October 2025 Visa Bulletin – Now We’re Cooking!
The State Department has published the October Visa Bulletin, the first issue of Fiscal Year 2026. Priority dates in most employment-based categories make modest gains, ranging from 1 week to 7 months. All categories benefit from USCIS accepting the Dates for Filing chart in October—the first time the agency has done so since January of this year—allowing from 5 to 15.5 months of additional filing time, depending on nationality and category.
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 familiar with the Visa Bulletin, feel free to skip the next paragraph.
The Visa Bulletin is released monthly by the U.S. Department of State, in collaboration with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). If your priority date (that is, the date you were placed on the waiting list) is earlier than the cutoff date listed in the Bulletin for your nationality and category, it means a visa number is available for you that month. Having a number available, in turn, means you can submit your DS-260 immigrant visa application (if you’re applying at a U.S. embassy abroad) or your I‑485 adjustment of status application (if you’re eligible to apply with USCIS from inside the United States). If you already submitted that final step and your category then retrogressed, having a number available again means the embassy or USCIS can now adjudicate and approve your application.
Now for the October Visa Bulletin:
China gains in all categories:
EB-1 advances more than 1 month to December 22, 2022
EB-2 advances 5 months to April 1, 2021
EB-3 Professionals advances 3 months to March 1, 2021
EB-3 Other Workers advances 7 months to December 1, 2017
India progresses in all categories but one:
EB-1 holds February 15, 2022
EB-2 advances 3 months to April 1, 2013
EB-3 Professionals and EB-3 Other Workers advance 3 months to August 22, 2013
All Other Countries moves ahead in two categories:
EB-1 remains current
EB-2 advances 3 months to December 1, 2023
EB-3 Professionals stalls at April 1, 2023
EB-3 Other Workers advances 1 week to July 15, 2021
NOTE 1: USCIS will accept I-485 applications in October based on the Department of State’s more favorable Dates for Filing chart, which allows from 5 to 15.5 months of additional filing time depending on nationality and category:
Chinese nationals gain almost 5 months to file in EB‑1; 8 months in EB-2; and 10 months in EB‑3 Professionals and EB-3 Other Workers.
Indian nationals gain 14 months in EB-1; 8 months in EB-2; and almost 1 year in EB-3 Professionals and EB-3 Other Workers.
Nationals of all other countries may file their I-485s in advance of their priority dates being current by 7.5 months in EB-2; 15.5 months in EB-3 Professionals; and 4.5 months in EB-3 Other Workers.
NOTE 2: The Dates for Filing chart applies only to I-485 applications with USCIS. Immigrant visa applications with US embassies are always based on the Final Action Dates chart.
Midsize Firms Are at Risk: Rising Costs, Shrinking Profits, and the Case for Fractional Executives
Midsize law firms play a vital role in the legal ecosystem. They serve Main Street businesses and midmarket companies that drive the economy. Like their BigLaw counterparts, they deliver sophisticated legal expertise, but often at an hourly rate accessible to budget-conscious clients. They may also have more flexibility to take on smaller, less glamorous matters that larger firms may overlook. Yet despite their importance and agility, midsize firms increasingly find themselves squeezed between rising demands and unforgiving economics.
The Operational Squeeze
Like their larger counterparts, midsize firms require a sophisticated operational backbone, but without the scale or revenue to absorb the costs. In many cases, the individuals running operations today are the same people who supported the firm when it had only a handful of attorneys. While loyal and experienced, many lack the advanced skill sets needed to manage the financial, technological, and compliance demands of a modern midsize firm.
Rising Demands, Limited Pricing Power
Yet the need remains: skilled financial and HR leadership, advanced cybersecurity and AI capabilities, and modern systems for compliance, benefits, and knowledge management. At the same time, with fewer institutional clients and less leverage over vendors, midsize firms tend to raise their rates more cautiously, limiting their ability to offset costs as quickly as larger competitors. This imbalance strikes at the heart of law firm economics. Without intervention, midsize firms risk eroding the very metric their partners watch most closely: profit per equity partner. Some firms have already been pulled under in this “squeezed middle,” and others risk the same fate if they cannot adapt.
Navigating the Narrow Strait
Much like Odysseus navigating between Scylla and Charybdis, two monsters on either side of a narrow strait, midsize firms must steer carefully in a tightening channel. On one side looms the danger of bloated BigLaw-style overheads that can swallow profitability, and on the other, the whirlpool of underinvestment in financial leadership, technology, and infrastructure that can drag a firm into obsolescence. The passage is narrow, and history has shown that many firms have already foundered in these waters. Survival requires more than agility. It demands discipline and the right kind of leadership support against constant pressure to do more with less.
