State Department Launches Immigrant and Nonimmigrant Visa Interview Availability Tools
On April 30, 2025, the U.S. Department of State launched two new tools to monitor immigrant and nonimmigrant visa interview availability: (1) the Immigrant Visa (IV) Scheduling Status Tool, and (2) the Global Visa Wait Times Tool. These tools provide foreign nationals with a clearer picture of the timelines for their visa interview appointment scheduling.
Quick Hits
The Immigrant Visa (IV) Scheduling Status Tool provides foreign nationals clarity regarding the month and year that recently scheduled immigrant visa (IV) interviews became “documentarily complete” (fees paid and all documents received).
The Global Visa Wait Times Tool gives foreign nationals a monthly snapshot of the next available nonimmigrant visa (NIV) interview date.
These two new tools provide enhanced clarity with regard to interview wait times, but the tools are intended as a guide only. Due to numerous factors, these tools do not provide precise information on individual visa wait times.
The Immigrant Visa (IV) Scheduling Status Tool gives foreign nationals an approximation of when a visa interview may be scheduled for their case. The tool provides the date that recently scheduled IV interviews became “documentarily complete” (fees paid and all documents received) at a particular consular post. To use the tool, click here, choose the immigrant visa category, input the desired U.S. embassy or consulate, and click “Go.” The result will be the date on which the National Visa Center is scheduling interviews at the selected U.S. embassy or consulate.
The Global Visa Wait Times Tool shows the next available visa interview date for various nonimmigrant visa categories and the average wait time for a B visa interview, updated monthly. To use the tool, click here and navigate to the chart to see each U.S. embassy or consulate listed in alphabetical order by city/post, and the average wait time for scheduling interviews.
These tools offer improved insight into interview wait times, but the tools are intended as a guide only. Due to numerous factors, these tools do not provide precise information on individual visa wait times.
Key Takeaways
When anticipating the timing of a consular interview, visa applicants may use these new tools as a guide to determine visa appointment availability.
Do Weekends Count? SCOTUS Decides They Don’t for Voluntary-Departure Deadline
Takeaways
Voluntary-departure deadlines are extended to the next business day when they fall on weekends or legal holidays.
Courts may review final orders of removal and all questions of law arising from them.
The decision provides clarity for immigration judges and attorneys.
Related link
Monsalvo Velázquez v. Bondi
Article
On calculating a noncitizen’s voluntary-departure deadline, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a deadline that falls on a weekend or legal holiday automatically extends to the next business day. Monsalvo Velázquez v. Bondi, No. 23-929 (Apr. 22, 2025).
The Court rejected the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit’s ruling that the voluntary-departure deadline in 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(b)(2) refers to calendar days with no extension for deadlines that fall on weekends or holidays. In the 5-4 decision resolving a circuit split, the Court remanded the case back to the Tenth Circuit.
The Court also held that under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, courts may review “final order[s] of removal” and “all questions of law” arising from them — regardless of whether a petition included a challenge to removability.
The voluntary-departure deadline decision is in accordance with “longstanding administrative construction,” the Court said, whereby immigration regulations have provided that when calculating deadlines, the term “day” excludes weekends and legal holidays if a deadline would otherwise fall on one of those days. Congress set forth the maximum number of “days” allowed for voluntary departure in § 304 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). In rejecting the government’s arguments, the Court noted that § 304 of IIRIRA should be read in light of the government’s longstanding regulatory practice. Moreover, the Court noted that nothing in § 304 nor the government’s promulgated rules hints that deadlines should operate differently. Additionally, the Court said, § 304 does not distinguish between “procedural” and “substantive” deadlines, and the regulatory background does not suggest this distinction.
The Court’s decision is also in line with Meza-Vallejos v. Holder, 669 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2012). In that case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that when a noncitizen’s deadline for voluntary departure falls on a weekend or holiday, the noncitizen has until the next business day to file a post-decision motion to reopen or reconsider.
In rejecting the government’s argument that under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, a petition must include a challenge to removability to secure judicial review, the Court noted that “such an interpretation would force litigants to assert meritless claims simply to obtain jurisdiction.”
The decision provides clarity for immigration judges and attorneys.
