Marina Shepelsky

Immigration Court Due Process Under Pressure as Deportation Orders Rise

The immigration court system is supposed to provide every person in removal proceedings with a meaningful opportunity to present their case, submit evidence, request available immigration relief, and receive an individualized decision based on the law. But a recent NOTUS investigation raises serious concerns about whether growing administrative pressure on immigration judges is interfering with that process.

According to NOTUS [NOTUS is short for News of the United States, a Washington, D.C.-based news organization launched in 2024 that focuses on U.S. government, politics, and public policy, with nonpartisan reporting and deeply sourced political and government coverage), current and former immigration judges say that major changes implemented by the Trump Administration’s Department of Justice have reduced judges’ discretion and placed increasing pressure on them to move cases faster.

Judges are under pressure to do Trump officials’ bidding and not be fair and just in their decisions, nor to follow the rule of law.

Approximately 125 immigration judges have reportedly been fired since President Trump returned to office, while roughly another 100 have retired or departed through separation programs. More than one-quarter of the immigration judge workforce has therefore left the government. Some judges interviewed by NOTUS said the firings have created an atmosphere in which judges worry that decisions inconsistent with current administration policy could jeopardize their jobs.

That concern goes directly to the fairness of the immigration court process. Immigration judges routinely decide cases involving asylum, cancellation of removal, adjustment of status, waivers, bond, and other forms of relief where the facts and applicable law must be carefully considered. According to the judges interviewed by NOTUS, fear of discipline or termination may affect how freely judges exercise the discretion that immigration law gives them. Some former judges reported that the pressure has made it increasingly difficult to decide cases independently.

The pressure is not limited to how cases are decided. It also affects how quickly cases are being pushed through the system. NOTUS reports that immigration judges are facing new requirements to issue decisions faster and may have little control over their own calendars. On some mornings, EOIR has reportedly placed as many as 150 cases on a single judge’s docket for administrative action. Asylum seekers may receive limited notice, and a person who fails to appear can be ordered removed in absentia. These conditions raise obvious due-process concerns when an immigrant’s ability to remain in the United States may depend on having enough time to receive notice, obtain counsel, gather evidence, prepare witnesses, and present a complete legal case.

The consequences are already visible in the numbers. According to the report, removal orders increased substantially during the spring and jumped approximately 30% in June 2026. At the same time, the immigration court backlog has fallen from a peak of approximately four million pending cases to around 3.2 million. Reducing a massive backlog is an important goal, but efficiency cannot replace due process. Moving cases faster is not necessarily an improvement if immigrants are given less opportunity to prepare their cases or judges feel constrained in independently applying the law.

There are also concerns about changes in the composition and experience of the immigration bench. EOIR has hired 190 immigration judges during fiscal year 2026, including 118 since May. NOTUS reports that nearly 90% of those more recent hires previously worked for ICE, the military, or prosecutorial offices, while relatively few came from private immigration practices representing immigrants. A current immigration judge also told NOTUS that newer judges are receiving less training than judges traditionally received, raising concerns that rushed or legally incorrect decisions could later result in additional appeals and remands.

The Department of Justice rejects the suggestion that these policies improperly influence immigration judges. DOJ told NOTUS that it is working to restore integrity to the immigration system and protect national security and public safety. But regardless of the government’s stated purpose, the accounts from current and former judges raise an important legal-process question: Can immigration courts provide meaningful due process when judges themselves believe that their employment may depend on how they decide cases?

For immigrants, these developments make preparation more important than ever. Anyone in removal proceedings should closely monitor hearing dates, immediately update the Immigration Court after any change of address, appear at every scheduled hearing, retain qualified immigration counsel when possible, and begin collecting supporting evidence well before the court requires it. An immigration case should not be prepared on the assumption that multiple continuances or additional opportunities will necessarily be available.

If you or a family member is in Immigration Court, has received a Notice to Appear, is facing deportation, or needs to determine what defenses to removal may be available, contact Shepelsky Law Group at Tel: (718)769-6352 or by booking your consultation at www.shepelskylaw.com directly. Our legal team can evaluate your case, identify available forms of relief, prepare evidence and legal arguments, and represent you throughout removal proceedings. Call Shepelsky Law Group or visit our website to schedule an immigration consultation.

