The Lopez Law Firm, PLLC

1. HHS’s $158M no-bid contract for migrant children’s legal services

What happened:

• HHS awarded a $158M no-bid contract for unaccompanied migrant children’s legal services to a Utah anti-trafficking group with no clear immigration law experience.
• This followed HHS letting its contract with the Acacia Center for Justice lapse on July 31 (after Acacia declined an earlier bridge contract, saying it would have required legal service providers to turn over confidential client information as a condition of payment), and a failed first attempt to hire a Houston firm with almost no immigration attorneys.
• A nonprofit leader who lost his own contract called the new pick “highly problematic” with “no expertise… children are going to be harmed.”
• Acacia itself responded directly to the new contract: “The administration doesn’t get to manufacture a crisis, offer an unacceptable ‘fix’, and then claim it’s solved. More than 20,000 unaccompanied children are waiting for a real solution.”

What does this mean?

• For attorneys: those already serving as counsel of record for a child in this program don’t face a handoff of the case itself. The issue is whether the funding that supported their representation continues under the new contractor. Attorneys need to work out how to sustain representation for existing clients if that funding stream is disrupted or doesn’t flow the same way through the new group.
• For the children affected: those currently in removal proceedings without status could face delays or gaps in legal representation during this funding transition, at a stage of the process where having a lawyer is strongly linked to better outcomes.
• Bigger picture: this is part of a pattern of the administration restructuring immigration-adjacent contracts in ways that sideline established legal aid groups; expect litigation or further contract disputes to follow.

Source(s): 1) https://www.npr.org/2026/08/05/nx-s1-5922451/150-million-contract-to-represent-migrant-children-awarded-to-trump-texas-law-firm 2) https://www.upr.org/npr-news/2026-08-12/controversial-utah-group-wins-contract-to-represent-unaccompanied-immigrant-children 3) https://acaciajustice.org/acacia-center-for-justice-responds-to-new-single-source-cooperative-agreement-by-hhs/

2. USCIS can deny outright without requesting missing evidence

What happened:

• USCIS can now deny applications outright, without first asking for missing evidence. Effective August 5 (Policy Alert PA-2026-05).
• Applicants and petitioners bear the burden of establishing eligibility, with all required initial evidence, at the time of filing. Officers retain discretion to issue an RFE but are no longer expected to before denying an incomplete case.

What does this mean?

• For attorneys: the practical stakes are in filing practice rather than new law, since officers already had denial authority. The real change is incentive and behavior. Fewer courtesy RFEs and more denials on first submission should be expected, making it important to front-load every element of eligibility and evidence before filing rather than planning to fix gaps later.
• For applicants and petitioners: a case that might once have gotten a chance to supplement missing documents could now be denied outright, meaning a new filing, fee, and delay instead of a quick fix.
• Bigger picture: this shifts risk from the agency (extra processing time) onto applicants (denial and refiling), consistent with the broader push to speed up adjudications.

Source(s): 1) https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/alerts/uscis-to-reduce-frivolous-immigration-benefits-requests-by-reinforcing-evidence-standards 2) https://www.murthy.com/2026/08/05/newsflash-uscis-revises-initial-evidence-requirements-and-rfe-noid-guidance/

3. ICE airport arrests rising, including people with pending applications

What happened:

• ICE airport arrests are rising, including people with pending applications and valid work permits.
• CHIRLA confirmed detentions at LAX and SFO; similar arrests reported in 10+ other states.
• AILA’s president told CNN it’s a “mousetrap” for people already doing everything right.
• Two cases illustrate the pattern: a Russian woman married to a three-time Trump voter was handcuffed at Burbank airport and held for two weeks despite a pending green card case; DHS said a pending application “does not confer legal status.” A Johns Hopkins researcher arrested in a similar airport sweep was released August 1.

What does this mean?

• For attorneys: airports are now a real enforcement risk even for clients with pending, lawful cases. Build travel counseling into any case involving a pending application. A pending case, even a strong one (including marriage to a U.S. citizen), is not a shield against detention.
• For noncitizens: a valid work permit or pending application doesn’t guarantee safe travel. Filing for most immigration benefits doesn’t itself confer lawful status while the case is pending, which can take years, leaving a person vulnerable to detention throughout, regardless of how strong the case is. Have a plan (documents, emergency contacts, attorney on call) before any travel or check-in.
• Bigger picture: enforcement is reaching into spaces like domestic air travel that were traditionally lower-risk, eroding the norm of allowing individuals to remain with a pending, lawful filing without fear of detention. It also fits a broader pattern of deprioritizing case processing relative to enforcement and detention spending, which Congress and the administration have increased by roughly $170 billion since July 2025 under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Source(s): 1) https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/28/us/ice-airport-arrests 2) https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/immigrant-warning-air-travel-detention/3924333/ 3) https://meduza.io/en/feature/2026/08/19/brent-jindra-voted-for-trump-three-times-then-ice-handcuffed-his-russian-wife-at-the-airport-in-california-and-ended-his-support-for-the-president 4) https://thegrio.com/2026/08/01/johns-hopkins-researcher-fatima-ameaka-released-ice-detention/ 5) https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/press-release/congress-approves-unprecedented-funding-mass-detention-deportation-2025/

