Category: Immigration

Florida Enacts Immigration-Related Laws Expanding Law Enforcement, Restricting In-State Tuition, and Increasing Criminal Penalties

On February 13, 2025, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law Senate Bill (SB) 2-C and Senate Bill (SB) 4-C, immigration-related legislation that addresses a variety of matters, including in-state tuition benefits, new criminal penalties, and law enforcement structure and funding.

Quick Hits

Under recently enacted state legislation, undocumented immigrants in Florida will no longer be eligible for in-state tuition benefits at public colleges and universities.
Any undocumented immigrant convicted of a capital felony will face the death penalty.
A new State Board of Immigration Enforcement will be created, and more than $298 million will be allocated to law enforcement for immigration-targeted hiring and training, including bonuses to officers who cooperate in federal enforcement activities.

In-State Tuition Benefits
Under newly enacted SB 2-C, undocumented immigrants living in Florida will no longer be eligible for the in-state tuition rate at Florida’s public colleges and universities. Starting on July 1, 2025, students will be reevaluated for tuition eligibility.
Heightened Criminal Penalties
SB 2-C and SB 4-C provide for several new criminal penalties, including a provision in SB 4-C requiring courts to impose the death penalty for any undocumented immigrant “who is convicted or adjudicated guilty of a capital felony”—such as first-degree murder—in Florida. This provision is expected to be challenged in court.
SB 4-C also makes it a first-degree misdemeanor for undocumented immigrants who are eighteen years of age or older to “knowingly” enter or attempt to enter Florida. SB 2-C and SB 4-C enhance the penalties of all misdemeanor crimes committed by undocumented immigrants.
Under SB 2-C, undocumented immigrants who vote or aid noncitizens in voting can be charged with a third-degree felony.
Creation of the State Board of Immigration Enforcement
Senate Bill 2-C creates a State Board of Immigration Enforcement. The State Board of Immigration Enforcement will coordinate with and assist the federal government and state law enforcement agencies in enforcing “federal immigration laws and other matters related to the enforcement of federal immigration laws.”
The State Board of Immigration Enforcement will be composed of the governor and a cabinet to be appointed.
More Than $298 Million Allocated to Immigration-Focused Law Enforcement
SB 2-C allocates more than $298 million for state law enforcement agencies to carry out the state’s immigration objectives. The allocation includes funding for the hiring of fifty new law enforcement officers, a $1,000 bonus incentive program for immigration enforcement officers, and training grants.
Governor DeSantis’s signing of both bills continues his immigration objectives and follows Senate Bill 1718, which he signed into law in May 2023.

ICE Inspections in the Workplace: What Employers Need to Know

With the increasing activity by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), employers should be aware of their responsibilities and how to interact with ICE agents. Generally, ICE agents may inspect a business for workplace enforcement or to conduct inspections of employee I-9 documentation. It is imperative that employers are aware of how to best prepare and respond to these types of situations. 

What Information Should Employers Obtain from ICE Agents During a Workplace Interaction?
If ICE agents visit the workplace, employers should immediately contact counsel regarding next steps. ICE agents are required to identify themselves and present proper documentation regarding the proposed search, to enter nonpublic areas of the workplace. 
Here are a few steps to follow if ICE agents appear at your place of business:

Ask the ICE agents to identify themselves with their badge information and a valid subpoena or warrant.
Document each of the ICE agent’s names, the name of the U.S. attorney assigned to the case, and the type of documentation presented for your records.
Ask the ICE agents to inform you of the nature and purpose of their visit.
Ask for a copy of the warrant or subpoena. You do not have to allow ICE agents access to nonpublic areas of the workplace if a proper warrant is not present.
Once you are handed a warrant and documentation from ICE agents, tell the ICE agent that “It is our company’s policy to call our lawyer and I am doing that now.” Contact your legal counsel immediately so that they can review the documents, ensure that the warrant is valid, and whether they should be present during the search.
Do not obstruct or interfere with ICE activities or agents. Do not hide employees or help them evade the search. Do not provide any false information, shred documents, or hide documents.
Create a list of employees present during the raid.