Source: NOTUS, Deportations Are Spiking. Judges Say Their Hands Are Being Forced, August 18, 202:

1 day ago | [YT] | 0

Marina Shepelsky

Got a USCIS RFE? How to Structure Your Response and Avoid a Denial

USCIS has made clear that immigration officers have the choice to deny certain applications and petitions without first issuing a Request for Evidence (RFE) or Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) when the filing does not establish eligibility or required evidence is missing. In other words, applicants can no longer assume that USCIS will always give them another opportunity to fix a weak or incomplete case before issuing a denial. USCIS has specifically emphasized that the burden is on the applicant or petitioner to prove eligibility for the immigration benefit being requested. (USCIS)

That makes receiving an RFE particularly important. If USCIS has given you an opportunity to provide additional evidence instead of simply denying your case, you should treat that opportunity seriously. An RFE response should not be viewed as simply sending USCIS a few additional documents. It should be a carefully prepared response that addresses every concern raised by the officer, provides the strongest available supporting evidence, resolves inconsistencies or weaknesses in the original filing, and, when necessary, explains why the law supports approval of the case.

A poorly prepared or incomplete RFE response can lead directly to a denial. For that reason, although immigrants are permitted to respond to an RFE on their own, this is one stage of the immigration process where professional legal assistance can be especially valuable. An experienced immigration attorney can identify what USCIS is really questioning and build the response around the legal and evidentiary issues that must be overcome.

Receiving a Request for Evidence (RFE) from USCIS does not automatically mean that your immigration case will be denied. It means USCIS believes something is missing, unclear, inconsistent, or insufficient to establish that you qualify for the immigration benefit you requested. But an RFE should be taken very seriously. Under current USCIS rules, you generally have one opportunity to submit your complete response, and a partial response may result in USCIS deciding the case based on the existing record. (USCIS)

If you decide to prepare your RFE response without an attorney, here is a basic structure you should follow.

1. Start With the Deadline

Look at the RFE notice and identify the exact date USCIS must receive your response. Do not assume that every RFE gives you 90 days. USCIS establishes the response period in the notice, and additional time generally cannot be granted. (USCIS)

Do not wait until the deadline to mail your response. Give yourself enough time for document collection, translations, signatures, and delivery.

2. Break the RFE Into Separate Issues – smaller chunks to address from the legal and fact-focused perspective

Do not simply start collecting documents because USCIS gave you a long list of suggested evidence.

Read the RFE carefully and identify every separate problem USCIS is raising. For example, USCIS may be questioning:

whether you meet a particular legal requirement;
whether a document is missing;
whether the evidence you submitted is sufficient;
whether two documents contain inconsistent information;
whether your marriage, employment, qualifications, financial sponsorship, immigration status, or other facts have been sufficiently proven.
A useful approach is to number every issue raised by USCIS and answer them one by one, in the same order USCIS raised them. This issue-by-issue method is also recommended in professional RFE-response workflows for immigration attorneys. (Visalaw AI)

3. Determine What USCIS Actually Needs

For each issue, ask yourself:

What is USCIS saying is missing? What evidence have I already submitted? What additional evidence will actually solve this problem?
Do not simply send hundreds of pages of documents and hope that the immigration officer finds the answer somewhere inside.

If USCIS is asking for proof of a particular fact, identify documents that directly prove that fact. If USCIS is raising a legal problem, submitting additional documents alone may not be enough—you may also need to explain why the immigration law supports your eligibility.

This is one of the places where applicants frequently run into trouble. An RFE can look like a request for documents when the real problem is a complicated legal eligibility issue.

4. Prepare a Detailed RFE Response Letter

Your response should preferably include a cover letter or legal response organized around each USCIS concern.

For each issue:

A. Identify what USCIS requested.
Briefly describe the concern from the RFE.

B. Explain your response.
State why you satisfy the requirement.

C. Identify the supporting evidence.
Refer specifically to the exhibit proving your position.

For example:

Issue 1 – Proof of Bona Fide Marriage

The Applicant submits additional evidence demonstrating that the marriage was entered into in good faith and not for immigration purposes.

Supporting Evidence:
Exhibit A – Joint bank statements
Exhibit B – Joint lease
Exhibit C – Joint insurance records
Exhibit D – Photographs
Exhibit E – Affidavits from friends and family

Then move to Issue 2, and continue until you have responded to every concern in the RFE.

5. Organize and Label Your Evidence

A strong RFE response should be easy for the USCIS officer to review.

Create an exhibit list or table of contents, and clearly label your supporting documents as Exhibit A, Exhibit B, Exhibit C, and so forth. Make sure every exhibit mentioned in your response letter is actually included in the package.