4. USCIS can require online-only filing

What happened:

• USCIS can now require online-only filing for immigration forms, effective August 11.
• The August 11 effective date starts the framework only. It doesn’t make any specific form mandatory by itself. USCIS must post at least 60 days’ public notice before requiring e-filing for any particular form, and only forms already available for e-filing for at least 180 days are eligible. No form has been designated online-only yet.
• Once a form is designated, though, the rule could eventually cover green cards, citizenship, asylum, and work permits.
• Waivers are available for those who can’t file electronically.

What does this mean?

• For attorneys: no immediate filing changes yet, but it’s worth watching which forms get pulled into mandatory e-filing first, since a paper filing that’s suddenly rejected could blow a deadline.
• For applicants and petitioners: those without reliable internet access, or who rely on paper filing for accessibility reasons, should be aware a waiver process exists, though waivers add a layer of bureaucracy that itself can cause delay.
• Bigger picture: read together with other 2026 changes, this is part of consolidating USCIS processing into faster, more centralized digital workflows. Convenient for some, but a real barrier for others.

Source(s): 1) https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/alerts/uscis-to-require-electronic-filing-of-forms-strengthening-national-security 2) https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/08/11/2026-16313/mandatory-electronic-filing-e-filing

5. Advance parole travel can now trigger unlawful-presence bars

What happened:

• Traveling abroad on advance parole can now trigger a 3- or 10-year reentry bar, a reversal of 14-year-old law.
• The BIA ruled August 13 (Matter of Delcarmen-Lara) that such trips now count as a “departure,” overturning its own 2012 precedent (Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly).
• AILA’s president called it a “flipflop” that “pulls the rug out” from families and workers.
• The Board didn’t directly cite Loper Bright (the 2024 Supreme Court decision that ended Chevron deference), but its reasoning reflects that shift: it read “departure” by plain dictionary meaning (“to go away: leave”) rather than the more lenient interpretation it used in 2012, citing its own earlier post-Loper Bright decision in Matter of Forjoe for that plain-meaning approach.
• The ruling applies only prospectively: travel completed before August 13 remains governed by the old rule, while travel on or after August 13 is subject to the new one.

What does this mean?

• For attorneys: this is a significant, immediate practice-changing ruling. Any client with unlawful presence history who is considering advance parole travel needs individualized counseling before booking that trip, not after.
• For noncitizens: a routine-seeming trip that used to be safe (travel on approved advance parole) can now trigger a 3- or 10-year bar to reentry, turning a temporary absence into a potentially years-long separation from family or work in the U.S. Anyone with unlawful presence history should get individualized legal advice before traveling on advance parole.
• Bigger picture: the plain-meaning approach the Board used here (part of a post-Loper Bright shift away from deferring to its own more flexible past interpretations) signals it may revisit other settled precedent the same way, so this ruling is also a preview of a broader pattern worth watching. That pattern shows the BIA selectively reversing its own past precedent specifically in ways that restrict legal immigration or narrow the paths available for individuals to obtain relief, rather than applying Loper Bright even-handedly in both directions.

Source(s): 1) https://www.murthy.com/2026/08/13/newsflash-bia-holds-advance-parole-travel-can-trigger-unlawful-presence-bar/ 2) https://www.aila.org/immigration-news 3) https://blog.cyrusmehta.com/2026/08/bia-overrules-arrabally-advance-parole-travel-can-trigger-the-unlawful-presence-bar.html 4) https://www.immigrationissues.com/alert-new-bia-decision-in-matter-of-delcarmen-lara-means-traveling-on-advance-parole-could-have-devastating-consequences/

6. Public charge rule reverts to broader pre-2022 standard, plus new bond options

What happened:

• The “public charge” rule is reverting to a broader, pre-2022 standard, effective September 18. USCIS will again weigh age, health, assets, and benefits history when deciding green card cases, not just cash assistance.
• Filing before September 18 may still get the more lenient rule.
• The rule also toughens the breach standard for the public charge bond option (Form I-945), a bond mechanism that isn’t new itself (it dates to 2019, was reinstated by this administration in September 2025, and already lets DHS, at its discretion and not as a right, allow someone inadmissible solely on public charge grounds to post a bond instead of being denied). What’s new: for bonds posted on or after September 18, receiving any income- or asset-tested public benefit during the bond period can trigger forfeiture, broader than the current cash-assistance-only standard.
• Separately, the State Department launched a consular-side version on August 5: a pilot letting a consular officer offer a bond to overturn an immigrant visa denial based solely on public charge, with amounts set case-by-case (internal discussion has floated $20,000–$100,000 for higher-risk cases) rather than a fixed schedule.

What does this mean?

