Eleventh Circuit Denies US Citizenship Claim Based on Mother’s Naturalization
A divided Eleventh Circuit recently ruled against a Jamaican national’s claim to U.S. citizenship, holding that his mother’s naturalization before his 18th birthday did not confer derivative citizenship because his parents had remarried by the time of her naturalization.
Potential Derivative Citizenship Implications
This decision reinforces a strict interpretation of derivative citizenship under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), requiring that all statutory conditions, including legal separation, remain in effect at the time of naturalization. It also highlights ongoing judicial debates over statutory interpretation in immigration law, particularly regarding derivative citizenship claims.
Individuals facing similar circumstances should seek legal counsel to assess their eligibility for derivative citizenship and explore potential defenses against removal proceedings.
Sheldon Turner v. U.S. Attorney General Background
The Jamaican national entered the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1990. He was born in Jamaica in 1981 to parents who were married at the time of his birth but divorced in 1987. Following the divorce, his mother married a U.S. citizen and later moved to the United States with her son. However, she divorced and subsequently remarried the Jamaican national’s father in 1994. In 1999, when the Jamaican national was 17, his mother became a naturalized U.S. citizen.
More than 15 years later, in an effort to avoid deportation for a criminal offense, the Jamaican national argued that he derived U.S. citizenship through his mother’s naturalization, citing an INA provision that grants automatic citizenship to a child born outside the United States to noncitizen parents when one parent naturalizes, and the parents have legally separated.
An immigration judge rejected the claim, concluding that because his parents had remarried before the applicant’s mother’s naturalization, he did not meet the statutory requirement of “legal separation.” The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upheld this decision in March 2022, leading the applicant to appeal to the Eleventh Circuit. The court found that the relevant INA provision required a “continuing” legal separation at the time of naturalization. It interpreted the statute to mean that parental separation must still be in effect when the naturalization occurs, rather than simply having occurred at some point in the past. Since the applicant’s parents had remarried prior to his mother’s naturalization, he failed to meet the statutory requirement, and his appeal was denied. The court emphasized that naturalization is the “principal event” in determining derivative citizenship and that all statutory conditions—including legal separation—must be satisfied at the time of naturalization.
US Consular Posts Tighten Restrictions on Eligibility for Nonimmigrant Visa Interview Waivers
The U.S. Department of State has unexpectedly updated various Consular websites with revised eligibility requirements for the Visa Interview Waiver (also known as dropbox or mail-in) program, reverting to narrower pre-COVID-era eligibility criteria. The interview waiver program simplifies the procedure to apply for a U.S. visa stamp by eliminating the requirement for eligible individuals to attend in-person visa interviews at U.S. embassies and consulates.
Updated Visa Interview Waiver Eligibility Criteria
Effective immediately, eligibility to waive the in-person visa interview is limited to applicants renewing a visa in the same nonimmigrant classification that expired within the past 12 months, in addition to other general requirements. Previously, applicants qualified if their visa had expired within the last 48 months and, in some cases, qualified for an interview waiver when applying for a visa classification for the first time. This prior policy was introduced during COVID-19 to reduce consular backlogs.
Under both the current and prior eligibility criteria, applicants seeking an interview waiver must apply in their country of nationality or residence and qualify only if they have never been refused a visa (unless overcome or waived) and have no other ineligibility.
Impact on Nonimmigrant Visa Applicants
This rollback could have significant implications for H-1B, L-1, O-1, and other nonimmigrant visa holders who previously relied on eligibility for an interview waiver. Applicants who no longer meet the stricter criteria must now schedule an in-person visa interview at a U.S. consulate. Recent reports indicate that some applicants with scheduled visa processing based on an interview waiver were turned away and instructed to schedule in-person interview appointments instead. Other key impacts may include:
Increased demand for in-person visa appointments and longer wait times for appointments, particularly in high-volume locations, as consulates absorb an increased volume of in-person interviews.
Potential travel disruptions for those expecting to use processing based on an interview waiver. Advance planning of travel will be required as availability of in-person appointments may vary.
Considerations for Nonimmigrant Visa Applicants
Verify eligibility before proceeding with a scheduled interview waiver appointment. If the prior visa expired over 12 months ago or the applicant is applying for a different category, rescheduling for an in-person interview is necessary. Applicants should contact their specific consulate for instructions to ensure they are following the correct process.
Plan ahead for delays. Visa wait times are already lengthy, and increased demand for in-person appointments may exacerbate backlogs.
Employers: It’s Time for the FY2026 H-1B Cap Registration Under the New H-1B Modernization Rule
It is that time of the year again – H-1B CAP registration is right around the corner. With the continued beneficiary-centric selection process, and the new H-1B modernization rule which impacts H-1B CAP filings, employers should prepare now.