Managing Partner Overload
Client expectations are rising fast. Many corporate clients now operate on sophisticated systems, data platforms, and AI, and they expect their law firms to keep pace. For midsize firms, this often falls squarely on the shoulders of the managing partner, who, in addition to practicing law and leading the firm, may also find themselves moonlighting as CFO, COO, or even head of HR. Few managing partners have the training or bandwidth for these roles, yet the demands keep mounting.
The BigLaw Talent Gap
The challenge is real. Overspend on infrastructure and partner profits collapse; underspend, and the firm slips behind competitors who are modernizing faster. Even when firms recognize the need to professionalize operations, recruiting BigLaw-level talent is simply out of reach. Salaries for top executives now exceed $1 million, placing them well beyond what most midsize firms can sustain. As a result, many firms remain stuck with outdated systems and overstretched leaders, even as the need for seasoned CFOs, COOs, and technology executives grows more urgent.
The Case for Fractional Executives
The need for world-class leadership is undeniable, but the economics simply don’t add up. That is why an increasing number of firms are turning to seasoned fractional CFOs and COOs who deliver the same caliber of expertise as BigLaw, at a fraction of the cost, and are already seeing measurable results. A fractional CFO working at 50% capacity can tighten WIP and AR management, accelerate collections, and sharpen pricing strategy, directly boosting profit per equity partner.
Fractional executives don’t just keep firms from being pulled under; they also put BigLaw-level financial and operational talent within reach. For many midsize firms, this is the first time they can access the kind of leadership that elevates partner profitability, sharpens strategy, and positions them for growth they could not achieve alone.
A Growing Best Practice
Fractional executives are not an experiment. Many law firms are already finding success with this model, where they are saving money while strengthening operations. The approach is also well established across healthcare, private equity, accounting, and technology. In fact, many of the same corporate clients midsize firms serve already rely on fractional leadership, making it both familiar and credible. For law firms, fractional staffing is no longer a leap into the unknown; it is a growing best practice that delivers world-class talent without BigLaw costs.
From Lifeline to Launchpad
In conclusion, midsize firms deserve big thinking, not big bills. To thrive in today’s environment, managing partners and law firm executives must rethink how they structure and support their organizations. By embracing right-sized solutions, like fractional executives who bring BigLaw expertise without BigLaw overhead, midsize law firms can steer safely between the dangers of bloated costs and underinvestment. Fractional executives provide more than a lifeline; they offer a launchpad. By putting BigLaw-caliber talent within reach, firms can elevate financial discipline, sharpen operations, and unlock growth that once seemed out of reach. The choice is clear: adapt now with fractional leadership or risk being left behind.
All of the views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of The National Law Review.
Homebuyers Privacy Protection Act Signed Into Law, Restricting Trigger Leads
On September 5, the Homebuyers Privacy Protection Act (H.R. 2808) was signed into law. The law amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act to restrict the sale of consumer information generated when borrowers apply for residential mortgage loans.
Under the new framework (previously discussed here), consumer reporting agencies may release a mortgage-related trigger lead only if the recipient makes a firm offer of credit or insurance and qualifies under narrow criteria. Eligible recipients include those with documented consumer authorization, current holders or servicers of the consumer’s mortgage, and depository institutions or credit unions with existing account relationships. The statute takes effect 180 days after enactment and also requires the Comptroller General to study the consumer impact of trigger-lead solicitations delivered by text message, with findings due to Congress within one year.
Putting It Into Practice: With enactment, the Homebuyers Privacy Protection Act moves from a legislative proposal into an operational compliance requirement. Institutions that rely on prescreening must now prepare to meet the narrowed statutory conditions. That means documenting consumer authorizations, limiting data-sharing to only eligible entities, and ensuring all offers remain firm under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Institutions should begin revising prescreening and lead-management processes now, and continue monitoring the GAO’s mandated study of text-message solicitations for potential future changes.
OCC Issues Bulletins on Customer Financial Record Protections and Politicized Debanking
On September 8, the OCC issued two bulletins addressing banks’ obligations under the Right to Financial Privacy Act and clarifying how the agency will evaluate “politicized or unlawful debanking” in licensing and Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) reviews. The guidance was issued consistent with the recently issued Executive Order 14331 (previously discussed here).
In the first bulletin, Protecting Customer Financial Records, the OCC cited congressional reports describing financial institutions’ coordination in federal agencies after January 6, 2021, to flag transactions linked to political activity. The bulletin reiterates that banks may only release customer financial records to government authorities in compliance with the Right to Financial Privacy Act, such as through customer authorization, subpoena, or warrant. It also reminds banks that voluntary Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) should not be misused as a means of bypassing statutory privacy protections.
In the second bulletin, Licensing and Community Reinvestment Act: Consideration of Politicized or Unlawful Debanking, the OCC explained how allegations of politicized or unlawful debanking will factor into licensing and supervisory processes. The agency noted that discriminatory account restrictions or service denials could affect evaluations of licensing applications, including charters, mergers, and branching requests. They could also influence CRA performance ratings. These considerations will be tailored to the size, complexity, and risk profile of the institution.