• For attorneys: green card applications involving elderly, disabled, or lower-income sponsored relatives need a much more thorough public-charge analysis before September 18. Clients close to filing may want to accelerate to beat the deadline.
• For families: those that would have qualified under the narrower 2022 standard may now face denial or be pushed toward a bond (potentially tens of thousands of dollars) that isn’t easily affordable, especially since the bond amount isn’t fixed in advance.
• Bigger picture: reviving age, health, and asset factors as inadmissibility grounds disproportionately affects mixed-status and lower-income families, not just people who’ve used public benefits. A wider net than the rule’s name suggests.

Source(s): 1) https://blog.cyrusmehta.com/2026/08/the-2026-public-charge-rule-a-new-tool-to-restrict-legal-immigration.html 2) https://www.cliniclegal.org/resources/ground-inadmissibility-and-deportability/public-charge/new-public-charge-rule-file 3) https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/News/visas-news/public-charge-bonds-for-immigrant-visa-applicants.html 4) https://www.aila.org/library/dos-announces-pilot-of-public-charge-bonds-for-immigrant-visa-applicants 5) https://www.fragomen.com/insights/united-states-state-department-launches-immigrant-visa-public-charge-bond-pilot-program.html

7. Immigration court filing fees rising again

What happened:

• Immigration court filing fees are going up again, effective October 1, the annual inflation adjustment (about 3.4%) required by last year’s federal budget law.
• A BIA appeal now costs $1,060; cancellation of removal, $1,690.

What does this mean?

• For attorneys: build the higher EOIR fee into cost estimates for anything filed on or after October 1, separate from USCIS fees. Fee waivers (Form EOIR-26A) still exist, but Matter of Garcia Martinez presumes a privately-represented, non-detained person can pay, a presumption pro bono and low-cost clients don’t face. Separately, some OBBBA fees (asylum, TPS) can’t be waived at all, though those are USCIS, not EOIR.
• For noncitizens in removal proceedings: an appeal or cancellation application that was already a financial stretch just got somewhat more expensive, on top of every other cost in a removal case.
• Bigger picture: this is a routine, statutorily-required annual inflation adjustment rather than a one-time policy shift. Following the initial, much larger fee jump under OBBBA, this establishes a pattern of yearly increases to immigration court fees specifically (appeals, motions to reopen/reconsider, and applications for relief in removal proceedings) that will keep compounding year over year, with the practical effect of making it progressively harder for immigrants in removal proceedings to afford pursuing an appeal or motion.

Source(s): 1) https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/08/21/2026-17146/inflation-adjustment-for-eoir-obbba-fees-fiscal-year-2027 2) https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/2025-09/HR1-EOIR-USCIS-Fees.pdf 3) https://www.cliniclegal.org/resources/removal-proceedings/seeking-fee-waivers-eoir

8. BIA cuts back the right to counsel in immigration court

What happened:

• The BIA cut back the right to a lawyer in immigration court. An August 14 ruling (Matter of A-K-R-) says the only real protection is a 10-day minimum before the first hearing, nothing more.
• The Board adopted the reasoning of the lone dissenting judge (Judge Quattlebaum) in a Fourth Circuit case, Rodriguez-Solis v. Blanche, over the two-judge majority, which had ruled for the immigrant and found her denied continuance violated her statutory right to counsel. The BIA cannot override a binding appellate ruling, so this creates a seemingly direct conflict with Fourth Circuit precedent, one likely headed for further litigation.

What does this mean?

• For attorneys: clients should be told clearly, during intake, that if their attorney withdraws or they otherwise lose counsel at any point in proceedings, the court is unlikely to grant much additional time to find a replacement. The Board has signaled the bare 10-day minimum is all that’s guaranteed. Prospective clients should be prepared to secure and keep representation continuously, rather than assuming a continuance will be available if that representation is later interrupted.
• For noncitizens: someone who can’t find a lawyer within 10 days of being notified of a hearing may have to appear without one, in a system where being represented substantially changes outcomes.
• Bigger picture: adopting the dissent over binding circuit precedent puts the BIA in seemingly direct conflict with the Fourth Circuit, signaling a wider push to minimize continuances and speed dockets, consistent with the “mega master” trend building since May 2026.

Source(s): 1) https://justice.gov/eoir/media/1458041/dl?inline= 2) https://www.kktplaw.com/immigration-review-podcast/cases-discussed-on-the-immigration-review-podcas/

9. Fourth Circuit blocks ICE from targeted houses of worship

What happened:

• A federal appeals court blocked ICE from targeting eight houses of worship across three faith traditions: six Quaker meetings, the Sikh Temple Sacramento, and the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. The plaintiffs were represented by Democracy Forward.
• The August 18 ruling found DHS had no evidence to justify ending decades of “sensitive locations” protections. The plaintiffs had documented real harm from the policy change, including one congregation’s ESL program losing 66% attendance from fear alone, disrupted ministries, and a burdened ability to welcome migrant congregants.
• The protection only covers the specific houses of worship that sued; everyone else remains unprotected.