Also review your entire case for consistency. Names, addresses, employment dates, marriage dates, immigration history, income information, and other facts should match the forms and evidence previously submitted. Professional RFE workflows specifically emphasize checking these cross-document inconsistencies before submitting the response. (Visalaw AI)

Foreign-language documents must also generally include a complete English translation and translator certification. (Visalaw AI)

6. Do Not Send a Partial Response Expecting to Send More Later

This is extremely important.

USCIS generally requires the requested RFE materials to be submitted together. Sending part of your evidence now and planning to send additional evidence later can cause USCIS to treat your submission as a request to decide the case based on the incomplete record. (USCIS)

Before sending the response, compare your final package against the RFE line by line and make sure nothing has been overlooked.

Why Hiring an Immigration Attorney for an RFE Can Make a Difference

The most difficult part of answering an RFE is usually not putting documents into an envelope. It is figuring out why USCIS issued the RFE, what legal problem the officer has identified, which evidence actually solves that problem, and how to explain your eligibility under immigration law.

An experienced immigration attorney can review the original filing, identify weaknesses or inconsistencies, determine the applicable legal standard, select the strongest evidence, prepare the legal arguments, and organize the response so that the USCIS officer can clearly see why the case should be approved.

This has become even more important under USCIS policy changed effective August 5, 2026, which give officers broader discretion in certain circumstances to deny cases without first providing an RFE or NOID. When USCIS does give you an opportunity to correct or strengthen your case through an RFE, you should treat that opportunity very carefully.

Let Shepelsky Law Group Handle Your RFE

If you received an RFE, you do not have to figure out the response by yourself. Shepelsky Law Group can review the RFE, analyze your original immigration filing, identify the evidence USCIS is looking for, prepare the legal arguments, organize the supporting documents, and submit a professionally prepared response designed to give your case the strongest possible chance of approval.

Call Shepelsky Law Group at (718) 769-6352 to discuss your RFE and schedule a consultation. You can also book a consultation through our website. Shepelsky Law Group – Book a Consultation

Do not wait until the RFE deadline is approaching. The sooner we review the notice, the more time we have to identify the problem, obtain the right evidence, and build the strongest possible response.

1 day ago | [YT] | 0

Marina Shepelsky

How the Court Overturned Trump’s Unconstitutional H-1B Fee

A federal judge delivered a major victory for employers, universities, healthcare institutions, and skilled foreign workers by striking down the Trump administration’s controversial H-1B $100,000 fee. The ruling invalidated one of the most aggressive attempts in recent years to restrict access to the H-1B program. This decision has significant implications for businesses that rely on international talent to fill critical workforce shortages.

What Was the Trump $100,000 H-1B Visa Fee?

In September 2025, the Trump administration announced a new policy. Employers seeking to sponsor foreign professionals for H-1B visas would need to pay an additional $100,000 government fee. The administration argued the measure would push companies to hire U.S. workers instead of relying on foreign talent.

The fee represented an unprecedented increase over traditional H-1B filing costs. Those costs generally range from several thousand dollars to under $10,000 depending on the employer and circumstances. Critics immediately warned that the H-1B $100,000 fee would put sponsorship out of reach for many employers. Startups, universities, hospitals, research institutions, and smaller businesses would be hit hardest.

Who Brought the Case Against the H-1B $100,000 Fee?

The decision came out on June 8, 2026, by Judge Leo T. Sorokin of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in Boston. The lawsuit came from a coalition of 20 state attorneys general led by California. Judge Sorokin ruled that the fee functioned as a tax that Congress had never authorized. Therefore, it could not lawfully be imposed by the executive branch.

Why Did the Court Overturn the H-1B $100,000 Fee?

The federal court concluded that the administration exceeded its legal authority. It imposed what was effectively a tax without congressional authorization. The judge found that the executive branch cannot create massive new financial burdens on visa applicants and employers without clear approval from Congress. The H-1B $100,000 fee functioned more like a tax than a standard filing fee. The court determined the administration lacked authority to impose it through executive action alone. The fee is no longer valid nationwide.

Update: First Circuit Refuses to Reinstate the H-1B Fee

After losing in the district court, the federal government appealed and asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to temporarily suspend the lower court’s ruling. Granting that request would have allowed the government to resume enforcing the fee while the appeal was pending.

On July 24, 2026, the First Circuit denied the request. The appeals court found that the government had not made a sufficiently strong showing that it was likely to win the appeal. The court noted that the immigration statutes relied upon by the administration authorize the president to restrict the entry of certain foreign nationals. However, they do not expressly authorize a $100,000 payment requirement of this kind.