H-1B CAP Registration
Employers with candidates who require initial H-1B employment authorization should plan to submit a registration for those candidates when the H-1B electronic registration period opens on March 7, 2025. FY 2026 H-1B Cap Initial Registration Period Opens on March 7 | USCIS. The electronic registration period will only be open from 12:00PM EST on March 7, 2025, through 12:00 PM EST March 24, 2025. During this period, employers may submit registrations for any employees they wish to sponsor for initial H-1B employment authorization.
For the H-1B CAP Registration period, USCIS will continue to follow the same selection processes and requirements that were in place last year, including the beneficiary-centric selection process and the requirement that the beneficiary register under only one passport or travel document which will be the same document used for travel to the US after applying for an H-1B visa.
The H-1B CAP regulations include program integrity measures which authorize USCIS to deny or revoke H-1B petitions based on false or invalid attestations made by the employer on the registration, or if the fee associated with the registration is declined or otherwise becomes invalid after submission.
Prospective employers seeking to submit an H-1B CAP registration this year must create an organizational account through USCIS | myUSCIS Home Page. This account can be created at any time. For employers who previously used an H-1B registrant account for the H-1B CAP registration periods from FY2021 to FY2024, this account will be automatically converted to an organizational account upon the employer’s next login. Prospective employers will also be required to pay the associated $215 fee for each beneficiary submitted in this year’s H-1B CAP registration. This is an increased fee from $10 per registration that was required in previous years.
H-1B Modernization Rule
It is important to note that the selection of a registration does not guarantee that the unique beneficiary will be authorized to work in H-1B status. Rather, the selection of a registration only authorizes the employer to file a full H-1B CAP petition with USCIS on the beneficiary’s behalf. Only upon approval of this H-1B CAP petition will a beneficiary have a clear path to employment in H-1B status. H-1B status is available to beneficiaries working in specialty occupations, which involves positions that require the attainment of a bachelor’s degree or higher in a directly related specific specialty, or its equivalent, as a minimum for entry into the occupation. The beneficiary him or herself must also possess at least a bachelor’s degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the occupation.
The H-1B Modernization Rule that went into effect on December 18, 2024, impacts H-1B cap filings with new requirements:
Changes to the Definition of Specialty Occupation: An employer’s job offer must require attainment of a “directly related” degree to the job offered. A “directly related” degree is defined as a degree having a “logical connection between the required degree . . . and the duties of the position.” If an employer will accept a range of qualifying degree fields for the job, then the employer must establish that each acceptable field of study is “directly related” to the duties of the offered position.
Definition of Employment: Demonstrating a valid employer-employee relationship is no longer required. Instead, the employer must demonstrate it has a bona fide job offer for the beneficiary to work in a specialty occupation as of the requested start date. This includes telework, remote work, or other off-site work within the U.S. A U.S. employer must have a legal presence in the U.S., be amenable to service of process, and have a U.S. Tax ID number. Owner-beneficiaries can now petition for themselves.
Third Party Worksites: If the beneficiary will be working at a third-party worksite, a contract, statement of work, and/or a client letter is required by regulation to confirm there is a bona fide job offer for work at this third-party worksite, and to verify the educational requirements for employment at this third-party worksite.
H-1B Cap-Gap Extensions: F-1 students subject to H-1B “Cap-Gap” protections will automatically be entitled to continue employment up to April 1 of the fiscal year for which their underlying H-1B petition was filed, or to the start date of the approved H-1B petition, whichever is earlier. (Previously, H-1B Cap Gap extensions only granted continued employment authorization through September 30).
Site Visits: USCIS is authorized to conduct site visits at the employer’s worksite, neutral locations, and other places where H-1B work will be performed, including third-party customer locations and at the private residence of the H-1B beneficiary, if work is to be performed at the home of the H-1B beneficiary. If USCIS cannot verify the facts provided in the underlying H-1B petition, USCIS can deny or revoke the petition for any H-1B worker assigned to the location that could not be verified through the USCIS site visit.
For general information on the H-1B CAP Electronic Registration process please visit following link: H-1B Electronic Registration Process | USCIS. For information on the H-1B Modernization rule, please visit the following link: DHS Announces H-1B Modernization Final Rule to Improve Program Integrity and Efficiency | USCIS
Given the short window of eligibility to submit an H-1B registration and changes to the H-1B program, it is important that employers notify Miller Canfield immediately if they wish to file H-1B CAP petitions.
UAE and Dubai Visa Application Process and Entry Requirements for 2025
UAE and Dubai Visa Application Process and Entry Requirements for 2025. The UAE is a federation made up of seven emirates, with Abu Dhabi serving as its capital. Arabic is the official language, and Islam is the state religion. The country operates 4 hours ahead of GMT. The Arab Emirati Dirham (AED) is pegged to […]
The March 2025 Visa Bulletin Shows Continues Marching Forward for EB-2 and EB-3 Categories
The Visa Bulletin for March 2025 shows continued forward movement in the priority dates for most EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
Quick Hits
The March 2025 final action dates for all EB-2 countries (except China) and EB-3 India will advance by six weeks.