What does this mean?

• For attorneys: advise clients to stay vigilant at any religious service. The underlying policy rescinding “sensitive locations” protections remains in effect everywhere except these eight plaintiff locations.
• For anyone who attends a house of worship, including U.S. citizens and permanent residents: this is narrow protection, not a blanket restoration. Caution is still warranted anywhere not named in the suit. This affects the whole congregation, not just noncitizen members.
• Bigger picture: ICE and CBP can still act elsewhere, including in ways that may violate constitutional rights. No nationwide reversal here. The burden remains on houses of worship to assert their rights and document overreach, as these plaintiffs did with attendance-drop evidence.

Source(s): 1) https://www.cbsnews.com/news/appeals-court-blocks-immigration-arrests-houses-worship/ 2) https://www.courthousenews.com/fourth-circuit-upholds-injunction-barring-immigration-arrests-at-some-houses-of-worship/ 3) https://democracyforward.org/news/press-releases/fourth-circuit-upholds-order-protecting-houses-of-worship-from-unlawful-immigration-enforcement/

10. Federal court strikes down 75-country visa ban

What happened:

• A federal judge struck down the State Department’s blanket freeze on immigrant visas for people from 75 countries, ruling August 21 in CLINIC v. Rubio (No. 1:26-cv-00858-JAV, S.D.N.Y.) that the policy was contrary to law and exceeded Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s statutory authority.
• Judge Jeannette A. Vargas found the policy, which since January had let consular officers refuse visas based purely on nationality citing “public charge” concerns, stripped consular officers of the individualized review Congress requires, and vacated both the policy and any visa refusals based solely on it.
• A separate judge had already ruled the same policy unlawful for one plaintiff on July 31; this ruling extends relief to everyone affected.
• In the ruling’s immediate aftermath, the administration told the court it was pausing immigrant visa interviews worldwide while consular officers are retrained on public charge guidance, framing it as temporary and not extending past August 31.

What does this mean?

• For attorneys: clients from the affected 75 countries who were stuck in limbo can potentially move forward again, but the administration’s abrupt worldwide pause on visa interviews (retraining consular officers) means real-world processing may still be slow or inconsistent for weeks.
• For visa applicants: this is genuinely good news for people from one of the 75 countries, but an immediate return to normal processing shouldn’t be expected. Updates on when interviews resume at the relevant consulate are worth watching for.
• Bigger picture: courts have now ruled against this policy twice; whether the administration appeals, revises the policy, or lets it drop will determine whether this relief is durable or just a pause before another version of the same restriction.

Source(s): 1) https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/state-departments-75-country-green-card-freeze-deemed-unlawful 2) https://cyrusmehta.com/blog/2026/08/24/federal-court-vacates-state-departments-75-country-immigrant-visa-suspension/

11. Steep new proposed fees on OPT and H-1B

What happened:

• DHS is pursuing steep new fees on both OPT and H-1B. A proposed $100,000 fee on Optional Practical Training work authorization for international graduates was sent to the Office of Management and Budget for review on August 20; a separate $103,265 fee on cap-subject H-1B petitions cleared OMB review the day before, August 19, and was then formally published as a proposed rule in the Federal Register on August 25, with public comments due by September 24.
• DHS calculated the H-1B figure by dividing about $8.78 billion in estimated annual program costs across roughly 85,000 cap-subject petitions. Cap-exempt H-1B petitions (filed by nonprofit research organizations, government research organizations, and universities) would not be subject to the fee.
• This $103,265 fee is legally distinct from the earlier $100,000 H-1B entry fee imposed by presidential proclamation in September 2025, which a federal court in Massachusetts struck down in June 2026 as an unlawful tax; that appeal remains pending at the First Circuit. Ogletree’s attorneys note the new fee, because it’s pursued through ordinary rulemaking rather than proclamation, faces a different and higher legal bar: challengers will need to show the $103,265 figure itself is arbitrary and not tied to real administrative costs, rather than arguing DHS lacked authority to impose a fee at all.
• The OPT fee proposal remains confidential and has not yet been published for public comment; its content and exact structure are still unknown. OPT currently lets international students work in the U.S. for up to three years after graduation without a separate visa.
• If finalized, the H-1B rule could take effect for cap-selected petitions as early as April 1, 2027, unless blocked by litigation.

What does this mean?

• For attorneys: prepare clients with pending H-1B or OPT-based cases for steep new costs. Watch the September 24 comment deadline, which can shape or delay the final rule.
• For foreign workers, students, and employers: a $103,265+ fee prices out many smaller employers. An OPT fee near $100,000 would functionally end the pathway for most students. (Both are nonimmigrant categories, not immigrant/permanent-resident ones.)
• Bigger picture: pursued through rulemaking rather than proclamation, this fee sits on firmer legal footing than its predecessor. Expect heavy litigation and challenges given how broadly it affects higher education institutions and employers nationwide.