What Parts of the Workplace Can ICE Enter?
ICE is permitted to enter publicly accessible areas of a business without a warrant. However, to enter non-public areas of a business, ICE agents are required to present, upon request, a proper warrant or subpoena. ICE generally operates using either an ICE-issued warrant, or a warrant issued by a state or federal judge in the jurisdiction in which the inspection is occurring. Only a warrant signed by a judge gives ICE agents access to the private areas of a workplace. To determine whether a judicial warrant is valid, ensure that the warrant:

States “U.S. District Court” or a California Superior Court (if in California)
Is signed by a judge
Describes the physical place to be searched
Describes the individuals to be searched or describes the items to be seized, if any
Is dated
Has been issued within the past 14 calendar days

If the warrant is missing any of these requirements, it is invalid, and employers are permitted to refrain from permitting ICE agents from entering private areas of the workplace.
What Can Employers Tell Their Employees To Do During an ICE Inspection?
If ICE agents seek to speak with an employee in the workplace during an investigation, employees do have the right to remain silent and obtain legal counsel. 
What Should Employers Do Next?
Employers should have policies in place to ensure a smooth process if ICE agents conduct an inspection at the workplace. Here are some recommendations:

Indicate which areas of the office are considered public and which areas are nonpublic – since ICE can only enter public areas, if there are areas marked “Employees Only,” those are nonpublic, and ICE cannot enter without a valid warrant.
Assign an employee to be the designated representative if ICE agents visit the premises to accompany the agent(s) during an inspection. The employee may take notes or videotape the officer. The employee should note any items seized and ask the officer if copies can be made before the originals are taken. If ICE does not agree, you can obtain copies later.
Ask for a list of items seized during the search. Agents are required to provide you with an inventory of items taken.
Contact counsel for further assistance on next steps.

What Differentiates an ICE Inspection from a Notice of Inspection (NOI)?
Federal law requires that employers have an I-9 form on file for each employee within three days of an employee’s hire date to prove that the employee is authorized to work in the U.S. A Form I-9 investigation is initiated when ICE serves the employer with a Notice of Inspection (NOI) – this should not be confused with a warrant, which is addressed above. Employers are required to deliver notice to their employees within 72 hours of receiving the NOI regarding the inspection.
If ICE serves a NOI, immediately contact counsel. Additionally, employers are entitled to up to three business days to produce their employee’s I-9 forms and, if ICE determines that one or more employees are not authorized to work in the United States, employers have up to 10 days to provide valid work authorization for these employees. The employer must notify any employees who the NOI indicates are not authorized to work in the United States of that determination within 72 hours.
Ultimately, when interacting with ICE, employers should immediately contact counsel to determine next steps and the appropriate course of action.

DOS Announces Dropbox Eligibility Reduced to 12 Months

After quietly updating consular websites, signaling a significant change to Visa Interview Waiver (“dropbox”) eligibility requirements, on Feb. 18, 2025, the Department of State (DOS) officially announced the reversion to pre-COVID eligibility standards, reducing the window for dropbox eligibility from 48 months to 12 months. This update follows reports of Visa Application Centers turning away applicants who no longer meet the revised criteria. Effective immediately, only those renewing a visa in the same nonimmigrant category that expired within the past year qualify for the dropbox process.
This shift means more applicants will need to schedule and attend in-person visa interviews, potentially increasing wait times at U.S. consulates worldwide.
If you have questions about your visa renewal or need assistance navigating these changes, please contact your immigration counsel as soon as possible.

Proposed Legislation Targets Nonprofits Supporting Immigrant Communities

Proposed legislation introduced in the US Senate last week would deny tax-exempt status to certain organizations that support undocumented immigrants. The legislation would change the eligibility requirements for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status.