The March 2025 final action dates chart for EB-2 China will advance by two weeks and EB-3 China will advance by one month.
USCIS has confirmed that it will accept adjustment of status applications based on the final action dates chart for March 2025.
SoSource: U.S. Department of State, March 2025 Visa Bulletin
The final action dates chart in the March 2025 Visa Bulletin continues to move ahead for the following employment-based preference categories:
EB-2
EB-2 China will advance by two weeks, from April 22, 2020, to May 8, 2020.
EB-2 India will advance by six weeks, from October 15, 2012, to December 1, 2012.
All other countries will advance by six weeks, from April 1, 2023, to May 15, 2023.
EB-3
EB-3 China will advance by one month from July 1, 2020, to August 1, 2020.
EB-3 India will advance by six weeks from December 15, 2012, to February 1, 2013.
Next Steps
Starting March 1, 2025, individuals with a priority date earlier than the listed final action date can file a Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status.
The BR International Trade Report: February 2025
Recent Developments
President Trump drives forward with “America First” trade policy. Shortly after taking office on January 20, President Trump issued a memorandum to various department heads outlining his “America First” trade policy. Notably, the memorandum paves the way for robust tariffs and calls for executive branch review of various elements of U.S. trade policy. Read our alert for additional analysis.
United States delays tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico but imposes 10 percent tariffs on imports from China. On February 1, President Trump, acting under the authority of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”), imposed a 25 percent tariff on imports from Canada and Mexico (excluding energy resources from Canada, which were subject to a tariff of 10 percent) and a 10 percent tariff on imports from China. After first threatening to respond in kind—with retaliatory tariffs or other measures—both Canada and Mexico negotiated a 30-day pause in exchange for increased enforcement measures at America’s borders. There was no similar agreement between the United States and China, which became subject to additional tariffs on February 4. Notably, the president initially eliminated the de minimis exemption for certain Chinese-origin imports of items valued under $800, but then later reinstated the exemption.
President Trump announces 25 percent tariff on all steel and aluminum imports entering the United States. On February 10, President Trump signed a proclamation imposing 25 percent tariffs on imports of steel and aluminum from all countries and cancelling previous tariff exemptions. Peter Navarro, a trade advisor to the president, remarked that “[t]he steel and aluminum tariffs 2.0 will put an end to foreign dumping, boost domestic production, and secure our steel and aluminum industries as the backbone and pillar industries of America’s economic and national security.” The new tariffs will take effect on March 12.
President Trump announces reciprocal tariff regime. On February 13, the president paved the way for what he called “the big one,” reciprocal tariffs directed against countries that impose trade barriers on the United States. Under the new framework, the United States will impose tariffs on imports from countries that levy tariffs on imports of U.S. goods, maintain a value-added tax (“VAT”) system, issue certain subsidies, or implement “nonmonetary trade barriers” against the United States. The president stated that the U.S. Department of Commerce will conduct an assessment, expected to be completed by April 1, to determine the appropriate tariff level for each country.
President Trump sets tariff sights on European Union. President Trump has said he “absolutely” plans to impose tariffs on goods from the European Union to address what he considers “terrible” treatment on trade. In an effort to stave off such measures, the European Union reportedly has offered to lower tariffs on imports of U.S. automobiles. Experts suggest that, in the event of U.S. tariffs, the European Union may retaliate with countermeasures against U.S. technology services.
Trump and Putin discuss commencing negotiations to end the war in Ukraine. President Trump stated on February 12 that he had a “lengthy and productive” phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin in which the two leaders discussed “start[ing] negotiations immediately” and “visiting each other’s nations.” The president followed up with a call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who reported that the call was “meaningful” and focused on “opportunities to achieve peace.” The dialogue comes amidst Russia and Belarus releasing American detainees in recent days.
President Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi meet to discuss deepening cooperation. On January 27, President Trump spoke with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to discuss regional security issues, including in the Indo-Pacific, the Middle East, and Europe. Notably, following the phone call, India cut import duties on certain U.S.-origin motorcycles, potentially in an effort to distance itself from President Trump’s claims on the campaign trail that India was a “very big abuser” of the U.S.-India trade relationship. Prime Minister Modi followed up the discussion with a meeting with President Trump at the White House on February 13.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio meets with “Quad” ministers on President Trump’s first full day in office. On January 21, foreign ministers of the “Quad”—a diplomatic partnership between the United States, India, Japan and Australia—convened in Washington, D.C. In a joint statement, the group expressed its opposition to “unilateral actions that seek to change the status quo [in the Indo-Pacific] by force or coercion.”