Source(s): 1) https://reason.com/2026/08/21/trump-once-promised-international-students-green-cards-now-the-government-might-charge-them-100000-to-work/ 2) https://www.fragomen.com/insights/united-states-uscis-proposes-new-fee-of-over-dollar100000-for-h-1b-cap-subject-petitions.html 3) https://ogletree.com/insights-resources/blog-posts/dhs-proposes-new-103265-fee-for-cap-subject-h-1b-petitions/

12. Fourth Circuit: vacated convictions can’t trigger inadmissibility

What happened:

• The Fourth Circuit ruled in Yanez Piedra v. Blanche (No. 25-1258) that a vacated conviction can’t make someone inadmissible, rejecting the BIA’s 20-year-old Matter of Pickering framework, which had let immigration judges look behind a state court’s vacatur order and still count a conviction if it was vacated for “rehabilitative” reasons rather than a legal defect.
• The panel held the inadmissibility statute asks only whether someone currently stands convicted, relying on the Supreme Court’s 2025 Hewitt v. United States decision that a vacated conviction is void from the start.
• The court is the first circuit to reject Pickering outright post-Loper Bright, deepening a split with circuits that still follow it.
• Applies to noncitizens facing removal in NC, SC, VA, WV, and MD based on a conviction that has since been vacated, regardless of why.

What does this mean?

• For attorneys practicing in NC, SC, VA, WV, or MD: a vacated conviction, for any reason, is now a strong, binding argument against inadmissibility. Review past denials under Pickering to see if this opens a path to reopen them. Also review cases where a client never applied for a benefit because Pickering made it seem futile. It may now be possible to apply for a benefit that previously would not have been.
• For noncitizens: a vacated conviction may now clear a real path to avoid its immigration consequences. Anyone denied a benefit, or ordered removed, over a vacated conviction under Pickering should get legal help. The same goes for anyone who held off applying for a benefit for that reason. It may be worth applying now.
• Bigger picture: this deepens a circuit split, making Supreme Court review more likely. It may not be the last word nationally. It’s also a reminder that Loper Bright cuts both ways. The same plain-meaning approach the BIA has used to restrict relief can also be used against case law and regulations this administration has issued.

Source(s): 1) https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/immigration-boards-vacated-convictions-rule-rejected-on-appeal 2) https://www.hinshawlaw.com/en/insights/insights-for-employers-alert/fourth-circuit-vacated-convictions-cannot-trigger-immigration-inadmissibility

13. USCIS reverses course, grants 30-day grace period for new I-864 edition

What happened:

• USCIS published a new required edition of Form I-864, Affidavit of Support, on August 31 with no announced grace period at the time. The old 10/17/24 edition would have been rejected outright if filed on or after that date.
• On September 3, immigration attorneys filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia arguing the abrupt change violated the Administrative Procedure Act.
• USCIS has since reversed course: its own I-864 page now states it is providing a 30-day grace period, during which the prior 10/17/24 edition will still be accepted. Only the new 08/24/26 edition will be required starting October 1, 2026.
• Most family-based (and some employment-based) green card cases need this form from a financial sponsor. The new edition adds a privacy release letting USCIS pull the sponsor’s credit report directly from credit bureaus to verify they meet the income requirement. Forms I-864A and I-864EZ were updated the same way.

What does this mean?

• For attorneys: pending filings now have breathing room through September 30 to use either edition, but every filing on or after October 1 must use the new edition. This deadline should still be tracked closely since the reprieve is temporary.
• For sponsors and beneficiaries: sponsors (often U.S. citizens or LPRs, not necessarily immigrants themselves) should be aware that their own credit history is now potentially part of the government’s evaluation of the beneficiary’s case.
• Bigger picture: this reversal suggests that the threat of litigation (or the lawsuit itself) can still move USCIS to soften an abrupt policy rollout, even under an administration that has otherwise been quick to implement sudden changes. It’s also not yet clear how heavily USCIS will actually weigh credit report data in adjudications once the new edition is mandatory. Worth watching for pattern denials or RFEs tied to credit history in the coming months.

Source(s): 1) https://www.uscis.gov/i-864 2) https://www.aila.org/library/uscis-updates-form-i-864-affadavit-of-support-effective-8-31-26-without-grace-period 3) https://www.law360.com/publicpolicy/articles/2521508

14. Fourth Circuit allows equitable tolling of the 30-day appeal deadline

What happened:

• The Fourth Circuit ruled August 11 that the 30-day deadline to appeal a removal order can be paused (equitably tolled) in the right circumstances, reviving the case of a Salvadoran man who fled MS-13 violence and was removed after the BIA rejected his asylum, withholding, and CAT claims.
• In Navarro Cerritos v. Blanche (No. 23-1897), the court held the deadline in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) isn’t an absolute jurisdictional bar and sent the case back for review on the merits.
• Tolling requires the person to have been diligently pursuing their case and to show an extraordinary circumstance beyond their control caused the late filing. Here, a Supreme Court decision that changed the filing rules while his case was already pending.
• The ruling was 2-1, with a sharp dissent arguing the deadline should be absolute, so this is Fourth Circuit law for now but not a settled national rule.