State Department Updates DS-160 Submission Rules
The U.S. Department of State has recently updated its procedural guidelines for visa applicants, introducing a new requirement that may impact how travelers plan their application process. The DS-160, the mandatory Online Nonimmigrant Visa Application, must now be submitted at least 48 working hours before an interview at a U.S. embassy or consulate is scheduled. This change, although seemingly minor, has implications that applicants should consider as they navigate the often complex visa process.
What Is the DS-160?
The DS-160 is a comprehensive electronic State Department form that collects personal, travel, and employment information from applicants seeking a U.S. visa. Completing this document and submitting it online is the first required step in the nonimmigrant visa application process. After submission, applicants receive a confirmation page with a barcode, which is essential for scheduling a visa interview.
What’s Changing — and Why It Matters
Previously, applicants were able to schedule interview appointments promptly after submitting their DS-160 forms. However, under the new rules, the State Department requires at least 48 working hours between the time the DS-160 is submitted and the scheduling of the visa interview. This change may have been implemented to streamline internal processing and allow embassies and consulates sufficient time to review the submitted information before applicants schedule interviews.
Key Points to Know:
48 Working Hours: It’s important to note that this timeframe refers to business days, which excludes weekends and U.S. federal holidays. For example, if an applicant submits the DS-160 on a Friday afternoon, the earliest they could potentially schedule an interview would be the following Tuesday.
Planning Is Crucial: This adjustment underscores the importance of proactive planning. Visa applicants should not only complete their DS-160 but also consider building in extra time to account for the processing window as well as the availability of interview appointments at their preferred embassy or consulate.
No Exceptions: The State Department emphasizes that this requirement is firm, so rushing or attempting to bypass the 48-hour rule is not advisable. Missing this mandate may cause delays in scheduling interviews or receiving visas, which may affect applicants’ overall travel timeline.
Considerations for Applicants:
Submit DS-160 Early: Considering this new requirement, applicants may wish to complete and submit the DS-160 long before thinking about scheduling an interview. Planning ahead may help ensure a smooth progress through the application process.
Coordinate Forms and Fees: Be sure that all components of your application—such as paying the visa fee—align with the DS-160 submission timing. Interviews cannot be scheduled unless all prerequisites, including this submission window, are satisfied.
Monitor Embassy Availability: Some U.S. embassies and consulates have longer waiting periods for interview slots due to high demand. Applicants should look up the interview appointment availability at their local missions to better strategize when to submit the DS-160.
Why the Rule Might Be Beneficial
Although this new policy introduces an additional layer of waiting time, it might yield improved outcomes for applicants. By allowing embassies and consulates a buffer to review submitted forms, officials can catch errors or inconsistencies ahead of the interview.
Takeaways
While the new 48-hour DS-160 submission rule may require adjustments to travel plans or visa preparation timeline, it’s not insurmountable. With foresight, organization, and careful planning, applicants can comply with the requirement and ensure their visa process flows smoothly. Every step in the visa application sequence exists to promote clarity and efficiency, and understanding these changes may help avoid last-minute frustrations. For those seeking to visit the United States, staying informed of procedural updates like this demonstrates the importance of being detail-oriented and proactive.
Multistate Monday: Employment Verification and Immigration Inspections, Part II [Podcast]
In this episode of our Multistate Monday podcast series, Dee Anna Hays (co-chair of the firm’s Multistate Advice and Counseling Practice Group), Susan Gorey, and Stephanie Generotti continue their discussion on E-Verify, I-9 requirements, and state-specific mandates. In part two of their conversation, they focus on three types of warrant-based scenarios—administrative, judicial, and operational search—and explain the purpose and scope of each type of warrant. They also emphasize the importance of employers being prepared to respond appropriately to each scenario by designating a point of contact and training frontline employees who may be the first to encounter a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent.
Find part one of this series here
Beltway Buzz, May 2, 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.
100 Days of the Trump Administration 2.0. April 29, 2025, marked the one hundredth day of President Trump’s second term of office. Set forth below are the key labor and employment policy changes that have occurred thus far.