The First Circuit also found that the government had not adequately addressed the potential harm the fee could cause to states, public institutions, employers, and members of the public who rely on medical and educational services. As a result, the lower court’s order remains effective. The fee is not currently being enforced.

This is significant relief for American employers, especially hospitals, universities, schools, technology companies, research institutions, and smaller businesses that rely on highly skilled foreign professionals.

Does This Mean the Fee Is Permanently Gone?

Not necessarily. The First Circuit’s decision concerned the government’s request for a temporary stay. It was not the final appellate decision resolving every issue in the case.

The government may continue its appeal and ask the First Circuit to reverse the district court’s final judgment. The administration may also ask the U.S. Supreme Court to temporarily reinstate the fee or eventually review the underlying legal dispute. The original proclamation stated that the restriction would remain in effect for 12 months beginning September 21, 2025, unless extended. Any attempt by the administration to renew or replace the policy may also affect what happens next.

Why the H-1B Program Matters to U.S. Employers

The H-1B program plays a critical role in the U.S. economy. Many employers depend on highly skilled foreign professionals to fill positions that require advanced degrees and specialized expertise. Healthcare systems rely on H-1B physicians and researchers. Universities recruit international professors and scientists. Technology companies hire engineers, developers, and AI specialists through the program.

Had the H-1B $100,000 fee remained in effect, many employers would likely have abandoned sponsorship altogether. Smaller employers would have taken the hardest hit. This creates a system in which only the largest corporations could realistically afford to sponsor foreign workers. Learn more about common H-1B myths that affect employer decisions.

What Employers Should Do Now

Employers should not include the additional $100,000 payment solely because of the blocked proclamation unless new official instructions or a later court decision require it. Employers must still comply with all ordinary H-1B requirements. This includes obtaining a certified Labor Condition Application, offering the required wage, proving that the position qualifies as a specialty occupation, establishing the worker’s qualifications, and paying all applicable standard filing fees.

Employers considering consular-processing cases for workers outside the United States should proceed carefully. The legal situation may change while a petition is pending. Before submitting an H-1B petition, employers should confirm the latest USCIS and Department of State instructions rather than relying on outdated fee charts or online articles.

What H-1B Workers Should Do Now

The court’s ruling is encouraging for foreign professionals who received job offers but were unable to move forward because their employers could not afford the additional fee. The ruling may particularly benefit physicians, researchers, professors, teachers, engineers, and technology professionals whose employers had postponed or cancelled sponsorship plans.

However, the court decision does not guarantee approval of any H-1B petition or visa. Every applicant must still satisfy the normal H-1B requirements. Foreign professionals should also know their H-1B visa holder rights and ensure they are working with qualified immigration counsel. Foreign workers should not make irreversible travel, resignation, or relocation decisions until they understand their petition status and the latest government procedures.

Employers and workers may also want to explore whether another immigration option, such as O-1, L-1, TN, E-2, cap-exempt H-1B, or employment-based permanent residence, may be available.

Shepelsky Law Group on the H-1B Fee Ruling

At Shepelsky Law Group, we believe that immigration policy must be grounded in the law and go through proper legal procedures. Agencies cannot impose sweeping new costs on employers and immigrants without clear congressional authority. The court’s decision reinforces an important principle: major changes to our immigration system must comply with the Constitution and the limits established by Congress.

We will continue monitoring developments in this case and any future appeals that may affect employers, H-1B professionals, and the broader immigration system.

Have a Work Visa Question? Call Shepelsky Law Group.

The ruling is a significant win for businesses, universities, healthcare employers, and skilled foreign workers who rely on the H-1B program. It also serves as a reminder that immigration policy changes implemented through executive action often face intense judicial scrutiny. If you want to legalize in the U.S. or have a work visa question, call Shepelsky Law Group at (718) 769-6352 or schedule a consultation at ShepelskyLaw.com.