Fixing Exemptions for Networks Choosing to Enable Illegal Migration Act
On February 10, US Senator Bill Hagerty (R-TN) introduced S.497, the “Fixing Exemptions for Networks Choosing to Enable Illegal Migration Act” or the “FENCE Act” (Act). The Act would amend Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code to provide that an organization is only described in Section 501(c)(3) if it “does not engage in a pattern or practice of providing financial assistance, benefits, services, or other material support” to individuals the organization “knows or reasonably should know to be unlawfully present in the United States.”
The Act states that the added language “shall not be construed … to require a religious organization to act in violation of its religious belief.” The Act also states that the provision “should not be construed to require proof of citizenship or verification of an individual’s immigration status to be presented.”
If enacted, the Act could affect both new organizations seeking tax-exempt status and existing tax-exempt organizations that serve immigrant populations. New organizations applying for tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) could be required to certify or otherwise establish that they will not provide prohibited support to persons described in the Act. An organization denied exempt status may appeal that decision through an administrative process and may ultimately seek a declaratory judgment in a court proceeding if needed. Existing organizations working with immigrant populations could also be impacted by, for example, an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) audit to evaluate whether an organization continues to operate exclusively for tax-exempt purposes within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) or is engaged in activities that would be prohibited because of the Act. During an audit of a tax-exempt organization for this purpose, the IRS may examine the organization’s activities and finances to determine whether the organization complies with the criteria for exemption under Section 501(c)(3). Based on the examination, an organization could be asked to adjust its activities to ensure compliance or face an adverse determination as to its tax-exempt status. An organization has the right to appeal an adverse determination resulting from an audit through an administrative process similar to an organization denied tax-exempt status and it may also ultimately litigate the issue in court if needed.
S.497 has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee. It currently has no cosponsors, and there is no companion bill in the US House of Representatives.

Navigating the H-1B Cap Registration Season: Key Dates and Fee Changes for 2025

As we approach the H-1B cap season for fiscal year 2026, it is crucial for employers and prospective H-1B candidates to stay informed about the registration process, important deadlines, and recent changes.
Key Dates for H-1B Cap Registration

Registration Period: The registration period begins on March 7, 2025, at noon EST, and will close at noon EST on March 24, 2025. During this time, employers must submit the necessary information about their prospective H-1B employees through the USCIS online registration system and pay the required fees.
Lottery Selection: Assuming USCIS receives more registrations than the allotted number of visas available (which happens nearly every year), the agency will conduct a lottery selection. By March 31, 2025, USCIS will notify employers which of their registrants were selected, if any.
Petition Filing: Employers whose registrations are selected will be given a 90-day window to file H-1B petitions starting April 1, 2025. Approved petitions will be effective on October 1, 2025. 
Supplemental Lottery Selection: USCIS may conduct supplemental lotteries if the initial round does not meet the annual cap due to withdrawals, rejections, or failure to timely file H-1B petitions. They generally announce the supplemental lottery in late July or early August, with the possibility of additional lotteries if needed. Any registrants who were not selected are automatically considered in the supplemental lottery. 

Increased Registration Fee
One of the most significant changes for the upcoming H-1B cap season is the increase in the registration fee. Previously set at $10, the fee has been raised to $215 per registration. This fee is non-refundable, regardless of selection result. Employers should ensure they account for this change when budgeting for the H-1B registration process.
Preparation Tips

Early Planning: Begin gathering the necessary documents and information well before the registration period opens. This includes verifying the eligibility of potential H-1B candidates and ensuring compliance with all legal requirements.
Stay Updated: Keep an eye on USCIS announcements for any changes or updates to the registration process or timeline. This will ensure you are well-prepared to meet all deadlines.
Consider Alternatives: If a registration is not selected in the lottery, explore other visa options, or consider reapplying in the next cap season. 

Navigating the H-1B cap registration process can be complex, but staying informed about the important dates and changes can help streamline the experience. By preparing early and understanding the process, employers and candidates can maximize their chances of securing an H-1B visa for the upcoming fiscal year.