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Through various executive orders, the Trump administration has upended the diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) landscape, both within the federal government and for private-sector employers. These directives are still subject to multiple legal challenges and expected further action from U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi. As noted in further detail below, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) will be focusing on this issue as well. In Congress, the Buzz is monitoring the status of the Dismantle DEI Act. Additionally, President Trump issued an executive order instructing all federal agencies to “deprioritize enforcement of all statutes and regulations to the extent they include disparate-impact liability,” which allows for a finding of discrimination if an otherwise neutral employment policy or practice results in an adverse impact on a protected class.
Other Executive Orders
Nondisplacement of federal contractor employees. President Trump rescinded Executive Order 14055, which obligated successor federal contractors to make job offers to workers employed under predecessor contracts. As the Buzz has noted, this is a policy shift that has been ping-ponging across administrations for thirty years.
Minimum wage. President Trump rescinded an executive order issued by President Biden in 2021 that increased the minimum wage for employees of federal contractors to $15 per hour (which was set at $17.75 per hour at the beginning of 2025 as a result of annual increase provisions contained in the Biden executive order).
“Good Jobs” executive order. President Trump rescinded President Biden’s “Good Jobs” executive order, which encouraged federal agencies to require potential contractors to adhere to certain labor and employment standards, such as project labor agreements, prevailing wages, and paid leave.
Changes to Rulemaking Processes
State Department extends “foreign affairs” rulemaking exemption governmentwide. Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a notice concluding that any federal agency rulemaking addressing “the status, entry, and exit of people, and the transfer of goods, services, data, technology, and other items across the borders of the United States” is subject to the “foreign affairs” exemption of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), meaning that the rule does not have to go through the public notice and comment process.
Directing the repeal of unlawful regulations. President Trump has instructed all federal agencies to repeal any regulation “that clearly exceeds the agency’s statutory authority or is otherwise unlawful” by proceeding under the “good cause” exemption of the APA, which also avoids the public notice and comment process.
U.S. Department of Labor (DOL)
Personnel. The confirmations of Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer and Deputy Secretary of Labor Keith Sonderling are important steps towards reversing the Biden-era DOL enforcement and regulatory agendas. Though without confirmed leaders of the Wage and Hour Division and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), it remains unclear as to how the administration will handle the overtime, independent contractor, and walkaround regulations (which are all subject to legal challenges), as well as OSHA’s heat illness prevention proposal.
OFCCP gutted. President Trump revoked President Lyndon Johnson’s Executive Order 11246 (a nearly sixty-year-old order that established affirmative action requirements for federal contractors), thus gutting OFCCP (though contractors still have ongoing obligations regarding the recruitment and hiring of veterans and individuals with disabilities). Although it is being reported that OFCCP will reduce its staff by approximately 90 percent, a new director has been appointed, and she has indicated that the agency will review data that has already been submitted by federal contractors for evidence of discrimination related to employer DEI efforts.
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
Personnel. As expected, President Trump fired NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo shortly into his administration. What was perhaps not expected was that President Trump dismissed NLRB Member Gwynne Wilcox (while allowing Wilcox’s fellow Democratic member of the Board, David Prouty, to remain). Trump’s ouster of Wilcox—which she subsequently challenged in federal court—will test his theory that the National Labor Relations Act’s restrictions on removing Board members are unconstitutional. Ultimately, the Supreme Court of the United States will rule on this issue, which will likely have ramifications, not just for the Board, but for other independent federal commissions and boards.
The Board lacks a quorum. While we wait for the confirmation of a new general counsel and new Board members, the Board cannot operate with just Prouty and Chair Marvin Kaplan. Thus, the employer community is still operating under policies established by the Board over the last four years, which include card-check organizing, limitations on employer speech, expanded remedies, and ambush elections, among others.
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS)
Like OFCCP, FMCS—which was reportedly involved in several spending scandals in recent years—is now down to a skeleton crew of employees. Many labor practitioners found the agency helpful in resolving labor disputes.
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Personnel. President Trump dismissed commissioners Jocelyn Samuels and Charlotte Burrows, and he appointed Republican commissioner Andrea Lucas to serve as the EEOC’s acting chair. President Trump also fired the EEOC’s general counsel, Karla Gilbride. Andrew Rogers is currently serving as acting general counsel of the EEOC. President Trump has nominated Rogers to lead the DOL’s Wage and Hour Division.