Key aspects of the bulletins include:
Customer financial record protections. The OCC reminded banks that disclosures to government agencies must comply with the Right to Financial Privacy Act and that requests outside the Act’s procedures should be rejected.
Suspicious Activity Reports. The guidance underscores that voluntary SAR filings must be based on concrete suspicious activity, not used as a pretext for improper disclosures of customer data.
Licensing applications. Politicized or unlawful debanking practices may be considered in OCC licensing reviews, including new charters, conversions, business combinations, and fiduciary powers.
CRA Evaluations. A bank’s record of avoiding politicized or unlawful debanking may be taken into account in CRA examinations and ratings.
Putting It Into Practice: The OCC’s guidance signals that privacy rights and fair access concerns remain at the forefront of federal banking supervision (previously discussed here). By linking these issues to licensing and CRA reviews, the agency shows how regulators are approaching bank oversight beyond traditional safety and soundness measures. Banks and fintechs should monitor these developments closely and update governance frameworks to prepare for heightened oversight in these areas.
E-Verify Update: New Guidance for Employers on EAD Revocations
On 27 August 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published new guidance for E-Verify employers regarding Employment Authorization Document (EAD) revocations. This new guidance provides clarity for employers in light of recent DHS activity whereby individuals were notified that their parole-based EADs, such as (category (c)(11)), were being terminated.
Now, when DHS revokes an employee’s EAD, E-Verify will alert employers who previously created a case with that authorization document. However, the new guidance provides that EADs that have been revoked will no longer appear in Case Alerts on E-Verify, and instead, employers should regularly generate the Status Change Report to identify E-Verify cases that may have been created with an EAD that may now be revoked.
In the event that an employee that has an EAD revoked in E-Verify, employers must not terminate an individual’s employment solely based on the E-Verify notice. Instead, employers are required to first re-verify work authorization in Section 3 of Form I-9 with another valid document.
Employers should also ensure that they: Complete the reverifications within a reasonable amount of time.
Maintain proper records to demonstrate compliance with the reverification process.
Train HR/I-9 staff to monitor E-Verify case updates and respond promptly.
Why This Matters
Failure to follow the new re-verification process could result in non-compliance with federal requirements
Employers should visit USCIS’s official publication here for more detailed information on the reverification process.
Medicare Telehealth Flexibilities: Countdown to September 30, 2025
In the final hours of 2024, Congress passed a six-month extension of the Medicare telehealth flexibilities through its 2025 funding bill, pushing the expiration date to September 30, 2025. Now, with that deadline quickly approaching, many telehealth providers are left wondering whether Congress will act in time.
As things stand today, it is uncertain whether the Medicare telehealth flexibilities will be extended. Although Congress faces tight fiscal constraints and competing priorities, there continues to be strong bipartisan support for maintaining telehealth access, making another extension likely but not guaranteed. Below, we discuss what is at stake, what actions are currently on the table, and what telehealth stakeholders can do to help move the needle.
What Is at Stake
Without an extension from Congress, the Medicare telehealth flexibilities will expire on October 1, 2025, reverting to the pre-COVID-19 framework — one that serves only a limited portion of the Medicare population. Below is a summary of the key components of the flexibilities as they currently stand and the policies that would go into effect if the flexibilities expire, based on 42 U.S.C. § 1395m and 42 C.F.R. § 410.78. This summary is not exhaustive and may omit certain nuances.
Flexibility
Current (through 9/30/25)
After Expiration (10/1/25)
Originating Site
Any U.S. location, including the patient’s home
Limited to certain locations, for example: Provider’s officeHospitalSkilled nursing facility Home of a patient with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) receiving home dialysisHome of a patient receiving treatment for substance use disorder (SUD) or a co-occurring mental health disorderHome of a patient receiving diagnosis, evaluation, or treatment for a mental health disorder (if the in-person visit requirement is met)
Geographic Restrictions
No geographic restrictions
Patients must be located in a rural health professional shortage area or in a county not included in a Metropolitan Statistical Area except for patients: With ESRD receiving dialysis at a hospital- or critical access hospital-based renal dialysis center, at a renal dialysis facility, or at home Receiving diagnosis, evaluation, or treatment for an acute strokeReceiving treatment for SUD or a co-occurring mental health disorderReceiving diagnosis, evaluation, or treatment for a mental health disorder (if the in-person visit requirement is met)
Audio-Only Visits
Available for any telehealth service, if clinically appropriate
Limited to patients receiving telehealth services at home if the provider is technically capable of using audio-video technology but the patient cannot or will not use video
Expanded Provider Types
Any health care provider eligible to bill Medicare, including occupational therapists, physical therapists, speech-language pathologists, and audiologists, etc.