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio meets with Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino. In early February, Secretary of State Marco Rubio traveled to Panama to meet with Panama’s President José Raúl Mulino and Foreign Minister Javier Martínez-Acha. During the meeting, Secretary Rubio criticized Chinese “influence and control” over the Panama Canal area. Notably, following the meeting with Secretary Rubio, Panama announced that it would let its involvement in China’s Belt and Road initiative expire.
DeepSeek launches an artificial intelligence app, prompting U.S. national security concerns. In January, DeepSeek—a Chinese artificial intelligence (“AI”) startup—released DeepSeek R1, an AI app reportedly less expensive to develop than rival apps. Reports indicate that the United States is investigating whether DeepSeek, in developing its platform, accessed AI chips subject to U.S. export controls in contravention of U.S. law. Commerce Secretary nominee Howard Lutnick echoed these concerns in his recent confirmation hearing.
President Trump issues memorandum launching “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran. On February 4, the president issued a National Security Presidential Memorandum (“NSPM”) restoring his prior administration’s “maximum pressure” policy towards Iran, with a focus on denying Iran a nuclear weapon and intercontinental ballistic missiles. The NSPM directs the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the U.S. Department of State to take various measures exerting such pressure, including imposing sanctions or pursuing enforcement against parties that have violated sanctions against Iran; reviewing all aspects of U.S. sanctions regulations and guidance that provide economic relief to Iran; issuing updated guidance to the shipping and insurance sectors and to port operators; modifying or rescinding sanctions waivers, including those related to Iran’s Chabahar port project (which India has developed at considerable expense); and “driv[ing] Iran’s export of oil to zero.” See the White House fact sheet.
President Trump signs executive order calling for establishment of a U.S. sovereign wealth fund. On February 3, the president issued an executive order directing the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy to develop a plan for the creation of a sovereign wealth fund. A corresponding fact sheet describes the White House’s goals for the fund, including “to invest in great national endeavors for the benefit of all of the American people.” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated that he expects the fund to be operational within the next year.
Dispute between the United States and Colombia over deportation flights prompts brief tariff threat. On January 26, Colombian President Gustavo Petro barred “U.S. planes carrying Colombian migrants from entering [Colombia’s] territory” due to concerns over migrants’ treatment. President Trump responded by ordering 25 percent tariffs on Colombian goods, to be raised to 50 percent in one week, visa restrictions on Colombian government officials and their families, and cancellation of visa applications. The standoff between the two countries was resolved later that same day, signaling President Trump’s intention to use tariffs as a key foreign policy tool.
Impeached South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol officially charged with insurrection. On January 26, South Korean prosecutors formally charged impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol with insurrection. Yoon becomes the first president in South Korean history to be criminally charged while still in office. In addition to criminal charges, Yoon faces potential removal from office via impeachment. Should the Constitutional Court uphold the impeachment, as many experts anticipate, South Korea will have two months to hold a new election.
U.S. Visa Dropbox Eligibility Reverts to Pre-COVID Standard, More Applicants Will Need In-Person Interviews
The U.S. Department of State has unexpectedly updated Consular websites with revised eligibility requirements for Visa Interview Waiver (“dropbox”) appointments.
Effective immediately, dropbox eligibility is limited to applicants renewing a visa in the same nonimmigrant classification that expired within the past 12 months. While no official government announcement has been made, Visa Application Centers (VACs) are reportedly turning away applicants who do not meet the updated eligibility requirements.
What Has Changed?
Previously, applicants were eligible for dropbox processing if they held an approved nonimmigrant visa in any category that had expired within the past 48 months. For example, F-1 students who had obtained an H-1B change of status in the United States could utilize the dropbox process – appearing only to submit biometrics and drop off documents for consular processing. The expanded 48-month eligibility window was introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic to help reduce consular backlogs and was expected to remain in place indefinitely.
Now, it appears that only those whose prior visas in the same category that expired within the past 12 months remain eligible for dropbox processing. Applicants who do not meet this requirement must reschedule for an in-person visa interview or risk being turned away or face processing delays.
Impact on H-1B and Other Nonimmigrant Visa Holders
This change could have significant implications for H-1B, L-1, O-1, and other nonimmigrant visa holders who previously relied on the dropbox processing for visa renewals. Key impacts include:
Increased demand for in-person visa appointments at U.S. embassies and consulates.
Longer wait times for visa interview scheduling, particularly in high-volume locations.
Potential travel disruptions for those who had planned to renew their visa using the dropbox process.
What You Should Do
Confirm your eligibility before your scheduled appointment. If your prior visa expired more than 12 months ago or you are applying for a visa in a different category, you may need to reschedule for an in-person interview.
Plan for potential delays. Consular wait times are already lengthy, and this policy change may create additional backlogs.
Consider Premium Processing for H-1B extensions to help avoid travel disruptions.
We are closely monitoring the situation and will provide updates if and when an official government announcement is made.