What does this mean?

• For attorneys: this provides a real argument where a client’s appeal was filed late because the legal landscape shifted mid-case. A missed 30-day deadline should no longer be assumed automatically fatal in the Fourth Circuit.
• For noncitizens: someone who lost their case on a technicality tied to timing may get a second chance to be heard on the merits, but only if they can show they were genuinely diligent and the delay was truly beyond their control.
• Bigger picture: the sharp 2-1 dissent means this issue is far from settled. Expect the government to seek further review, so don’t treat this as permanent, durable law yet.

Source(s): 1) https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/23-1897/23-1897-2026-08-11.html 2) https://www.aila.org/library/think-immigration-riley-v-bondi-rileys-silver-lining

15. BIA: only one motion to reopen, ever

What happened:

• The BIA ruled August 18 that noncitizens generally get only one motion to reopen a removal case, ever, and that limit can’t be excused even for ineffective assistance of a prior lawyer.
• In Matter of M-M-L-J- (29 I&N Dec. 843), the Board distinguished this from the separate 90-day filing deadline for motions to reopen, which can still be paused in the right circumstances.
• The numerical one-motion cap is different: once used, it’s used, with only narrow statutory exceptions (such as for battered spouses, children, and parents).
• This significantly narrows a common last-resort option for people trying to reopen old removal orders.

What does this mean?

• For attorneys: strategy around motions to reopen may need rethinking. If a client already used their one motion, even a strong ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim likely won’t unlock a second one, making it critical to get any motion to reopen right the first time.
• For noncitizens: someone who was badly served by a previous attorney and already filed one motion to reopen may now be permanently out of options on that route, absent one of the narrow statutory exceptions.
• Bigger picture: paired with the right-to-counsel ruling in item 8, this reflects a broader BIA trend of closing off procedural safety valves that used to give people a second chance.

Source(s): 1) https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1458296/dl?inline 2) https://www.kktplaw.com/immigration-review-podcast/cases-discussed-on-the-immigration-review-podcas/

16. ICE to reopen shuttered NC federal prison as detention facility

What happened:

• ICE plans to reopen a shuttered federal prison in northeastern North Carolina, Rivers Correctional Institution, as a 1,400-bed detention facility by the end of the year, run by GEO Group.
• Internal documents reported in August show GEO pitched the rural site as offering “minimal community disruption.”
• Reusing a former federal prison moves faster than new construction, but the facility was built for criminal punishment rather than civil immigration detention, and its rural location puts distance between detained people and attorneys.

What does this mean?

• For attorneys with detained clients in this region: a new detention population in rural northeastern NC likely means longer travel for attorney visits and potentially fewer local legal aid resources than at established facilities.
• For noncitizens who may be detained here: distance from urban areas and legal services could make it harder to secure representation or communicate regularly with family and counsel.
• Bigger picture: reusing former federal prisons appears to be a faster, cheaper strategy than new construction. Worth watching for similar conversions elsewhere, which could reshape where detained immigrants end up nationally.

Source(s): 1) https://www.themarshallproject.org/2026/08/01/ice-north-carolina-prison-arrest 2) https://www.cbs17.com/news/north-carolina-news/nc-private-prison-in-hertford-county-to-become-ice-detention-center-under-5-year-contract/

17. Record detention numbers and ICE’s biggest spending month

What happened:

• ICE booked over 46,000 people into detention in July, the highest monthly total of this administration. This pushed the standing detained population to 68,000 by early August, closing in on January’s record above 70,000.
• ICE also had its biggest spending month of the year in July, obligating $2.5 billion, including $1.5 billion to buy two CoreCivic detention centers outright (California City, CA and Otay Mesa, CA) rather than lease them.
• CoreCivic keeps operating both facilities under its existing management contracts.

What does this mean?

• For attorneys: rising detention numbers generally mean longer waits for bond hearings and more crowded dockets. More time should be budgeted for detained casework generally.
• For noncitizens: the odds of ending up in detention, even with a pending or strong case, appear to be climbing month over month, which should factor into risk calculations around travel, check-ins, or any contact with immigration authorities.
• Bigger picture: buying facilities outright (rather than leasing) signals the administration expects this elevated detention capacity to be a durable, long-term feature rather than a temporary surge.

Source(s): 1) https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ice-detentions-trump-high-july-2026-immigration-crackdown-widens/ 2) https://www.projectsaltbox.com/p/follow-the-money-july-2026-ice-spends

18. Unreported death at Delaney Hall surfaces via congressional oversight

What happened:

• A third death connected to New Jersey’s Delaney Hall detention facility surfaced in August only because a member of Congress raised it during an oversight visit. ICE had never announced it.
• The agency had granted the man a discretionary release to hospital care before he died, letting it treat him as no longer in its custody.
• In July, ICE dropped a Biden-era rule requiring it to report deaths occurring shortly after such a release.
• His name still hasn’t been made public.