Limited to: PhysiciansPhysician assistantsNurse practitionersClinical nurse specialistsNurse-midwivesClinical psychologistsClinical social workersRegistered dietitians or nutrition professionalsCertified registered nurse anesthetistsMarriage and family therapistsMental health counselors
FQHC/RHC as Distant Site
Federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) and rural health clinics (RHCs) are eligible distant sites.
FQHCs and RHCs are not eligible distant sites.
Mental Health In-Person Visit
No in-person visit requirement
For patients receiving diagnosis, evaluation, or treatment for a mental health disorder, an in-person visit is required: Within six months prior to the initial telehealth visit; andEvery 12 months thereafter while the patient is receiving telehealth services; Unless the provider and patient agree the risks and burdens outweigh the benefits of an in-person visit and the provider documents the reason for the decision in the patient’s medical record. In-person visit requirements for FQHCs and RHCs resume January 1, 2026.
If the Medicare telehealth flexibilities expire, Medicare Administrative Contractors who process claims for Medicare payment may begin enforcing the telehealth coverage restrictions and denying claims for noncompliant services starting October 1, 2025. Many commercial insurers and state Medicaid programs model their coverage policies on Medicare payment policies. As a result, a federal rollback in Medicare telehealth coverage could prompt these payors to scale back their own telehealth benefits for 2026.
Where Congress Stands
Pending Legislation
Several bills have been introduced in 2025 that would extend the Medicare telehealth flexibilities or make them permanent. Among the most viable are:
Telehealth Modernization Act (H.R. 5081 / S. 2709)
Introduced September 2, 2025, by Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA) and Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI) and September 4, 2025, by Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI), Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS), Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), and Sen. Angus King (I-ME)
The bill would extend the Medicare telehealth flexibilities through September 30, 2027.
CONNECT for Health Act of 2025 (S. 1261 / H.R. 4206)
Reintroduced April 2, 2025, by Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) and 60 other Senators, and June 26, 2025, by Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA), Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ), Rep. Doris Matsui (D-CA), and Rep. Troy Balderson (R-OH)
This comprehensive bipartisan bill would make the Medicare telehealth flexibilities permanent.
FY 2026 Spending Bills
Both the House and Senate are advancing their FY 2026 Labor-Health and Human Services appropriations bills, which could carry extensions of the Medicare telehealth flexibilities. However, in their current form, neither version includes explicit language confirming the flexibilities will be extended beyond September 30, 2025.
A Brief History
Congress first implemented the Medicare telehealth flexibilities during the COVID-19 PHE in 2020. The flexibilities were later extended, or made permanent in certain cases, through the 2021 Consolidated Appropriations Act (CAA), 2022 CAA, and 2023 CAA. In mid-December 2024, a draft of the year-end spending bill proposed extending all Medicare telehealth flexibilities and telehealth policies in place before January 1, 2025, for an additional two years. However, just days before a potential government shutdown on December 20, 2024, the deal was unexpectedly scrapped, prompting last-minute negotiations to salvage key provisions. Ultimately, Congress extended the flexibilities through March 31, 2025, in the 2025 American Relief Act and again through September 30, 2025, in the 2025 Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act. For more details, refer to our prior discussions detailing the extensions provided in the 2022 CAA, 2023 CAA, and 2025 American Relief Act.
Make Your Voice Heard
Demonstrating widespread agreement across the health care industry, 350 organizations, including the American Telemedicine Association and the Alliance for Connected Care, have already sent a letter urging Congress to act on the Medicare telehealth flexibilities before they expire at the end of the month. Stakeholders who rely on the flexibilities are strongly encouraged to contact their local Congressperson or the White House. Continuing to urge Congress to extend or permanently adopt the flexibilities will be essential to ensuring continued Medicare reimbursement for telehealth services.
Bottom Line
Although the Medicare telehealth flexibilities are set to expire on September 30, 2025, momentum for another extension is building in these final days before the deadline. Congress has extended the flexibilities multiple times with strong bipartisan support, and several bills introduced this year, including the Telehealth Modernization Act and the CONNECT for Health Act, show continued interest in preserving Medicare reimbursement for telehealth services. If Congress can agree on a viable funding offset, such as savings from pharmacy benefit manager reform, site-neutral payments, or Medicare Part B adjustments, a permanent adoption of the flexibilities may be a possibility. That said, with appropriations bills still subject to ongoing negotiations, nothing is guaranteed. As a result, stakeholders should continue to keep pressure on Congress to act.
Five Priorities for College & University Legal Counsel Starting the Academic Year
As the 2025-2026 academic year gets underway, significant changes in the higher education regulatory and budgetary environment demand close attention from college and university legal teams and their outside counsel.
At the federal level, regulatory overhauls, civil rights investigations, dips in international student enrollment, and restrictions on diversity initiatives mean that risk management and legal compliance are more critical than ever.
At the state level, shifting higher education demographics, financial constraints, and policy restrictions on in-state tuition for immigrant students are placing additional pressure on higher education finances.