March 2025 Visa Bulletin Updates
The U.S. Department of State (DOS) released the availability of immigrant numbers in its March 2025 Visa Bulletin. All dates listed below are based on the final action dates for employment-based preference cases. Applicants must have a priority date that is earlier than the final action date listed for their preference category and country to be eligible to file an employment-based adjustment of status application.
EB-1: Employment-Based, First Preference Category
All EB-1 categories see no movement and the dates remain unchanged. Mexico, Philippines, and All Chargeability categories remain current; EB-1 India remains fixed at Feb. 1, 2022; and EB-1 China remains fixed at Nov. 8, 2022.
EB-2: Employment-Based, Second Preference Category
In the EB-2 category, Mexico, Philippines, and All Chargeability categories advance six weeks to May 15, 2023. EB-2 India also jumps six weeks to Dec. 1, 2012. EB-2 China advances to May 8, 2020.
EB-3: Employment-Based, Third Preference Category
Both China and India show movement in the EB-3 category, as China advances one month to Aug. 1, 2020, and India advances six weeks to Feb. 1, 2013. There is no movement in the EB-3 dates for Mexico, Philippines, and All Chargeability areas, which remain at Dec. 1, 2022.
EB-4 Religious Workers
All countries in the EB-4 category retrogressed by 17 months to Aug. 1, 2019.
EB-5: Employment-Based, Fifth Preference Category
There is no change in the final action dates in the EB-5 category for March 2025.
The filing dates of employment-based visa applications are:
The DOS Visa Bulletin summarizes the availability of immigrant numbers and releases final action dates and filing applications date charts monthly for both employment-based visas and family-based visas. USCIS confirms which chart applicants must use to file their adjustment of status application. For March 2025, USCIS announced it will only accept adjustment of status applications based on the final action dates chart for all employment-based preference categories, while all family-sponsored preference categories may use the dates for filing chart.
Immigration Worksite Enforcement in 2025: What Employers Need to Know Now
The landscape of immigration enforcement is undergoing a dramatic transformation in 2025. With President Trump’s recent executive orders signaling a renewed focus on worksite enforcement, employers across industries must prepare for what many experts anticipate will be the most aggressive immigration enforcement environment in recent history..
A New Era of Enhanced Enforcement
The Biden administration’s more measured approach to worksite enforcement has given way to what immigration officials describe as a comprehensive strategy to combat unauthorized employment. This shift isn’t merely a change in tone – it represents a fundamental restructuring of how federal agencies approach workplace immigration compliance.
Recent directives from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have eliminated previous restrictions on enforcement activities in “protected areas,” giving Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents broader authority to conduct operations in locations previously considered off-limits. This expansion of enforcement authority extends beyond ICE to include multiple federal agencies, including the Drug Enforcement Agency, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, and U.S. Marshals Service.
What makes this enforcement initiative particularly noteworthy is its comprehensive approach. Rather than focusing solely on large-scale raids, the government is implementing a multi-faceted strategy that includes:
Increased frequency of unannounced worksite inspections;
Enhanced scrutiny of I-9 documentation;
Expanded administrative audits;
Greater coordination between federal, state, and local law enforcement; and
Targeted investigations of industries known to employ larger populations of unauthorized workers.
The potential consequences for non-compliance have never been more serious. Employers found to be knowingly employing unauthorized workers face monetary and criminal penalties, as well as possible debarment from federal contracts and significant damage to company reputation.
While all employers should be prepared for increased scrutiny, certain industries are likely to face heightened attention based on historical enforcement patterns and current administration priorities:
Manufacturing and food processing;
Agriculture and farming operations;
Construction and contracting;
Hospitality and food service;
Retail and customer service; and
Cleaning and maintenance services.
Anatomy of a Workplace Enforcement Action
Understanding how ICE conducts enforcement actions is crucial for proper preparation. ICE agents may enter public areas of a business without a warrant. However, to access private areas, they must either present a valid judicial search warrant or obtain consent from the employer.
While employers should cooperate fully with law enforcement, they should also:
Respectfully request to review the warrant;
Ask for, but not demand, time to contact counsel;
Avoid any actions that could be interpreted as obstruction;
Document the search process without interfering; and
Maintain a professional demeanor throughout.
It’s crucial to understand, however, that while employers have the right to inspect a search warrant and verify its validity, law enforcement agents are not required to provide an immediate copy of the warrant, wait while supervisors contact legal counsel, delay execution while company representatives make copies or pause their search while corporate protocols are implemented.
During an enforcement action, agents typically focus on:
I-9 forms and supporting documentation;
Payroll records and employee files;
Tax documents and business records; and
Electronic records related to employment verification.
Search warrants are typically executed during daytime hours (6:00 AM to 10:00 PM) unless special circumstances exist. However, arrest warrants may be executed at any time if agents reasonably believe the subject is present at the location.
