listing detainees with final removal orders on its public locator system

What happened:

• Beginning September 15, ICE stopped listing people with final orders of removal on its Online Detainee Locator System, the public database in place since 2010 that lets

attorneys and family members search by name to find where someone is being held. This applies even to people who are appealing their order or have another legal basis to remain, such as a pending CAT claim.

• The Washington Post reported that ICE staff have been instructed to refuse to provide the location of these detainees to attorneys and family members directly, not just omit them from the online system.
  • The Amica Center for Immigrant Rights said every one of its clients with a final removal order, 17 people as of September 21, had disappeared from the locator. Michelle Mendez, legal director at the National Immigration Project, said roughly 30% of all ICE detainees likely have final removal orders, and that more people have been receiving final orders recently after missing hearings, which she tied to the administration’s immigration courts making it harder to participate in proceedings and to reopen cases.
  • In a statement to the AP, ICE said detainees with final orders are being prioritized for deportation while the agency faces what it called a historic number of court injunctions blocking individual removals.

What does this mean?

• For attorneys: do not rely on the online locator for any client with a final removal order, even one you are actively appealing or pursuing CAT or other relief for. Confirm custody location through direct contact with the client, the facility, or ICE’s local field office as early and as often as possible, since a gap in contact could mean the difference between a successful emergency filing and a completed removal.
  • For noncitizens with a final removal order and their families: a final order does not mean all legal options are exhausted, but it does mean you may no longer be able to find your loved one’s location online. Keep direct contact information for an attorney on hand, and do not assume removal is imminent just because the locator shows nothing.
  • Bigger picture: this connects directly to the mega master hearings and third-country removal items already in this roundup. More people are getting final orders for missing compressed hearings, and many of those with final orders retain protections against removal to their home country that could route them to a third country instead. Losing visibility into where they are held makes it harder to raise those claims before a removal happens, not just harder to locate someone after the fact.

Source(s): 1) https:// www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2026/09/21/immigrants-with-final-deportation-orders-disappear-ice-detainee-locator/ 2)

https:// www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/ blog/ ice-electronically -disappears-detainee-locator

Second federal judge blocks $100,000 H-1B fee, this time enjoining enforcement entirely

What happened:

• Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled September 30 in Global Nurse Force v. Trump (No. 4:25-cv-08454) that CBP and USCIS are enjoined from enforcing or implementing the $100,000 H-1B entry fee, including an extension of the proclamation the White House issued earlier this month, until the agencies go through notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act.
  • This is the second district court to rule against the fee. A federal judge in Boston found the policy unlawful in June, and the First Circuit declined to stay that ruling in July, meaning the fee has now been blocked in some form for roughly two months. Judge Gilliam denied the plaintiffs’ request for class certification, finding it unnecessary given the scope of relief already granted.
  • The fee, imposed by a September 2025 presidential proclamation, never applied to H-1B workers already in the U.S., such as recent graduates changing status, but effectively blocked most international hiring under the program for employers including hospitals, research universities, churches, and K-12 schools.
  • Steve Bressler, senior legal advisor at Democracy Forward, which represents the plaintiffs, said the ruling reaffirms that no president can “rewrite immigration policy with the stroke of a pen.” A separate challenge led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce remains pending before the D.C. Circuit, after a D.C. district court denied the Chamber’s request for an injunction last year.

What does this mean?

• For attorneys: employers that paused or redirected international H-1B hiring because of this fee should revisit that decision now, since two separate district courts have found the fee unlawful and enforcement is enjoined. Watch the D.C. Circuit case, since a conflicting ruling there could change the picture again.
  • For employers and H-1B workers: the $100,000 fee cannot currently be enforced for new H-1B petitions requiring consular processing. This includes the White House’s attempted extension of the original proclamation. This remains subject to further appeals, so this is not necessarily the final word.
  • Bigger picture: two different district courts, on opposite coasts, have now independently found this fee unlawful, and an appellate court has already declined to pause one of those rulings. That makes it increasingly likely the fee does not survive in its current form, though the pending D.C. Circuit case could still produce a conflicting result that sends the issue to the Supreme Court.