DEI. Acting Chair Lucas is operating the Commission in conjunction with the administration’s focus on DEI. To that end, the Commission has issued two technical assistance documents addressing what the Commission—and the administration—believe to be unlawful DEI practices.
No quorum, no votes. With only Commissioner Andrea Lucas and Commissioner Kalpana Kotagal remaining on the EEOC, the Commission lacks a functioning quorum. This means that Acting Chair Lucas will not be able to make changes to the regulations implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, as well as the Commission’s guidance on sexual harassment. Further, with Lucas at the helm, employers can feel confident that the Commission will not pursue any effort to collect salary data from employers.
Immigration
Immigration has clearly been a top priority for the administration, with much of the focus on the southern border, deportation, and attempts to limit or terminate humanitarian parole programs (such as Temporary Protected Status for Venezuela and the Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela (CHNV) parole program). There is also the administration’s effort to eliminate birthright citizenship and the implementation of a registration requirement for non-citizens. While these actions certainly have an impact on the workplace, at least thus far, employment-based immigration policy changes have largely been pushed to the back burner. For example, H-1B “cap season” proceeded without any significant changes, and no travel bans have been implemented.
Zachary V. Zagger and Leah J. Shepherd have a full recap of the first one hundred days of the Trump administration. Be sure to keep an eye open for the Spring Regulatory Agenda, which will provide a forecast of where the administration wants to go on the regulatory front. In his first administration, President Trump’s first Regulatory Agenda was issued on July 17, 2017.
Republican Lawmakers Introduce Joint-Employer Legislation. The legislative proposal to provide employers with a clear joint-employer standard based on direct and immediate control has been on our radar for many years now. The bill is unlikely to clear the sixty-vote legislative filibuster hurdle in the U.S. Senate.
Remaining OSHRC Commissioner Retires. Cynthia Attwood, chair and sole remaining commissioner of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC), retired upon the expiration of her term on April 27, 2025. This means that there are no confirmed commissioners at OSHRC, which hears appeals of the workplace safety citations OSHA issues to employers. As the Buzz has discussed, OSHRC has been without a quorum since April 2023. Now, two commissioners will need to be confirmed in order for OSHRC to get up and running. In March 2025, President Trump nominated DOL veteran Jonathan Snare to serve as commissioner.
RIP, Secretary of Labor Herman. Alexis M. Herman, the first African American to serve as U.S. secretary of labor, died on April 25, 2025, at the age of seventy-seven. Herman served as labor secretary from 1997 to 2001 during President Clinton’s second term of office. Prior to her service as secretary of labor, Herman served as the director of the DOL’s Women’s Bureau (at just twenty-nine years old, she was the youngest person to serve in the role) and director of the White House Office of Public Liaison during President Clinton’s first term. As secretary of labor, Herman is remembered, in part, for having played a substantial role in settling a nationwide strike of a package-delivery company.
E-Verify Begins Notifying Participating Employers About EAD Revocations
As of April 23, 2025, E-Verify is now notifying participating employers via Case Alerts when the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) revokes an employee’s Employment Authorization Document (EAD). E-Verify has been sending emails to its account holders that it says have employees whose EADs DHS has recently revoked and informing them that the E-Verify cases will be added to their Case Alerts under Cases with Expiring Documents in E-Verify.
E-Verify is an Internet-based system that compares information an employer enters from an employee’s Form I-9 to DHS and Social Security Administration records to confirm employment eligibility. E-Verify is generally voluntary, though it is mandatory for some employers, including certain federal contractors, as well as certain employers operating in some states. Some employers sign up for E-Verify because enrolling in the program gives them access to the STEM OPT extension for F-1 international student employees.
In its communication, E-verify explains that DHS recently sent direct notifications to certain individuals who were paroled into the United States that DHS had terminated their parole and revoked their parole-based EADs. A federal court has stayed DHS’s termination of the CHNV parole. Employers who have been contacted by E-Verify that its employees’ EADs have been revoked should contact their immigration attorney to confirm the parole termination status before contacting the employee to reverify their Form I-9.
Please see E-Verify’s update here.