Agents may attempt to interview employees, though employees have the right to:
Remain silent;
Request an attorney;
Decline to sign any documents; and
Refuse to answer questions about immigration status.
Of particular importance for employers is the “Blackie’s Warrant” – a specific type of warrant based on precedent from Blackie’s House of Beef, Inc. v. Castillo (D.C. Cir. 1981). These warrants allow for the search of commercial premises when there’s a plausible basis to believe undocumented workers are present, even if they’re not specifically named in the warrant.
Developing a Comprehensive Compliance Strategy
Employers should immediately implement a comprehensive compliance program that includes document management, training and education and verification procedures.
Documentation Management
Conduct regular internal I-9 audits with immigration counsel
Implement systematic record-keeping procedures
Maintain separate files for I-9 forms and supporting documents
Establish clear protocols for document retention and destruction
Training and Education
Provide regular training for HR personnel on I-9 compliance
Educate managers about proper handling of immigration matters
Develop clear protocols for responding to government inquiries
Ensure frontline staff understand proper procedures for government visits
Verification Procedures
Review and strengthen E-Verify procedures where applicable
Implement consistent hiring and verification protocols
Establish clear procedures for handling suspicious documents
Maintain detailed records of verification efforts
Furthermore, employers should have an action plan in place and ready that specifically details and instructs site supervisors and front desk staff on the step-by-step procedures of what to do in case of an enforcement action, including immediate response procedures and communication strategy.
Looking Ahead: Trends and Predictions
As we move further into 2025, we can expect the government’s increased use of technology in terms of enhanced electronic verification systems and potentially mandatory E-Verify implementation nationwide. Additionally, the scope of investigations could be expanded to increasingly look beyond simple employment verification to examine wage and hour compliance, worker classification issues, tax compliance and benefits administration to name a few. Enhanced coordination between federal agencies will likely lead to more comprehensive investigations.
The current enforcement environment represents a significant shift in federal immigration policy. While complete compliance can be challenging, employers who take proactive steps to address these issues will be better positioned to weather increased enforcement activities while maintaining business operations.
The key to success in this new environment lies in preparation, documentation, and having clear procedures in place before they’re needed. Working with your immigration counsel to develop and implement these procedures is not just advisable – it’s becoming essential for risk management in 2025’s enhanced enforcement environment.
Sanjee Weliwitigoda contributed to this article.
March 2025 Visa Bulletin – Some Cracks in the Ice
The State Department has published the March Visa Bulletin. After most priority dates froze in February, March promises modest thaws in all regions and most categories.
Below is a summary that includes Final Action Dates and changes from the previous month, but first – some background if you’re new to these blog posts. If you’re an old hand at the Visa Bulletin, feel free to skip the next paragraph.
The Visa Bulletin is released monthly by the US Department of State (in collaboration with US Citizenship and Immigration Services). If your priority date (that is, the date you got a place on the waiting list) is earlier than the cutoff date listed in the Bulletin for your nationality and category, that means a visa number is available for you that month. That, in turn, means you can submit your DS-260 immigrant visa application (if you’re applying at a US embassy abroad) or your I-485 adjustment of status application (if you’re applying with USCIS). If you already submitted that final step and your category then retrogressed, it means the embassy or USCIS can now approve your application because a visa number is again available.
Now for the March VB –
India progresses in all categories except EB-1:
EB-1 holds at February 1, 2022
EB-2 advances5 months to December 1, 2012
EB-3 Professionals and EB-3 Other Workers advance5 months to February 1, 2013
China advances in two categories:
EB-1 remains stalled at November 8, 2022
EB-2 advances 16 days to May 8, 2020
EB-3 Professionals advances another full month to August 1, 2020
EB-3 Other Workers stays stuck at January 1, 2017
All Other Countries, which did not move at all in February, progresses in two categories:
EB-1 remains current
EB-2 advances5 months to May 15, 2023
EB-3 Professionals holds at December 1, 2022
EB-3 Other Workers advances almost 2 months to February 1, 2021
NOTE 1: USCIS will accept I-485 applications in March based on Final Action Dates, not the more favorable Dates for Filing chart.
Employers Should Plan for the Impact of Evolving Social Policy on Their Workforce
Even before the 2024 presidential election and the recent wave of executive orders, employers were evaluating their positions on various social issues.
Whether taking a formal stand, abstaining from a position, or landing somewhere in between, employers often consider external stakeholders and the court of public opinion. But they frequently forget about a critical and impactful audience—their employees.
Below are a few key areas where evolving social policies intersect with employee considerations.
Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Policies: Regulations around diversity, equity, and inclusion; sustainability; the environment; and financial investments can differ across federal, state, and local jurisdictions, and certain rules apply only to government contractors. Aside from legal concerns, employers may face public and private questions about their actions or policies from employees. As such, employers should make sure that their ESG policies are current, thoughtful, and well communicated, especially in light of changing public sentiment, regulations, and legislation.