2 days ago | [YT] | 0

Marina Shepelsky

Newly Released Emails show ICE Worked Directly With Iran to Arrange Deportation Flights

Newly released internal government emails are raising serious questions about how the Trump Administration handled the deportation of Iranian nationals from the United States. Hundreds of ICE emails obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit reveal that U.S. immigration officials maintained a working channel with Iranian officials while arranging deportation flights to Iran—even as relations between the United States and Iran were extraordinarily hostile. More than 100 Iranians were returned on three separate flights in September and December 2025 and January 2026. (ABC News)

The documents did not come from a government whistleblower or an accidental leak. They were obtained by the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) through the Freedom of Information Act. NIAC submitted its FOIA request in October 2025 seeking records about ICE arrests, detention of Iranian nationals, deportation flights, and communications surrounding those removals. After ICE failed to provide the requested information, NIAC, working with Red Eagle Law, filed a federal FOIA lawsuit against the agency in Washington, D.C. The lawsuit was filed on November 13, 2025, and eventually resulted in the production of government records concerning the deportation operation. (NIAC)

What those emails reportedly show is particularly troubling. According to the Associated Press, Iranian officials were not simply being contacted to confirm citizenship or issue travel documents. ICE officials referred to requests from Iranian representatives to add particular people to deportation manifests, remove others, and expedite certain removals. The records also indicate direct meetings with an Iranian delegation and Iranian officials. At least one individual was apparently placed on a deportation flight even though that person was not on the final approved manifest, prompting an ICE official to question internally how the person had gotten onto the aircraft. (ABC News)

The emails also suggest that deportations to Iran were treated as a high-level White House priority, even during the June 2025 military conflict involving the United States, Israel and Iran. ICE officials recognized internally that arranging removals would be difficult because Iranian airspace was closed and Iran was not issuing the necessary travel documents. Nevertheless, officials were directed to develop a way to move forward. Qatar ultimately played an intermediary role in helping facilitate the flights. (ABC News)

Even more concerning for asylum seekers are reports that Iranian government representatives were permitted to meet with Iranian nationals held in ICE detention. In a separate federal lawsuit, eleven Iranian detainees alleged that Iranian officials appeared to know sensitive details about their asylum claims. That lawsuit alleges that U.S. immigration agencies unlawfully disclosed confidential asylum information to Iranian authorities. DHS strongly denies that allegation, and the newly released emails do not by themselves establish that confidential asylum applications were improperly disclosed. Nevertheless, federal regulations provide significant confidentiality protections for asylum-related information precisely because disclosure to a person’s home government can expose an asylum seeker or family members to retaliation. (ABC News)

These disclosures matter far beyond the Iranian community. Deportation normally requires some communication with a foreign government to obtain travel documents and arrange a person’s return. But there is an enormous difference between coordinating the mechanics of a lawful removal and permitting the very government from which a person may fear persecution to influence who is placed on a deportation flight. For Iranian asylum seekers, religious converts, political dissidents, ethnic minorities, women opposing government repression and others who fear the Iranian authorities, the consequences of such cooperation can potentially be life-threatening.

The emails also demonstrate why immigrants with final removal orders, pending asylum matters, prior asylum denials, or ICE detention should obtain legal advice before removal becomes imminent. Once ICE begins arranging travel documents and placing an individual on a removal manifest, there may be very little time to seek a stay of removal, reopen an immigration case, pursue protection under the Convention Against Torture, challenge an unlawful deportation, or seek emergency federal court relief.

If you or a family member needs help with asylum or reopening an immigration case, contact Shepelsky Law Group immediately. Our immigration attorneys represent clients in asylum, removal defense, motions to reopen, ICE detention and other complex immigration matters throughout the United States. Call Shepelsky Law Group at (718) 769-6352 or visit shepelskylaw.com to schedule a consultation.

2 days ago | [YT] | 0

Marina Shepelsky

How to Avoid a Green Card Denial Under the New SEPT. 18, 2026 Public Charge Rules

- First, find out whether the public charge rule even applies to you. Many humanitarian immigration categories are exempt. This rule mainly applies to FAMILY petitions related green card adjustment of status applicants.
- Under the new policy, USCIS officers may examine a much broader picture of an applicant’s circumstances. This can include the applicant’s age, health, family situation, financial resources, assets, education, skills, employment history, and receipt of certain government benefits. Means-tested public benefits received on or after September 18, 2026 may be considered as part of the analysis. However, USCIS is still required to look at the totality of the circumstances, and no single factor—such as unemployment, disability, or age—automatically makes someone inadmissible as a public charge.
- If your I-485 is ready and you are eligible to file, consider filing before September 18, 2026, because applications filed on or after that date will be subject to the new public charge framework.
- Review every means-tested government benefit that you personally receive before filing. Under the new rules, USCIS can consider a broader range of benefits as part of the public charge analysis.
- Do not automatically cancel benefits without speaking to an immigration attorney. Receiving public benefits does not automatically mean your Green Card will be denied.
- Remember that benefits received by your U.S. citizen spouse or children generally are not treated the same as benefits received directly by you.
- Build strong evidence that you are financially self-sufficient. Show your income, employment, savings, assets, education, professional skills, health insurance, and ability to support yourself.
- Make sure your Affidavit of Support is strong. If your sponsor’s income is questionable or insufficient, consider whether you need a qualified joint sponsor before filing.
- Be completely truthful on Form I-485 about public benefits and your financial circumstances. Trying to hide benefits can create a much more serious immigration problem.
- If you received public benefits in the past, review exactly what benefits you received and when. Benefits received before September 18 may be treated differently from benefits received after the new rules take effect.
- If you have unemployment, low income, health problems, significant debt, public benefits, or a weak financial sponsor, address those problems before filing rather than waiting for USCIS to issue an RFE or denial.
- The biggest change is that USCIS will have more discretion to look at your entire financial situation. A qualifying sponsor and Form I-864 may not, by themselves, eliminate every public charge concern.
- Bottom line: before filing for a Green Card under the new rules, have your financial situation and public charge eligibility reviewed carefully so you know where the weaknesses are before USCIS sees them.