Practical Implications of Immigration Enforcement Activity on Retirement Plans

The second Trump administration is intensely focused on enforcement of U.S. immigration laws. Understandably, employers are concerned about immigration visits and Form I-9 compliance, and human resource professionals are bracing for potential workforce disruptions and increased scrutiny of hiring procedures. Retirement plan administrators should also consider the consequences of undocumented workers participating in company retirement plans.
How an Undocumented Worker Becomes a 401(k) Plan Participant
In spite of an employer’s Form I-9 process, employees can provide incorrect, misleading, or false documentation as evidence that they are legally allowed to work in the U.S. If the employer does not have adequate systems in place to verify the documentation provided, then such employee can, nevertheless, become a participant in the employer’s 401(k) plan in accordance with the plan’s eligibility terms. For example, an employer may automatically enroll new employees in its 401(k) plan at three percent of compensation. The employer may also provide a matching or nonelective contribution on a payroll-by-payroll basis. Under this scenario, an unauthorized worker could relatively quickly begin accruing an account balance as a participant under the 401(k) plan. The same result could occur for undocumented workers under the eligibility terms of most retirement plans.
Plan Language Regarding “Employee” and ERISA
Most retirement plans define “employee,” “eligible employee,” or “participant” without reference to immigration status. For example, a common definition of “employee” could be similar to –
Employee means an individual who is reported on the payroll records of the Employer as a common-law employee.

While it may seem counter-intuitive, undocumented workers are indeed protected under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which is enforced by the Department of Labor (DOL). Interestingly, the DOL also enforces the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), which does not address the immigration status of employees. In other words, an individual is a covered (protected) employee under ERISA whether documented or not. So employers should proceed with the understanding that a plan participant – without regard to immigration status – is entitled to the benefits earned under a retirement plan.
It is important to distinguish undocumented workers from the “nonresident aliens” exclusion from eligibility that is contained in many retirement plans. Nonresident aliens without United States source income are often expressly excluded from retirement plan participation. According to the Internal Revenue Service, an alien is any individual who is not a U.S. citizen or U.S. national. A nonresident alien is an alien who has not passed the green card test or the substantial presence test. Because undocumented workers have U.S. source income, that exclusion under the retirement plan does not address issues that may come up related to undocumented workers.
With the assistance of counsel, employers may consider whether it is feasible to amend the plan to expressly exclude undocumented workers – i.e., employees who do not provide documentation that they are legally allowed to work in the U.S. Care should be taken in order to make sure such amendment can be properly administered without triggering any unintended consequences. Moreover, the amendment should not inadvertently violate applicable employment discrimination laws.
Distributions to Deported and Terminated Undocumented Workers
If an undocumented participant is deported or is absent from work for an extended period without notice, then the employer may terminate their employment. In such cases, like any other participant, an undocumented participant is entitled to receive distributions of vested benefits under a retirement plan upon termination of employment. The issue becomes how to process the distribution when the employer’s Form I-9 records include an incorrect or false individual tax identification number (ITIN) or Social Security number (SSN). Employers – plan recordkeepers, in particular – require a correct ITIN or SSN in order to properly report a retirement plan distribution on Form 1099-R. Obtaining this information from an undocumented participant may be challenging because they may be in custody, living in a different location, or intentionally avoiding contact. In these circumstances, the employer should designate them as “missing or lost participants” and take actions consistent with the DOL’s best practices for handling such participants (see our previous articles related to missing participants in retirement plans here and here).
Keep in mind that the employer should consider the DOL guidance whether the distribution is a small balance cashout, an automatic rollover to an IRA, or a series of installment payments. After the employer has exhausted its responsibilities under the DOL guidance, it may be able to transfer certain small distributions ($1,000 or less) to state unclaimed property funds as described under the recent Field Assistance Bulletin 2025-01.
Distributions to Those Seeking to Help Deported Family Members
Employees affected by immigration enforcement efforts may be interested in accessing their retirement accounts to provide financial assistance to deported friends and family. If the employer sponsors a 401(k) plan, then the plan may allow loans or penalty-free in-service distributions (if the participant has reached age 59½).
In addition, as permitted under SECURE 2.0, a 401(k) plan may be amended to allow employees to take penalty-free distributions up to $1,000 (or smaller amounts that leave at least $1,000 of vested benefits in the account afterward) if they certify the amount is for a personal or family emergency. Such emergency distributions must be repaid to the plan within three years of receipt in order to remain penalty-free.
Action Steps

Assess Risks. Based on workforce demographics, proximity to immigration enforcement activity, and other related factors, consider the likelihood that immigration enforcement agencies will select the employer for an on-site review or worker deportation. If so, consider whether to amend the 401(k) plan to permit emergency distributions for those wishing to provide financial assistance to deported family members.
Audit. Human resource, payroll, and benefits professionals should collaborate to determine whether undocumented workers are currently eligible for retirement plan benefits (or any other employee benefits offered by the employer). Consider whether it may be appropriate to engage a background screening service to verify Form I-9 employee authorization documentation.
Review DOL Missing Participant Best Practices. Review and document the procedures and processes used to locate missing participants, including those who may be at risk for deportation.
Consult Plan Recordkeeper. Contact the recordkeeper to inquire what procedures it has in place to process distributions and Forms 1099-R when there is an incorrect ITIN or SSN (or none at all).
Seek Legal Counsel. Ask legal counsel whether it is feasible to amend the retirement plan to expressly exclude undocumented workers.