Social Media and Freedom of Speech: Employer policies on social media, recording/filming in the workplace (and online), volunteerism, non-solicitation, and whistleblowing should be updated to ensure that they reflect the latest laws, regulations, and guidance by applicable agencies and regulatory bodies. Management should also be trained on these policies, including how to respond to situations when the company’s employees choose to speak out on issues.
Benefit Programs: Employees might question their employer’s benefit policies relating to health care coverage provisions, benefit subsidies, time off/leave and holidays, and even voluntary benefit choices. Do these programs appear to favor certain employees over others? Employers should regularly evaluate these programs not only for compliance but also through the lens of their employees’ needs and expectations, which may differ based on location.
Labor Negotiations: An employer’s social advocacy and related positions impact its employees and the labor unions that currently—or may in the future—represent them. Therefore, employers should make sure that they have a strategy that supports this relationship and is in compliance with applicable labor laws, as well as labor contracts that are in place.
Outsourced, Offshore/Nearshore Workforce: When a company’s contingent and contract labor works side by side with the company’s employees, it’s essential that policies and programs account for this important and sometimes significant part of the workforce. Vendor contracts and communication strategies should also be aligned with these efforts.
Immigration Policies: Most industries and their employees are affected by immigration policy. A legal immigrant workforce will likely be concerned about their own status and that of their families during this uncertain time. Employers must review their policies and programs for these valuable workers and consider what supports, policies, and communications they should provide.
Mandatory Training programs: Employers should annually review mandatory training programs against changing regulations and expectations, as well as current strategies related to advocacy and ESG.
The bottom line: An employer’s stand on social issues and related policies, investments, programs, and trainings affects its workforce. A company’s employees are its face to customers and the public, so employees’ engagement and alignment matters. Because laws and regulations affecting ESG are continually changing, employees will be more engaged and better ambassadors for their employer if it has a well-considered strategy and communication plan addressing these topics.
Michelle Wright also contributed to this post
Top Tips for Companies to Prepare for an Immigration Visit
Here are our top tips to assist companies and institutions in preparing for visits by immigration officials. The second Trump administration has set robust enforcement of the immigration laws as a top-level priority. On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order that directed all executive branch departments and agencies to “employ all lawful means” to ensure “total and efficient” enforcement of federal immigration laws. As an initial step, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) terminated its prior “sensitive location” policy that prevented immigration enforcement activities in or near areas such as schools, medical facilities, places of worship, social service centers, daycare centers, or shelters without agency headquarters approval or exigent circumstances. In commenting on the new policy, the DHS spokesperson stated, “Criminals will no longer be able to hide in America’s schools and churches to avoid arrest. The Trump Administration will not tie the hands of our brave law enforcement, and instead trusts them to use common sense.” While we have not heard any confirmed reports of enforcement in these spaces since the rescinding of the Biden-era guidance, it would be prudent for businesses to be prepared and have a lawful response plan for visits from immigration authorities, including local police authorities, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and other agencies empowered to enforce the immigration laws.
Review Your Policies. Keep in mind that immigration authorities are specialized law enforcement. Many companies already will have policies in place that instruct employees how to respond generally to inquiries by law enforcement. Therefore, companies should ensure employees are properly trained on company policies concerning how to interact with ICE or other immigration enforcement agents. If your company does not have such a policy and is in a category of spaces no longer protected as “sensitive locations,” now may be the time to study and potentially adopt appropriate policies. Companies should consider appointing “liaisons,” or other point persons at each company location, who are specially trained and authorized to interact with law enforcement. This will ensure consistency of process and help relieve stress of others who may be directly impacted by these immigration encounters.
Identify Public versus Private Areas. Companies should decide whether they want to have policies or procedures indicating a clear delineation between their public and private spaces. Immigration agents generally do not need permission to enter public areas of a business. Public spaces are general areas that are accessible not only to clients, staff, patients, or students but are accessible and available to the general public. These can include parking lots, waiting areas, hallways, lobbies, or entrances. Areas that are not open and accessible to the public are generally considered private areas, where law enforcement is accordingly not permitted without legal authority. To go beyond these public spaces into private areas, enforcement agents may need to show a warrant (more on this below), not only to apprehend a person but also to enter and search any non-public spaces of a business absent permission from the business. Given that the previous guidance prevented enforcement near protected areas without agency headquarters approval or exigent circumstances, enforcement agents likely will take advantage of accessing public spaces before seeking access to private spaces. Businesses should consider whether they wish to specifically designate public and private areas to help manage engagement with law enforcement.
Review the Warrant. If the enforcement agent is seeking access to a private space and the company decides not to consent voluntarily to such access, then an employee will need to ask to see the warrant; if the agent presents a warrant, the best place to start is to read the scope and wording of the warrant. There are several different types of warrants that can be used in immigration enforcement situations, so a lawyer or trained layperson may need to review the warrant to know what type of warrant the enforcement officer is presenting to gain access. (Samples are included at the end of this piece.)