Source(s): 1) https:// news.bloomberglaw.com/daily -labor-report/judge-halts-memos-on-100-000-h-1b-worker-fee-in-blow-to-trump-17

*Update as of October 9, 2026: the government is expected to appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The parties must file a joint case management statement by October 20, with a conference set for October 27.

USCIS narrows weekend and holiday filing-deadline extension

What happened:

• USCIS issued Policy Alert PA-2026-15 on September 23, effective October 23, narrowing how it applies the weekend and holiday extension for filing deadlines. The agency is reversing a 2023 policy that had extended this treatment broadly.
  • Under the new guidance, a deadline extends to the next business day when it falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or federal holiday only if the deadline is expressed as a specific number of days under a statute, regulation, or form instruction, such as a 30-day RFE response window. A deadline tied to a substantive eligibility requirement, such as filing before a specific birthday or other age-based cutoff, no longer gets that extension.
  • Electronic filings are not affected by this change at all, since USCIS does not apply the weekend or holiday extension to e-filings in the first place.

What does this mean?

• For attorneys: identify exactly what kind of deadline applies before assuming a weekend or federal holiday buys extra time, particularly for age-out or other birthday-based cutoffs under CSPA or similar provisions. Build in a buffer and file before the controlling date itself for anything age- or anniversary-based, rather than relying on the next business day.
  • For applicants and petitioners: a deadline tied to your age or another specific date, rather than a countable number of days, no longer gets pushed to the next business day if it lands on a weekend or holiday. File before that date to be safe.
  • Bigger picture: this is a narrow, technical-sounding policy change with real consequences for anyone relying on an age-based or anniversary-based deadline, where missing it by even a day can permanently foreclose relief.

Source(s): 1) https:// www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/ policy-manual-updates/20260923-DefinitionOfDay.pdf 2) https:// www.aila.org/ library/ uscis-policy-alert-on-definition-of-day-for-purposes-of-filing-deadlines 3)https:// cyrusmehta.com/blog/ 2026/09/28/immigration-update-september-28-2026

USCIS announces FY2027 inflation increase for asylum, I-131, I-765, and I-821 fees

What happened:

• USCIS announced it will publish a Federal Register notice on October 1 increasing certain HR 1 immigration-related fees for fiscal year 2027, effective October 16. The affected fees include the Annual Asylum Application Fee, and filing fees for Form I-131 (travel document, advance parole, re-parole), Form I-765 (work permit, for initial filings by asylum seekers, parolees, and TPS holders), and Form I-821 (TPS application).
  • This is the second consecutive year of this inflation adjustment, following the first HR 1 fee increase that took effect January 1, 2026. The increase reflects a 3.36% rise in the Consumer Price Index from July 2025 to July 2026. Some figures: the annual fee for a pending asylum application rises from $102 to $105, and the I-131 immigration parole fee rises from $1,020 to $1,050. Several fees stay the same because the inflation-adjusted amount rounds down to the same figure under the statute’s rounding rule, and the I-589 initial asylum application fee and the asylum applicant EAD renewal fee are both unaffected, since HR 1 does not authorize inflation adjustments for those specific fees.

What does this mean?

• For attorneys: any pending or upcoming filing for these specific categories, asylum applications and the annual fee attached to them, advance parole or travel documents, initial work permits for asylum seekers, parolees, or TPS holders, and TPS applications themselves, will cost more starting October 16. Clients close to filing in these categories may want to file before that date.
  • For asylum seekers, parolees, and TPS holders: the annual asylum fee and the cost of these specific filings are both going up October 16. Budget for the higher amount if filing on or after that date.
  • Bigger picture: this is another entry in the now well-established pattern of yearly, compounding HR 1 fee increases across nearly every part of the system, USCIS filings, EOIR court fees, and now this second annual round, each one individually modest but adding up over time.

Source(s): 1) https:// www.uscis.gov/newsroom/alerts/uscis-announces-fy-2027-inflation-increase-for-certain-immigration-related-fees 2) https:// www.aila.org/ library/ uscis-announces-fy27-inflationary-increase-for-certain-immigration-related-fees-under-hr-1Immigration Law & Policy Roundup, September 2026