Executive Order: One Voice for America’s Foreign Relations

On February 12, President Donald Trump announced an executive order indicating to consular officers and foreign officers that “failure to faithfully implement the President’s policy is grounds for professional discipline, including separation.” The personnel procedures of executive departments and agencies charged with implementing the President’s foreign policy must therefore provide an effective and efficient means for ensuring that officers and employees faithfully implement the President’s policies.
The order also directs the Secretary of State to revise or replace the Foreign Affairs Manual.
So, what does the One Voice for America’s Foreign Relations Executive Order mean for visa applicants?
Visa interviews will become more challenging as consular officers may fear for their own jobs if they do not implement more restrictive interpretations of guidance.
Coupled with the extreme vetting already ordered via the previously discussed Executive Order: Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats, employment-based visa applicants and the companies they work for should expect tougher visa interviews with extreme vetting.
Visa applicants should expect that officers will review documentation more carefully–even in the event of a renewal.
In addition, visa applicants should ensure that their social media reflects the same information in their visa application. For example, if someone is sponsored for an H-1B visa as a software engineer, their LinkedIn should not indicate they are a Vice President or Manager. Another example is if someone applying for a non-immigrant visa such as a business visitor visa, they should not post that they can’t wait to move to the U.S. All applicants should expect that social media posts will be reviewed.
Additional preparation for visa interviews may be required, particularly for any applicant who will apply for a purely non-immigrant visa type such as B-1 or TN visas. It goes without saying that L-1 applicants should be prepped for visa interviews since they must understand how they qualify under the L-1 category.
Employers, as you strategize how to file post registration selected H-1B Cap petitions, ensure foreign nationals understand the heightened risk of travel for a consular approval versus remaining in the U.S. via a change of status. Travel comes with risks. Visa appointments come with risks.

Newly Released FY 2024 Q4 EB-5 Program Data Shows High I-526 Petition Denial Rate

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has published EB-5 program data for Fiscal Year 2024, Quarter 4. The released data show a high rate of denial for I-526 petitions versus I-526E petitions. 
The denial rate for I-526 petitions was around 30%, which means USCIS issued denials for almost a third of all applicants that invested funds. These applicants waited about 57 months on average for adjudication. Form I-526, also known as Immigration Petition by Alien Entrepreneur, is the petition foreign nationals use in the EB-5 investor program to invest in their own business or in a regional center investment opportunity with the petition filed prior to the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022 (RIA)’s passage. When filing this form, applicants take their first step toward obtaining permanent residency in the United States by investing in a new business that creates at least 10 jobs for U.S. workers.
By contrast, the denial rate for I-526E petitions was around 3%. Form I-526E is used by an investor pooling his or her investment with one or more qualified immigrants participating in the EB-5 Regional Center Program with the petition filed after the RIA’s passage. As shown in the data for Fiscal Year 2024, Quarter 4, Form I-526E Petitions receive a significantly higher rate of approval than pre-RIA I-526 Petitions.
What Factors Are Behind the EB-5 Denial Rates for Form I-526?
USCIS does not provide data on whether the high denial rate for pre-RIA I-526 Petitions is due to project-related issues (impacting all EB-5 investors in a project) or an issue in the investor’s funds source. EB-5 investors must present evidence that the funds invested into the EB-5 project originated from a lawful source. USCIS has been issuing requests for evidence (RFEs) targeting investor’s source of funds and path of funds (i.e. the transfer methods used to send the investment to the United States). Many RFEs for pre-RIA I-526 Petitions ask investors to produce documentation on taxes, banking records, and employment records for several decades, despite the passage of time. These types of requests are generally not sent for post-RIA I-526E Petitions. The immigration bar reports that the issuance rate of RFEs is also lower for post-RIA I-526 Petitions.
On the project side, some projects ran into issues during the pandemic and were unable to secure other financing or dealt with significant delays or the inability to move forward with their projects. Additional projects failed due to fraud, which also would result in I-526 Petition denials. 
The Quarter 4 data from USCIS shows that there is some difference in adjudication by USCIS of pre and post RIA EB-5 investor petitions. Investors with I-526 Petitions filed before 2022 and that are still pending should continue to monitor their case, as USCIS may send an RFE challenging the investor’s source and path of funds. Investors should work with experienced EB-5 immigration counsel to answer any RFE requests due to the increased denial rate.