Judicial Warrant: This is a formal written order, issued by a judicial officer, that authorizes law enforcement to make an arrest or conduct a search. This is issued by a court — typically a federal court — so you will see something like “U.S. District Court” at the top of the warrant and a signature from a judge or magistrate judge at the bottom. Pay close attention to whether the warrant allows for (1) just an arrest of a person named in the warrant, (2) a search for items on the identified person’s body, or (3) a search of a location for listed items or persons. An arrest warrant does not give law enforcement permission to enter a particular private space but does permit the agent to arrest someone listed in the warrant. A search warrant, by contrast, permits the specified enforcement agency to search a specified area (including public and private spaces) for papers, data, property, or persons and seize such listed items or identified persons. Companies should be observant during law enforcement activities on their premises, and carefully and thoroughly document law enforcement actions at all times while they are on company premises.
Administrative Warrant: An administrative warrant authorizes a law enforcement officer from a federal agency, such as ICE or CBP, to make an arrest or remove/deport someone from the country, depending on the type of administrative warrant utilized. This type of warrant is issued by a federal agency, such as ICE, not a court, and can therefore be signed by an “immigration judge” or “immigration official.” Importantly, this warrant does not authorize a search of a private area. Practically speaking, an administrative warrant does not allow agents to enter a private area to apprehend a person named in the warrant or to search an area or seize private property or information, even if the agents reasonably believe the person to be located in that area. Absent changes to the law, administrative warrants cannot be used to search premises.
“Blackie’s” Warrant: This judicial warrant, named after the case Blackie’s House of Beef v. Castillo, is a specific type of judicial warrant that does not always name or even describe the person or people sought. A Blackie’s warrant is a civil search warrant issued by a magistrate judge, which authorizes immigration agents to enter private premises for the purpose of enforcing the civil/administration provisions of law relating to exclusion and deportation. While this warrant has fallen out of favor in many jurisdictions, we may begin to see more of its use going forward. Again, this warrant may provide legal authority for enforcement agents to search a private space, without the owner’s consent, for persons unlawfully in the United States.
Consider Privacy Laws. To the extent the company is a covered entity or business associate subject to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), or a similar entity subject to state laws, the company will need to review a law enforcement request to ensure compliance with applicable privacy laws. Protected health information can be disclosed under HIPAA and state law in limited circumstances. HIPAA permits (but does not require) disclosing protected health information in compliance with, and as limited by the relevant requirements of, a court order or court-ordered warrant, a subpoena, or a summons. HIPAA also permits disclosure pursuant to administrative requests for which response is required by law, including an administrative subpoena or summons, a civil or an authorized investigative demand, or similar process authorized under law provided all of the following are true: (1) the information sought is relevant and material to the law enforcement agency, (2) requested information is specific and limited in scope as reasonably practicable, and (3) de-identified information could not be reasonably used. There also are federal and state privacy protections in place for certain sensitive types of health information. State law can be more restrictive, so make sure your policies on responding to law enforcement take into account any relevant state law(s). The company’s existing policies and procedures should address the production of this type of information in response to law enforcement requests.
Triage. The company should request from law enforcement a reasonable amount of time to review and perform an initial assessment of the warrant, to appropriately escalate to legal counsel or a point person as needed. If it is something new or unfamiliar, seek advice from legal counsel, who should carefully review the warrant to determine the company’s obligations in interacting with law enforcement. Provide training to staff and leadership to ensure they read any paperwork provided and triage the situation. Again, appointing “liaisons” at each worksite who are specially trained and designated with authority to interact with enforcement agencies may be advisable.
Avoid Obstructing Law Enforcement. Importantly, employees should avoid obstructing law enforcement’s activities. Even if such activities appear to go beyond the scope of the warrant, interfering is not helpful and can risk criminal charges. Legal remedies for law enforcement overstepping, including unlawful searches and seizures, can be addressed later in the process. Interfering with law enforcement while they are onsite often will serve only to escalate the situation.
The immigration landscape is quickly changing under the Trump administration, but preparing for potential enforcement in advance and training employees on these issues can help your company know how best to respond to unfamiliar situations. Constitutional law provides companies with important protections from unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement, so consultation with legal counsel to understand those rights and obligations is critical to ensuring compliance with the law.
Please contact a member of Foley’s Immigration, Government Enforcement or Labor & Employment teams with questions for help preparing for immigration enforcement action on site or for further information about the federal government’s new immigration-related policies.
Samples of Warrants
Judicial Warrant for a search:
Judicial Warrant for an arrest only:
Administrative Warrant (Warrant of Removal/Deportation)
Administrative Warrant (Warrant for Arrest)