Multistate Monday: Employment Verification and Immigration Inspections, Part I [Podcast]
In this episode of our Multistate Monday podcast series, Dee Anna Hays, a shareholder in the firm’s Tampa office and co-chair of the Multistate Advice and Counseling Practice Group, sits down with Susan Gorey (senior counsel, Indianapolis) and Stephanie Generotti (of counsel, Tampa) to discuss the evolving landscape of E-Verify requirements across various states. They provide crucial insights on how employers can prepare for potential I-9 audits and non-warrant-based U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement inspections, ensuring compliance and minimizing disruptions.
Trump’s Executive Order Puts Sanctuary Cities and Federal Funding at Risk
Trump’s Executive Order Puts Sanctuary Cities and Federal Funding at Risk. On Monday, April 28, President Donald Trump signed a bold executive order aimed at cracking down on “sanctuary cities” – those jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities. The move delivers on a core promise from his 2024 campaign, stepping up efforts to […]
U.S. Still Leads in Attracting International Talent — But For How Long?
Takeaways
The United States continues to attract the largest share of international graduate students, particularly in STEM fields, but its dominance may be slipping.
Other countries are expanding their post-study work options and streamlining their immigration pathways to compete for the world’s best and brightest.
U.S. employers seeking to secure international talent should act early and explore retention strategies such as green card sponsorship and STEM OPT extensions.
The United States continues to be a magnet for international students, especially in science and engineering graduate programs, but its dominance is no longer a given. According to a new report from the Association of American Universities (AAU), although U.S. institutions remain top destinations for international doctoral students, particularly in critical STEM fields, the country’s global share of this group is shrinking as other countries invest aggressively in international talent acquisition and retention.
Numbers Are Still Strong, But Trending Down
According to the AAU report:
As of 2022, 65% of international STEM doctorate recipients in the United States were still in the country 10 years later.
The country’s share of globally mobile students, however, has dropped from 28% in 2000 to just 15% today.
Canada, the UK, and Australia are streamlining their permanent residence pathways and marketing their post-study work options more effectively.
Why This Matters for Employers
The U.S. immigration system continues to provide valuable pathways for retaining international talent, including STEM OPT, H-1B visas, and employment-based green card sponsorship. However, the process for any of these can be both lengthy and uncertain. Delays in PERM labor certification and I-140 adjudication often discourage top-tier candidates from committing to long-term employment. Candidates are drawn by other countries that offer faster, more predictable options.
To stay competitive in the global talent market, U.S. employers should consider initiating the green card process earlier than they do now for high-skilled international employees, particularly those working under F-1 OPT or J-1 waiver status. Starting the sponsorship process during OPT or the first H-1B period ensures greater flexibility and security for both the employee and the organization. Employers should also take full advantage of the 36-month work authorization available under STEM OPT extensions and explore alternative pathways such as the National Interest Waiver and STEM-based EB-2 categories, which are increasingly viable for professionals in research and engineering. Staying up to date on visa bulletin trends and processing times is key to making informed and timely sponsorship decisions.
Resources:
New Data Show U.S. Retains Significant Share of Foreign Science and Engineering Talent Upon Graduation | Association of American Universities (AAU)
USCIS Policy Manual: STEM OPT and National Interest Waiver Updates
National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology’s Final Report Includes Recommendations to Boost Economy and Protect National Security
The National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology (NSCEB) announced on April 8, 2025, the availability of its final report and action plan, “urging Congressional action to bring the full weight of American innovation to improve and maintain U.S. global leadership in biotechnology.” After an extensive study that included “more than 1,800 stakeholder consultations, a holistic review of unclassified and classified material, site visits across the United States, and meetings with foreign government and technology leaders,” NSCEB developed a set of top-priority recommendations to ensure that the United States “outrun[s] and slow[s] down Beijing in the biotechnology race.” The principles for action include:
Promote U.S. biotechnology innovation;
Be the biotechnology partner of choice for the world;
Use national security tools to protect innovation and industrial base in biotechnology; and
Work with the international community, including China where prudent, to develop best practices and standards for biosafety and biosecurity to prevent against misuse, whether deliberate or accidental.
The report states that after an extensive study, “including more than 1,800 stakeholder consultations, a holistic review of unclassified and classified material, site visits across the United States, and meetings with foreign government and technology leaders,” NSCEB developed the following set of top-priority recommendations:
Pillar 1: Prioritize biotechnology at the national level:
1.1a Congress must establish a National Biotechnology Coordination Office (NBCO) within the Executive Office of the President with a director, appointed by the President, who would coordinate interagency actions on biotechnology competition and regulation.