Changes to U.S. Mission India’s Nonimmigrant Visa Processing

The U.S. Embassy and Consulates in India recently announced updates to nonimmigrant visa processing that took effect last week, including changes to interview waiver (drop box) eligibility and the centralization of visa interview appointments to increase efficiency and optimize resources to address the continued high demand for U.S. visas.

Quick Hits

The U.S. State Department has revised drop box eligibility criteria, limiting it to applicants renewing a visa in the same class that is either still valid or expired within the last twelve months (a departure from the previous forty-eight-month policy for any visa class).
Despite efforts to streamline processing, visa appointments for certain nonimmigrant categories remain backlogged by more than a year.
U.S. Mission India broke records in 2024, issuing more than one million nonimmigrant visas for the second year in a row, underscoring the huge demand of Indians for travel to the United States for tourism, business, and education.

Interview Waiver (Drop Box) Changes
According to U.S. Mission India’s appointment scheduling service, applicants seeking a waiver of the standard visa interview requirement must meet stricter eligibility criteria:

Applicants must have a previous U.S. visa in the same class as the visa they are applying for.
The prior visa must be either still valid or have expired within the past twelve months.

This is a significant change from the previous policy, which permitted drop box processing for applicants with a visa in any category that had expired within the past forty-eight months.
The U.S. Visa Service Desk is advising visa applicants who have already scheduled an interview waiver appointment to review their eligibility. If they are no longer eligible for an interview waiver under the new criteria, they must cancel the existing appointment and reschedule a biometric and consular appointment for an in-person interview.
The narrower eligibility criteria mean more applicants will have to attend in-person visa interviews, which may further impact currently posted visa wait times:

City/Post
Interview Required Student/Exchange Visitors (F, M, J)
Interview Required Petition-Based Temporary Workers (H, L, O, P, Q)
Interview Required Crew and Transit (C, D, C1/D)
Interview Required Visitors (B1/B2)

Chennai (Madras)
85 Days
28 Days
9 Days
436 Days

Hyderabad
85 Days
15 Days
1 Day
429 Days

Kolkata
375 Days
415 Days

Mumbai (Bombay)
302 Days
10 Days
444 Days

New Delhi
85 Days
37 Days
442 Days

Source: U.S. Department of State—Bureau of Consular Affairs
U.S. Mission India advises that drop box processing typically takes up to three weeks from document submission at a Visa Application Center (VAC) until the visa is ready for pick-up or delivery. However, due to the more restrictive eligibility criteria, more applicants will be required to schedule in-person interviews, potentially exacerbating wait times.
Nonimmigrant Visa (NIV) Rescheduling Policy
Effective January 1, 2025, the following rescheduling rules apply to nonimmigrant visa appointments:

Applicants can initially schedule their visa appointment at any preferred location.
One free reschedule is permitted.
If an applicant misses an appointment or needs to reschedule a second time, they must repay the visa fee to book a new appointment.