Below, the Hunton Higher Education team summarizes the five of the most urgent priorities for legal counsel in higher education this academic year for proactive, preemption, preparation and planning.
1. Anticipate Continued Federal Scrutiny
Federal agency investigations are expected to continue, focusing on civil rights laws, the False Claims Act, and foreign influence. Because institutions of higher education receive federal funding, they should expect continued scrutiny of their legal and regulatory compliance from government agencies, independently and collectively.
College and university counsel should proactively review and update campus policies, conduct internal audits of diversity programs, review their employee and student immigration compliance obligations (if they have not already). Counsel should also develop plans for responding to potential federal inquiries, civil rights investigations, subpoenas, and ICE actions on campus.
2. Monitor and Adapt to Regulatory Changes
The U.S. Department of Education is implementing major regulatory changes, including new student loan rules, program eligibility standards based on graduate earnings, and changes to Pell Grant access. While some of these regulatory changes will take effect in the 2026-2027 academic year, counsel should work closely with their admissions, financial aid and institutional research teams to ensure timely compliance. Admissions, financial aid, and university finance and budget teams should also work with counsel to be aware of how these changes may impact class size and composition, and the university’s tuition revenues.
State-level regulatory guidance will likely continue, especially relating to DEI and state university funding, and may vary widely by state. Counsel should track these developments and involve campus government relations staff as needed.
3. Strengthen DEI and Civil Rights Risk Management
Federal and state civil rights enforcement is intensifying, with some institutions being publicly investigated for perceived violations. Counsel should work closely with campus staff to audit current DEI operations, reinforce non-discrimination policies and procedures, and provide compliance training for faculty and staff. In addition to closely monitoring federal agency guidance of civil rights laws, legal counsel should be prepared to respond to legal challenges and state/federal investigations.
4. Safeguard Campus Fiscal Health
Federal research funding is likely to decrease, with grant revocations and potential new funding caps and clawbacks. The student enrollment demographic cliff is upon us, and any decrease in student enrollment—including international student enrollment—may negatively impact the budgets of tuition-dependent colleges and universities. Counsel should advise on changes in grant agreements and student aid, and work closely with university finance and budget teams to identify and mitigate institutional fiscal exposures.
5. Enhance Campus Protest Policies and Guide Difficult Conversations
Institutions face increased political polarization, regulatory scrutiny, and public attention on issues such as international conflicts, diversity, and the role of higher education in society. Counsel should proactively review and update policies related to campus speech, protests, academic freedom, and student conduct. Institutions and counsel should also continue to establish frameworks for facilitating respectful, open, and legally compliant discussions on sensitive topics, while ensuring the safety and rights of all community members.
Next Steps:
Legal teams should remain proactive, vigilant, and collaborative. The rapidly evolving legal landscape in higher education requires continuous monitoring, regular policy reviews, and ongoing communication with institutional leadership. Counsel should continue to collaborate with peer institutions and seek outside legal expertise when navigating complex or high-profile campus issues.
Adjudicating Nonimmigrant Visa Applicants in Their Country of Residence — Implications for Employers and Employees
On Sept. 6, 2025, the U.S. Department of State issued updated guidance directing that nonimmigrant visa (NIV) applicants (E, F, H, J, L, O, etc.) must generally schedule their visa interview appointments at a U.S. embassy or consulate in their country of nationality or legal residence.
For nationals of countries where routine NIV processing is not available, the guidance specifies designated embassy or consulate posts.
Below is an overview of what employers and foreign national employees should be aware of under the new policy, and practical considerations to help mitigate its impact.
What the Policy Says
Applicants must schedule interviews in their country of nationality or country of residence. If applying based on residence (rather than nationality), the applicant must be able to demonstrate legal residence in that country. For certain countries without routine visa operations, the Department of State has designated specific embassies or consulates (for example, Iran → Dubai; Venezuela → Bogotá; Russia → Astana or Warsaw; Ukraine → Krakow or Warsaw; etc.). Visa application fees remain non-refundable and non-transferable, even if the applicant is found ineligible due to interview location. Applicants applying outside of their country of nationality or residence may face longer wait times for appointment scheduling. Existing appointments generally will not be cancelled. Exceptions apply for diplomatic and official visas, certain UN-related visas, and humanitarian or medical emergencies.
Practical Implications for Employers and Employees
This policy shift has several practical implications for companies sponsoring nonimmigrant visas and the foreign nationals they employ.
Applicants may face longer appointment backlogs in their country of residence or nationality, since the option of scheduling in third countries with shorter wait times has been curtailed. Employers should factor in potential delays when planning start dates, project timelines, and mobility schedules.
Employees applying based on residence must provide evidence of legal residence in that country (for example residence permits, lease agreements, local tax records, utility bills, or visa stamps). Employers and immigration teams may wish to assist employees in gathering this documentation before scheduling.