What does this mean?

• For attorneys with detained clients: ICE won’t necessarily report a death or medical emergency. Attorneys should be proactive if they cannot contact a client, or if a client reports mistreatment or poor conditions.
• For detained noncitizens and their families: families should not assume that hearing nothing from ICE means their detained relative is fine. ICE is not required to proactively notify a family if that person dies or has a serious medical emergency, so families may need to actively check in themselves to find out.
• Bigger picture: dropping the death-reporting requirement makes independent oversight (like this congressional visit) more important, not less, since it may be the only way some deaths become public at all.

Source(s): 1) https://jerseyvindicator.org/2026/08/05/third-delaney-hall-death-went-unreported/ 2) https://6abc.com/post/delaney-hall-death-3rd-detainee-dies-being-held-ice-facility-newark-new-jersey-rep-rob-menendez-says/19640308/

19. TPS termination tally tops 1 million, with economic fallout

What happened:

• Pew counted just over 1 million people who have lost or are losing Temporary Protected Status this term, out of roughly 1.3 million who held it as of last year. Venezuela (616,400) and Haiti (334,900) account for most of that.
• On the ground, a Brooklyn restaurant owner in Little Caribbean told Documented his sales fell 40 to 60 percent after losing about half his staff when Haiti’s TPS designation ended in late July.

What does this mean?

• For attorneys: review any client from an ended TPS designation now for other relief (asylum, family petition). Work authorization and protection from removal have ended or are ending.
• For TPS holders: losing status means losing legal presence and the right to work. A household or business that relied on that income faces an immediate financial hit, not just a legal one.
• For employers: businesses that relied on TPS holders as workers face real disruption, as this case shows. Employers affected should contact Congress and the press to make the consequences of ending TPS visible and to push back on the administration.
• Bigger picture: the loss of TPS does not just affect the individuals losing their status. It creates substantial business losses and significant staff shortages that ripple into local and state economies during a time of inflation and uncertainty.

Source(s): 1) https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/08/12/second-trump-administration-has-ended-temporary-protected-status-for-most-immigrants-who-had-it/ 2) https://documentedny.com/2026/08/10/haiti-tps-termination-impact-businesses/

20. Third-country transfers top 23,000 since January 2025

What happened:

• Human Rights First and Refugees International counted more than 23,000 forced transfers of people to countries that are not their own since January 2025, spanning 26 third countries and more than 35 largely unpublished bilateral agreements.
• Nearly 20,000 of those went to Mexico.
• Liberia agreed this month to accept up to 1,200 people; the first 20 arrived August 20.

What does this mean?

• For attorneys: if a client faces removal, it shouldn’t be assumed they’ll be sent to their home country. Third-country removal risk should be specifically raised and CAT or other claims prepared accordingly, since these agreements are often unpublished and hard to research in advance.
• For noncitizens facing removal: removal doesn’t necessarily mean returning to one’s country of origin; a person could be sent somewhere they have no ties to at all, which carries its own serious safety and logistical risks.
• Bigger picture: the scale and opacity of these agreements (35+ unpublished deals) makes it hard for anyone, including attorneys, to fully assess a client’s risk in advance, which is itself a due-process concern worth flagging.

Source(s): 1) https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/library/human-rights-first-and-refugees-international-third-country-deportation-watch-details-the-expanding-scope-and-toll-of-third-country-agreements 2) https://www.refugeesinternational.org/statements-and-news/human-rights-first-and-refugees-international-third-country-deportation-watch-details-the-expanding-scope-and-toll-of-third-country-transfer-agreements/

21. ICE’s undisclosed AI tools

What happened:

• ICE was running roughly 42 AI tools internally while disclosing only 23 of them in the federal inventory meant to list them, according to records surfaced through public records litigation by Just Futures Law, Pangea Legal Services, and Mijente (CBP had about 75 AI systems, 62 active).
• DHS’s public AI Use Case Inventory exists so people can see which government systems shape decisions about them. A disclosure rate under 55% describes what the agency chooses to publish rather than what it actually runs.
• The underlying counts are from May 2024, but only came to light this August.

What does this mean?

• For attorneys: in cases where ICE’s decision-making process matters (bond, detention, targeting), whether an undisclosed AI tool may have played a role is worth considering. It could become a basis for discovery requests or legal challenges down the line.
• For noncitizens: decisions affecting a case may be shaped by algorithmic tools that were never publicly disclosed, making it harder to understand or challenge how a decision was actually made.
• Bigger picture: a disclosure rate under 55% raises real accountability questions, and litigation groups like Just Futures Law are likely to keep pressing for full disclosure of these systems.