Centralization of Visa Processing
To streamline operations, U.S. Mission India has centralized processing for certain visa categories:

First-time H & L visa interview appointments → Centralized in Hyderabad
First-time Blanket L visa applications → Processed in Chennai
B1/B2 interview waiver (drop box) appointments → Centralized in New Delhi
H & L interview waiver (drop box) appointments → Centralized in Chennai

Regardless of where the interview waiver appointment is scheduled, applicants can submit documents at any of the five Visa Application Centers (VACs) at no cost:

Chennai
Hyderabad
Kolkata
Mumbai
New Delhi

Alternatively, applicants may submit documents at one of six Document Drop-off Centers for a fee of 850 rupees (approximately USD $9.81) per application:

Ahmedabad
Bangalore
Chandigarh
Cochin
Jalandhar
Pune

In certain cases, applicants may still be required to attend an in-person interview at the designated consular post where their visa category has been centralized.
Next Steps
Given the continued high demand and processing delays, stakeholders may want to schedule visa appointments as early as possible to minimize disruptions.
The U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs has not yet announced whether it will extend or expand its domestic visa renewal pilot program, which ran from January to April 2024. With stricter interview waiver eligibility and more applicants now required to attend in-person interviews, visa processing times might increase, potentially leading to longer wait times across multiple visa categories.

Investors with Denied I-829 Petitions Should Reconsider International Travel

EB-5 investors who have received an I-829 Petition denial but who have a valid I-551 stamp in their passport should reconsider international travel and, if abroad, consider returning to the United States. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents reportedly have detained some permanent residents returning from abroad where USCIS has issued a notice to appear (NTA) before the Immigration Court for the initiation of removal proceedings.
Where an I-829 Petition is denied, USCIS takes the position that it is canceling the resident status of the alien investor and his or her dependents. However, binding case law says that investors and dependents retain their permanent resident status until completion of removal proceedings before an immigration judge and any subsequent appeal process before the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Thus, investors were able to continue to receive I-551 stamps to evidence permanent resident status through the end of any appeals process before the BIA. As a result, investors previously were able to continue traveling abroad, and short trips abroad generally were not considered an abandonment of their permanent resident status or the voluntary abandonment of their removal proceedings. Short, international trips were allowed throughout the end of the removal proceedings before the BIA.
However, under the current presidential administration, CBP may be following a new policy wherein they will not admit immigrant investors where removal proceedings have commenced and an NTA has been issued. In addition, CBP could potentially conduct questioning urging an investor or dependents to voluntarily abandon status at the border, and then return the applicant to their home country. Finally, CBP may also seek to detain investors at the border upon returning to the United States.
Where an NTA has not been issued yet, investors should consider returning to and remaining in the United States. USCIS has the discretion to issue an NTA and file it with the Immigration Court, and USCIS can do so at any time following the denial of the I-829 Petition without warning. Importantly, investors and dependents may well be put into secondary inspection while the CBP officer reviews the status of an I-829 Petition. Investors and dependents with an I-829 Petition denial should speak with experienced immigration counsel before returning to the United States. Investors and their dependents with denied I-829 Petitions who are present in the United States should reconsider international travel.

Beltway Buzz, February 14, 2025

The Beltway Buzz™ is a weekly update summarizing labor and employment news from inside the Beltway and clarifying how what’s happening in Washington, D.C., could impact your business.

Congress: Big Picture Legislative Update. The 119th Congress is revving up, and the Buzz is monitoring two major legislative issues:

Government funding expires on March 14, 2025—one month from today. Clearly, there is plenty of political acrimony between the parties, along with consternation among Democrats concerning how the administration has operated during its first several weeks. There are no clear signs yet about whether we are heading for a government shutdown, and anything can happen, as we saw during the final week of 2024.
This week, the U.S. Congress officially started the budget reconciliation process that it will use to pass Republican legislative priorities, such as tax cuts, border security, defense spending, and energy promotion. As the Buzz has previously discussed, this complicated process will allow the Republicans to avoid the legislative filibuster in the U.S. Senate and pass legislation on a party-line basis. The process is likely to take up much of Congress’s time in the coming weeks and months.