Some employees temporarily abroad for business or tourism, but not legally U.S. residents, will need to return to their country of residence (or designated processing post) to apply, potentially incurring additional travel, lodging, and logistical expenses. Employers may wish to budget for or mitigate these costs in their mobility or relocation planning.
If an applicant mistakenly schedules an appointment in a third country without satisfying the residence requirement, there is risk of delays, additional scrutiny, or loss of the processing fee. Employers should coordinate with counsel or local embassy guidance when booking appointments to enhance compliance.
HR and immigration teams should consider reviewing internal visa onboarding or mobility checklists, updating processes, training employees and mobility stakeholders about the new requirement, verifying residence eligibility, identifying appropriate consular posts, and building buffer time into planning cycles.
Individuals with existing appointments at embassies or consulates where they are applying as third-country nationals may wish to consider cancelling those appointments and rebooking in their home country. Immigration practitioners are reporting that consular officers in some locations are informing applicants they must process their cases in their home country. This is not being applied consistently at all consulates, which means applicants may face uncertainty or inconsistent treatment if they proceed with a third-country appointment.
Employer Considerations
To address this change proactively, employers may wish to consider:
Reviewing all pending or upcoming NIV cases and confirming whether the interview location aligns with the new requirement;
Ensuring employees gather residence evidence in advance of booking appointments;
Starting visa planning earlier to accommodate possibly longer appointment wait times;
Incorporating additional buffer time in project and mobility timelines, especially when international relocation or training assignments are involved;
Budgeting for potential extra travel or lodging costs if employees must return to their country of residence or designated processing post;
Advising employees with third-country appointments to cancel and rebook in their home country, given reports of consular officers enforcing the residence-based rule;
Coordinating with local consular resources or outside counsel in the countries involved to monitor appointment availability and evolving consular practices; and
Communicating the change clearly to employees, especially those on temporary assignments or remote postings, so they understand the new constraints and can plan accordingly.
Conclusion
The September 2025 Department of State directive requiring NIV applicants to interview in their country of nationality or legal residence introduces a meaningful shift for U.S. employers and their foreign national workforce. While the policy aims to localize adjudication and improve the alignment of interview processing with applicants’ residence, it also brings potentially new complexities: logistical planning, documentation, scheduling delays, and costs. Employers sponsoring nonimmigrant visas should consider treating this as a new baseline for visa planning. Early coordination, intentional timeline buffers, logistical planning for potential travel burdens, and clear communication with employees may be helpful in minimizing disruptions and ensuring timely visa processing.
Paid Leave Reform in Delaware: What Employers Need to Know Now
Contributions to Delaware’s Paid Family and Medical Leave program have kicked in, and employees will soon begin making claims for paid leave. A growing number of states have enacted paid family and medical leave laws in recent years.
Quick Hits
Lawmakers recently passed a law to substantially revise Delaware’s paid family and medical leave program.
Employers began contributing to the paid leave program on January 1, 2025.
Employees can start receiving benefits on January 1, 2026.
Under the Healthy Delaware Families Act, which was enacted in 2022, employees can take up to twelve weeks of paid leave per year to care for a new child, or six weeks of paid leave per year to address their own serious health condition, care for a family member with a serious health condition, or address the impact of a family member’s overseas military deployment. Employers with ten or more employees must register for the state program and submit payroll taxes to fund it, or create a private benefit plan by partnering with an approved insurance carrier or third-party administrator.
On July 30, 2025, Governor Matt Meyer signed House Bill 128, which amended the paid leave program in the following ways:
Employers cannot require employees to use their accrued paid time off before receiving the state benefits.
An employer that meets its obligations through a private plan is not required to provide claim documentation to the Delaware Department of Labor, unless there is an appeal, inquiry, or audit.
The Paid Family Medical Leave Insurance Program is the primary payor of benefits.
Disability insurance benefits can be offset by family and medical leave benefits paid to an employee pursuant to the terms of a disability insurance policy.
If an employee’s claim is approved, the employee can receive 80 percent of his or her weekly wages up to $900 per week. To be eligible, an employee must have worked for his or her employer for at least twelve months and for at least 1,250 hours during the most recent fifty-two weeks. The paid leave under the state program runs concurrently with unpaid leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
Next Steps
Thirteen states and Washington, D.C., have enacted paid family and medical leave laws in recent years. Like employees in Delaware, Minnesota employees will begin receiving paid leave benefits beginning January 1, 2026. Employers in Delaware may wish to review and update their leave policies and practices to ensure compliance with the new state law. They may wish to coordinate with their third-party payroll vendors to confirm that payroll taxes are submitted as legally required.
DOL Unveils Unified Agenda Highlighting Potential OSHA Rule Changes
On September 4, 2025 the Department of Labor (DOL) announced its Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. The purpose of the agenda is to inform the public about regulations that the Administration is considering revising.