Source(s): 1) https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/immigration-as-a-test-case-for-executive-ai-governance 2) https://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/dr20260806-immigration-as-a-test-case-for-executive-ai-governance

22. ICE offers to cover local officers’ liability insurance

What happened:

• ICE is offering to reimburse local police officers up to $250 a year so they can carry personal liability insurance for making immigration arrests.
• The plan, outlined in an August 14 planning document, covers policies worth up to $500,000 in personal liability.
• It attaches to 287(g), the partnership program now covering nearly 1,600 agencies in 32 states, where arrests have run roughly 3,000 a month in early 2026 versus about 250 a month in 2024.
• A Cato Institute analyst called it ICE going out of its way to shield local law enforcement from any risk of liability for rights violations committed while helping ICE make arrests.

What does this mean?

• For attorneys: in a case involving a wrongful arrest or rights violation by a local officer under 287(g), it’s worth noting the officer may now have insurance specifically covering this liability, which could affect settlement dynamics or how aggressively an officer is willing to act.
• For noncitizens: expanded protections for the officers making arrests don’t translate to expanded protections for noncitizens themselves. If anything, this could embolden more aggressive local enforcement since officers face less personal financial risk.
• Bigger picture: this is a clear signal the administration wants to grow 287(g) participation further, and removing a disincentive (personal liability) for local police is a direct lever toward that goal.

Source(s): 1) https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/ice-pitches-legal-insurance-to-help-shield-local-officers-who-make-immigration-arrests 2) https://www.cnn.com/2026/08/17/us/ice-liability-insurance-local-police-immigration

23. USCIS backlog and denials climb sharply

What happened:

• The American Immigration Council’s USCIS Filing Trends Dashboard (published August 5) shows the USCIS backlog hit 11.3 million pending applications and petitions in FY2026 Q1, up from 9.7 million a year earlier, a 16.5% increase.
• USCIS completed only 86 applications for every 100 it received in FY2026 Q1, the eleventh straight quarter completions have lagged receipts.
• Denial rates climbed sharply in employment-based categories: EB-1A Extraordinary Ability denials rose from 25.3% to 52.5%, and EB-2 National Interest Waiver denials rose from 37.3% to 57.4%.
• Humanitarian categories saw the steepest jumps: humanitarian parole denials rose from 52.9% to 88.7%, parole in place from 18.4% to 45.8%, and advance parole from 29.9% to 46.7%.
• Average backlog clearance time roughly doubled year over year, from 9.4 months to 18.6 months; Form I-485 adjustment applications filed by asylees saw clearance time jump more than eightfold, from 7.7 months to 70.6 months.

What does this mean?

• For attorneys: client expectations on timelines should be padded significantly, especially for humanitarian filings (parole, advance parole) where denial rates have nearly doubled. Alternative relief options are worth considering given these odds.
• For applicants and petitioners: across almost every category, but especially humanitarian ones, a case is now less likely to be approved and more likely to take far longer than in past years. Finances, work authorization gaps, and family separation risk should be planned for accordingly.
• Bigger picture: an eightfold increase in wait times for asylees adjusting status is an extreme outlier even within this broader slowdown. Worth watching whether this specific category gets targeted relief or litigation given how dramatic the change is.

Source(s): 1) https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/uscis-immigration-processing-trends-2026/ 2) https://www.business-standard.com/immigration/us-immigration-backlog-hits-11-3-mn-wait-times-and-denials-rise-126081800757_1.html

24. BIA strips immigration judges of bond jurisdiction after a final removal order

What happened:

• The BIA ruled August 25 (Matter of W-F-D-, 29 I&N Dec. 854) that immigration judges generally lack jurisdiction to hold bond hearings once someone is subject to an administratively final removal order, even if they’re still fighting removal to a specific country under the Convention Against Torture.
• The respondent, a woman from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, had been found likely to face torture if returned and was granted a form of CAT protection, but a final removal order remained in place underneath it. An immigration judge released her on a $1,500 bond in March; DHS appealed, and the Board reversed, holding the judge never had authority to hear the bond request in the first place.
• The Board described jurisdiction as a threshold “gate” that must be checked before any other ruling, including one that frees a detained person, and said no regulation gave the immigration judge authority to review custody once the removal order became final.
• This is one of five BIA rulings issued in a two-week stretch (August 13–25) that, taken together, narrowed bond eligibility, cut back the right to counsel, capped motions to reopen, and raised court fees, a cluster of changes immigration reporter Pablo Manríquez described as receiving little attention outside “practitioner listservs.”

What does this mean?

• For attorneys with detained clients under a final removal order (including CAT-only relief): a bond hearing shouldn’t be assumed available just because the client isn’t being actively deported. Jurisdiction should be checked first, since the Board says immigration judges may have no authority to grant bond at all in this posture.
• For noncitizens: someone who is protected from removal to a specific country (like under CAT) may still be detained indefinitely with no bond hearing available, since protection from removal doesn’t mean release from custody.
• Bigger picture: taken together with items 8 and 15, this is par for the course with the BIA since 2025, as it continues to narrow detained people’s procedural options.

Source(s): 1) https://justice.gov/eoir/media/1459006/dl?inline= 2) https://migrantinsider.com/p/five-rulings-in-15-days-immigration