AG Issues Memos on Private-Sector DEI. On February 5, 2025, Pam Bondi, the newly confirmed attorney general, issued two memoranda to U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) employees instructing them on steps that they must take to implement Executive Order (EO) 14173, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.” The memos are as follows:

“Ending Illegal DEI and DEIA Discrimination and Preferences.” This memo instructs the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division and Office of Legal Policy to jointly draft and submit a report containing recommendations “to encourage the private sector to end illegal discrimination and preferences, including policies relating to [diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and [diversity, equity, inclusion, accessibility (DEIA)].”
This report must contain “specific steps or measures to deter the use of DEI and DEIA programs or principles that constitute illegal discrimination or preferences, including proposals for criminal investigations and for up to nine potential civil compliance investigations of [private-sector] entities.” (Emphasis added.) This likely refers to provisions of EO 14173 that invoke the False Claims Act, which allows for criminal penalties, treble damages, attorneys’ fees, and private citizen “whistleblower” actions. Lauren B. Hicks, T. Scott Kelly, and Zachary V. Zagger provide an analysis of the implications of EO 14173 for organizations doing business with the federal government that will be subject to potential liability under the False Claims Act.
“Eliminating Internal Discriminatory Practices.” This memo primarily instructs DOJ officials to terminate internal discriminatory programs and policies relating to DEI and DEIA. This includes the elimination of positions, programs, grants, contracts with vendors, etc., relating to DEI. It also directs DOJ officials to make recommendations on how to align the agency’s enforcement activities, litigation positions, consent decrees, regulations, and policies with the EO.
The memo further instructs DOJ officials to develop new guidance that “narrow[s] the use of ‘disparate impact’ theories” and emphasizes that “statistical disparities alone do not automatically constitute unlawful discrimination.”

DOL Nominees Announced. The Senate has already confirmed sixteen of President Trump’s agency nominees, but the employment-related agencies (i.e., the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)) are a bit behind. There was some news this week, however, relating to DOL nominees:

Secretary of Labor Hearing. The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions was scheduled to hold a hearing this week on the nomination of former U.S. Representative Lori Chavez-DeRemer of Oregon to be secretary of labor. But due to a snowstorm in the Washington, D.C., area, the hearing has been rescheduled for February 19, 2025.
DOL Subagency Nominees. Potentially filling in the leadership positions of the DOL’s subagencies, are the following nominees who were announced this week:
David Keeling has been nominated to be the assistant secretary of labor for occupational safety and health. Keeling has held several positions overseeing private-sector employers’ workplace safety programs.

Wayne Palmer has been nominated to be the assistant secretary of labor for mine safety and health. Palmer held the same position during the first Trump administration.
Daniel Aronowitz, an insurance industry executive, has been nominated to lead the Employee Benefits Security Administration.
Henry Mack III has been nominated to lead the Employment and Training Administration. Mack previously served in the Florida Department of Education.

CFPB Halts Activity. Activity at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was effectively stopped this week while the Department of Government Efficiency reviews the agency’s internal operations. The CFPB, which “enforces Federal consumer financial law and ensures that markets for consumer financial products are transparent, fair, and competitive” stretched its reach over the last several years as part of former President Joe Biden’s “whole of government” approach to promoting unionization. For example, in 2023, the CFPB entered into an information sharing agreement with the NLRB “to address practices that harm workers in the ‘gig economy’ and other labor markets.” Pursuant to that agreement, the CFPB also focused on “employer-driven debt” that allegedly results from employee expenses related to “employer-mandated training or equipment.” Created by Congress in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, CFPB has long been criticized by Republicans.
H-1B Registration Period Announced. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has announced that the fiscal year 2026 H-1B cap registration period will open at noon ET on Friday, March 7, 2025, and close at noon ET on Monday, March 24, 2025. Nicole Fink and Philip K. Sholts have the details on the increased fees, the second go-round of the beneficiary-centric selection process, and other need-to-know aspects of the process.
Remembering Justice Scalia. Supreme Court of the United States Justice Antonin Scalia passed away this week in 2016 at the age of seventy-nine. While an incredible amount has been written about Justice Scalia and his legal philosophy, at the Buzz, we remember his jurisprudence related to labor and employment law. For example, Justice Scalia took part in decisions holding that union “salts” were employees under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and that the NLRB was precluded by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 from awarding backpay to undocumented workers—even if their employment termination was otherwise unlawful under the NLRA. With the opportunity to write for the Court, Justice Scalia authored opinions emphasizing the need for sufficient commonality between potential members of a class action, particularly in employment law cases, as well as an opinion holding that the Federal Arbitration Act preempted state laws prohibiting class action waivers in arbitration. Finally, in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., Justice Scalia wrote that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964’s prohibition of discrimination “because of … sex” applied to same-sex sexual harassment claims.