As part of the agenda, the DOL plans to revise numerous Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards by clarifying provisions believed to be hindering technological and economic development. Notably, the agenda remains focused on establishing a Heat Injury and Illness Prevention standard for outdoor and indoor settings. In addition, there appears to be no effort to narrow the use of the general duty clause.
Employers are reminded to review internal safety policies to ensure they align with OSHA standards, properly train supervisors and HR professionals, and engage with workplace safety OSHA counsel to proactively identify and address potential hazards.
“Eliminating red tape and crafting smart regulations that spur job creation will bring us even closer to reaching the Golden Age of the American Worker. The Department of Labor is committed to helping President Trump and the entire Administration implement this bold regulatory agenda, which focuses on flexibility, transparency, and common-sense reform to ensure every hardworking family has a fair shot at achieving the American Dream,” said U.S. Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer.
Travel Ban Impacts on U.S. Employers and Foreign National Employees: New Insights from Recently Released State Department Guidance
Why These Documents Matter for Employers
Until recently, U.S. employers faced some uncertainty about how the June 4, 2025, Presidential Proclamation restricting entry from 19 countries would be implemented. While the proclamation itself outlined broad restrictions and limited exceptions, it provided little detail about the practical processes, approval standards, or internal government priorities that would govern day-to-day visa adjudications. In late August 2025, Department of State (DOS) guidance cables were released providing employers with valuable insight into how these restrictions operate in practice. (See DOS Cables, “Demarche Points: Presidential Proclamation On Restricting,” June 8, 2025, AILA Doc. No. 25090200 (posted Sept. 2, 2025)). The cables provide specific procedural requirements for National Interest Exceptions (NIE), including exact approval authorities and workflow processes that were previously unknown. The guidance provides examples of what types of travel will and will not qualify for exceptions, along with DOS priorities and the “America First” framework guiding decisions. DOS also detailed processing instructions including refusal codes, annotation requirements, and documentation standards, while clarifying proclamation language through operational guidance. For employers, this guidance may eliminate guesswork about whether specific business needs qualify for exceptions and provides insight into the government’s interpretation of the proclamation’s terms.
Countries Affected
On June 4, 2025, President Donald Trump issued Presidential Proclamation 10949, which suspends the entry of nationals from 19 countries under Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The restrictions, which took effect on June 9, 2025, impose a full suspension of entry for nationals of 12 countries (Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen) and a partial suspension for nationals of seven additional countries (Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela). For the partial-suspension countries, visa categories widely used by employers, such as B-1/B-2 business visitors and F, M, and J student and exchange visitor visas, are blocked unless an exception applies. DOS confirms that the suspension applies only to foreign nationals who are outside the United States and do not hold a valid visa on the effective date. Importantly, no visas issued before June 9, 2025, were revoked because of the proclamation, providing some protection for employees currently holding valid documentation.
National Interest Exceptions (NIEs): Internal Guidance Reveals Limited Scope
DOS guidance provides details about NIE processing that was previously unknown. Specifically, DOS instructs consular officers that NIEs should be “used rarely” and the “relationship of travel to U.S. national interests should be exceptional in nature.” The guidance emphasizes a “significantly higher standard” than previous travel restrictions and directs officers to consider applications “from an America First perspective.” Most significantly for employers, the guidance states that “routine purposes of travel including visiting family members in the United States, routine business travel, employment, or study in the United States will typically not be considered to be advancing a U.S. national interest.”
The NIE Review Process
DOS also details the complete NIE workflow, which involves multiple layers of review and approval. An applicant must first qualify for the underlying visa and complete all standard processing before being refused under Section 212(f) using a specific refusal code. The interviewing consular officer must then prepare a detailed action memorandum that the chief of mission (COM) must personally approve and forward to Washington, D.C. Final approval requires sign-off from the assistant secretary for consular affairs or senior bureau official. If approved, the visa must be annotated with specific language: “NIE to PP on [date] Travel.” The guidance notes that, by requesting an NIE, “the COM is personally attesting that the visa applicant’s identity is not in question, and that the applicant does not represent a threat to U.S. national security or public safety.” This personal attestation requirement demonstrates the high level of scrutiny and oversight applied to NIE decisions.
Qualifying and Disqualifying Factors for NIEs
DOS provides specific examples that potentially qualify for NIE approval, including travel for or on behalf of the U.S. government, including training for U.S. government employees, and travel at the request of a U.S. government department for legitimate law enforcement, foreign policy, or national security purposes. International sports competitions at the professional level may qualify, as may business with international organizations designated under the International Organizations Immunities Act. Critical missions or Department priorities endorsed by a COM and urgent, nonroutine humanitarian medical treatment not possible outside the United States round out the categories that might receive approval.