Pillar 2: Mobilize the private sector to get U.S. products to scale:
2.1a Congress must direct federal regulatory agencies to create simple pathways to market and exempt familiar products from unnecessary regulation;
2.2a Congress must establish and fund an Independence Investment Fund, led by a non-governmental manager, that would invest in technology startups that strengthen U.S. national and economic security;
2.3a Congress must authorize and fund the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the U.S. Department of Commerce to develop a network of manufacturing facilities across the country for precommercial bioindustrial product scale-up;
2.4a Congress must direct the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to ensure that biotechnology infrastructure and data are covered under “critical infrastructure”;
2.5a Congress must require public companies to disclose single points of supply chain vulnerability located in foreign countries of concern; and
2.5b Congress must prohibit companies that work with U.S. national security agencies and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) from using certain Chinese biotechnology suppliers that are deemed to pose a national security threat.
Pillar 3: Maximize the benefits of biotechnology for defense:
3.1a Congress must direct the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) to consult with stakeholders to define principles for ethical use of biotechnology for the U.S. military;
3.2a Congress must direct the DOD to work with private companies to build commercial facilities across the country to biomanufacture products that are critical for DOD needs; and
3.3a Congress must require outbound investment rules to ensure that U.S. capital does not support Chinese development of certain biotechnologies that could pose a national security risk.
Pillar 4: Out-innovate our strategic competitors:
4.1a Congress must authorize the DOE to create a Web of Biological Data (WOBD), a single point of entry for researchers to access high-quality data;
4.2a Congress must conduct oversight of existing policies, and add new ones where warranted, to ensure that China cannot obtain bulk and sensitive biological data from the United States;
4.3a Congress must establish Centers for Biotechnology within the existing National Laboratory network to support grand research challenges; and
4.4a Congress must direct the executive branch to advance safe, secure, and responsible biotechnology research and innovation.
Pillar 5: Build the biotechnology workforce of the future:
5.1a Congress must direct the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to provide workforce training in biotechnology across the interagency;
5.1b Congress must ensure that federal agencies have the necessary expertise across national security and emerging biotechnology issues; and
5.2a Congress must maximize the impact of domestic biomanufacturing workforce training programs.
Pillar 6: Mobilize the collective strengths of our allies and partners:
6.1a Congress must include biotechnology in the scope of the U.S. Department of State’s International Technology Security and Innovation Fund to fund appropriately international biotechnology policy, research and development (R&D), and secure supply chains.
Employers Must Adapt to Worksite Raid Surge: Sanctuary Cities Face Intensified Enforcement Efforts
Takeaways:
Increased Worksite Enforcement: Businesses can expect a surge in ICE raids and I-9 audits at workplaces.
Impact on Sanctuary Cities: Federal agents will target sanctuary cities for immigration enforcement operations.
Employer Preparedness: Businesses, especially those operating in sanctuary cities, should have an action plan ready for potential ICE enforcement actions.
Tom Homan, President Donald Trump’s border czar, has announced a significant escalation in the administration’s interior immigration enforcement strategy to increase deportation of undocumented immigrants. The initiative involves deploying more federal agents to places of work, particularly those in “sanctuary cities.”
Targeting Sanctuary Cities
Although there is no official definition, in general a sanctuary city limits its cooperation with federal immigration enforcement agencies often to protect undocumented immigrants from deportation. Limited cooperation can take many forms, such as refusing to share information about undocumented immigrants with federal authorities or restricting local law enforcement’s involvement in immigration enforcement. These cities often refuse to detain undocumented immigrants who have not committed serious crimes, which has been a point of contention between local and federal authorities.
Homan’s announcement underscores the administration’s frustration with these jurisdictions. He stated that if federal agents cannot arrest individuals in jails, they will do so on the streets, and if they cannot do so on the streets, they will do so in targeted worksite enforcement operations. This approach is part of the federal government’s broader strategy to expedite removal of undocumented individuals regardless of whether they have committed serious crimes.