The guidance, however, is explicit about what will definitively not qualify. DOS states that applicants traveling for education, work, or training in the United States, including continuing students or resuming employment, will not receive NIE approval. Travel that would cause financial hardship, personal hardship including emotional distress, educational hardship, or noncritical harm to an applicant’s health and well-being is also excluded. The guidance specifically notes that applicants traveling to help or aid U.S. citizen family members or for routine commercial or business purposes will not qualify. Finally, DOS clarifies that qualifying for a Priority Appointment Request “does NOT in and of itself indicate the applicant meets the bar for national interest necessary for an NIE,” eliminating another potential pathway that employers might have considered.
Other Exceptions: Protected Categories and Special Circumstances
DOS confirms several categories that do not require NIE approval, including lawful permanent residents of the United States, dual nationals traveling on passports from non-designated countries, and holders of various diplomatic visa classifications such as A-1, A-2, C-2, C-3, G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, and NATO categories. DOS also provides details on the sports exception, clarifying that it applies only to athletes, coaches, persons performing a necessary support role, and immediate relatives. The guidance explicitly states that accredited media and commercial partners do not benefit from this exception, despite their involvement in major sporting events.
Iranian Religious and Ethnic Minorities
For Iranian nationals specifically, the cables identify particular groups who qualify for the Iranian minority exception. These include Ahwazi Arabs, Azerbaijani Turks, Baha’i, Balouch, Christians, Jews, Kurds, Sabean-Mandaeans, Sufi Muslims, Sunni Muslims, Yarsans, and Zoroastrians. The guidance notes that ‘it is not necessary that an applicant have experienced individualized persecution,’ broadening the potential applicability of this exception beyond those with direct persecution experience.
Potential Implications for U.S. Employers
DOS makes clear that virtually all employment-related travel is excluded from NIE consideration. This includes not just new hires, but “continuing students or resuming employment,” meaning existing employees or students may not qualify based on their employment or educational status. This represents a shift from previous travel restrictions that frequently permitted business-critical personnel through exception processes. The guidance’s explicit exclusion of “routine commercial or business purposes” eliminates some business travel justifications that employers previously relied on. The exceptions for U.S. government business or international organizations will apply to few private-sector needs, leaving some employers without viable pathways for business-critical travel from the affected countries. Employees from affected countries who hold valid visas issued before June 9, 2025, may continue to travel, but the guidance makes clear that obtaining replacement visas may be difficult.
What the Cables Tell Us
DOS’ guidance provides employers with clarity about government priorities and processes in this area. While the NIE pathway requires meeting specific criteria and involves thorough review procedures, understanding these requirements enables employers to make informed decisions about international mobility strategies. The structured review process, with its 90-day and 180-day assessment intervals, provides a framework for potential policy adjustments as countries work to address identified security and vetting concerns. Armed with this guidance, employers may wish to develop more targeted approaches to workforce planning and international operations.
OFCCP Extends Comment Period for Section 503 and VEVRAA Proposed Rulemakings and Rescission of EO 11246 Rules
On September 4, 2025, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) issued updates regarding the extension of comment periods for proposed rulemakings related to Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 (VEVRAA) as well as for the proposed rescission of the regulations for Executive Order (E.O.) 11246.
Quick Hits
On September 4, 2025, OFCCP published in the Federal Register a fifteen-day extension to the comment period for Section 503 and VEVRRA regulations and the rescission of the regulations for EO 11246.
With the fifteen-day extension, comments to the proposed regulatory changes to Section 503, VEVRAA, and EO 11246 are now due on or before September 17, 2025.
After the Labor Day holiday weekend, OFCCP issued notices extending the comment periods for the notice of proposed rulemakings (NPRM) for Section 503 and VEVRAA to September 17, 2025. OFCCP also issued an extension to the comment period for the proposal to rescind the regulations that implemented EO 11246.
The proposal for Section 503 seeks to rescind the requirements for contractors to invite applicants and employees to self-identify their disability status and to analyze progress toward the 7 percent utilization goal for individuals with disabilities. More than 150 comments have been submitted since the July 1, 2025, proposal was published. The proposal for VEVRAA seeks to remove references to Executive Order 11246 and add administrative enforcement proceeding provisions directly to the VEVRAA regulations in 41 CFR part 60-300.
Next Steps
Stakeholders are encouraged to submit their comments by September 17, 2025, as no further extensions will be granted.
OFCCP’s September 4, 2025, extension of the comment period does not affect the separate solicitation for comments regarding specific questions related to a proposal for modification to the Office of Management and Budget’s disability data collection form, as part of its broader proposed regulatory update. Those comments are still due by October 24, 2025, meaning that the government will likely be in a new fiscal year before OFCCP finalizes its various Section 503 updates.
Existing compliance requirements including preparation of affirmative action programs (AAPs) and other technical requirements are unchanged in the interim, as the current Section 503 and VEVRAA regulations remain in effect until OFCCP finalizes any proposals.