Immediate Implications for Employers
Homan outlined a two-pronged approach. First, there will be a higher presence of federal agents in sanctuary cities. This means that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents will be more visible and active in these jurisdictions, conducting operations aimed at identifying and detaining undocumented immigrants.
Second, Homan emphasized worksite enforcement operations. “If we can’t do it in the streets, then we’re going to increase worksite enforcement operations in those sanctuary cities. We’re going to flood worksite enforcement operations,” he said.
Increased Worksite Enforcement
Businesses can expect a substantial increase in I-9 audits and raids at workplaces. Employers should prepare for ICE enforcement actions, including audits of employment records and I-9s, raids, and arrests of undocumented workers and even the employers who hire them. Employers need to prepare well beyond routine I-9 Notices of Inspection from ICE, although I-9 audits are trending up as well.
Employer Preparedness
Employers, especially those in sanctuary cities, should be vigilant and prepared for increased ICE audits and raids and potential business disruptions. Understanding the broader context of the rising enforcement efforts can help businesses navigate the complexities of immigration compliance and enforcement.
Never on Sunday—or on Saturday, Either – SCOTUS Today
Immigration-related cases have recently been highly controversial and much in the news.
Thus, it should be unsurprising that the U.S. Supreme Court was sharply divided in the case of Monsalvo Velázquez v. Bondi, the central issue of which has to do with whether a 60-day deadline for the voluntary departure of a person who had entered the United States unlawfully should be interpreted as referring to consecutive calendar days, or whether the period should be extended when the deadline falls on a weekend or holiday.
Followers of this blog will likely say offhand that there should be nothing controversial about that question. After all, most of my readers are lawyers who file court papers and deal with case filings, the deadlines of which are, by rule, generally and automatically interpreted to allow filings beyond the designated numerical deadline to the first business day following a weekend or holiday. Nevertheless, a question so apparently simple, here in the context of the voluntary departure deadline of 8 U. S. C. §1229c(b)(2), produced a 5–4 decision, with Justice Gorsuch writing for the Chief Justice and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, with a variety of mix-and-match dissents filed by Justices Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.
The case arose when the government initiated removal proceedings against the petitioner, Monsalvo Velázquez, who, after a series of administrative litigation matters had been decided against him and a new 60-day departure deadline imposed, filed a motion to reopen proceedings on the Monday—i.e., the 61st calendar day—following the issuance of the departure order. The statute in question allows for such voluntary departures of individuals “of good moral character.” Velázquez had entered the United States unlawfully two decades before and had apparently led an exemplary family and work life here. In seeking his removal, the government argued primarily that, under the statute, 60 days meant 60 calendar days, a time period that had expired. The government also argued that a challenge to judicial review required an individual to challenge his “removability” from the country, which Velázquez did not do.
The Court first rejected the government’s argument that it lacked jurisdiction to review the petition. The Gorsuch majority was satisfied that the statute’s authorization to review “final orders of removal” and “all questions of law” arising from them was sufficient to allow it to proceed, given Velázquez’s having sought review of what the 60-day provision actually meant. Rejecting the argument of the government and the dissenters, the Court then held that the “evidence suggests a specialized meaning in legal settings where the term ‘days’ is often understood to extend deadlines falling on a weekend or legal holiday to the next business day. When Congress adopts a new law against the backdrop of a ‘longstanding administrative construction,’ the Court generally presumes the new provision works in harmony with what came before.”
Further noting that §1229c(b)(2) follows the government’s own long-standing practice of extending deadlines falling on a weekend or legal holiday to the next business day, the Court also found unconvincing an argument that “day” applied only to regulatory deadlines, and not to statutory deadlines such as the one at issue. Applying a kind of negative textualism—focusing on what the law did not say, rather than what it did—the majority serially disposed of each point raised in dissent, including the idea that a challenge to the statute’s procedural requirement had to be accompanied by a substantive challenge to the petitioner’s “removability.” That is a matter to be addressed on remand of the case.
One recognizes the seriousness of this matter to Velázquez personally, as well as to the government and the public it serves, at a time when immigration matters are at the forefront of political discussion and action. However, one who follows the Court closely cannot resist the guilty pleasure of reviewing what, in essence, is the written record of an informative point-by-point debate among an unusual lineup of justices.