3 days ago | [YT] | 0

Marina Shepelsky

A Pending Green Card Does Not Always Protect You From ICE: Airport Arrest Highlights New Immigration Risks in 2026

A recent New York Times report highlights a concerning trend amid the Trump administration’s intensified immigration enforcement: having a pending Green Card application, asylum case, or work permit does not always protect a person from being detained by ICE.

The article discusses the case of Galina Bobreneva, a Russian citizen who originally entered the United States legally on a tourist visa. She later applied for asylum, married a U.S. citizen, and was waiting for her marriage-based Green Card application to be processed.

Despite having pending immigration applications, Bobreneva was detained by ICE after arriving at Burbank Airport in California during a domestic trip within the United States.

Bobreneva and her U.S. citizen husband, Brent Jindra, flew from San Francisco to Burbank in July 2026. After landing, immigration officers in plain clothes approached them and pulled Bobreneva aside.

According to the report, she presented documents showing that she had pending immigration applications, including a marriage-based Green Card case. Nevertheless, she was detained, handcuffed, and taken into ICE custody.

She spent approximately 16 days in immigration detention before being released on a $35,000 bond and placed under electronic monitoring.

This case highlights a very important distinction in U.S. immigration law:

A person can have a legitimate and potentially successful Green Card case while still being vulnerable to immigration detention.

Legal entry into the United States and having a pending immigration application do not necessarily mean that a person currently has valid immigration status.

For example, a pending Form I-485, Application to Adjust Status, generally does not itself create a lawful nonimmigrant status.

At the same time, spouses of U.S. citizens who were originally lawfully admitted or paroled into the United States can, in many circumstances, still adjust status inside the United States even after their authorized period of stay has expired.

This means that someone can have a legitimate path to a Green Card while simultaneously facing immigration enforcement risks.

That is why immigrants should not assume that an EAD, pending I-485, I-130 petition, asylum application, or marriage to a U.S. citizen automatically protects them from ICE.

In 2026, immigration enforcement has become significantly more aggressive, including toward people who originally entered the country legally and have no criminal convictions.

The fact that Bobreneva was detained during a domestic flight — without crossing an international border — is particularly important.

If your original immigration status has expired but you have other pending immigration applications, it is important to review your entire immigration history and understand the potential risks before traveling.

If you overstayed your visa, are waiting for a Green Card or asylum decision, are married to a U.S. citizen, or are concerned about ICE detention despite having a pending immigration case, do not wait until an emergency happens.

The attorneys at Shepelsky Law Group represent clients throughout the United States in Green Card cases, asylum cases, ICE detention matters, immigration court proceedings, and deportation defense.

📞 Call (718) 769-6352 or visit shepelskylaw.com to schedule a consultation and learn how you can protect your immigration case in advance.

3 days ago | [YT] | 0

Marina Shepelsky

ICE Targets More Than 10,000 International Students in Nationwide OPT Fraud Investigation

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has announced a major nationwide investigation into alleged fraud involving the Optional Practical Training program, or OPT, potentially affecting more than 10,000 international students.

ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons announced that federal investigators have identified more than 10,000 F-1 students who reported employment with what the agency considers highly suspicious employers. According to ICE, those students were connected to only the top 25 employers being examined, and federal officials have warned that the investigation may be only beginning.

For current and former F-1 students, this development should be taken seriously — particularly if OPT or STEM OPT was used to maintain immigration status before moving to H-1B status, another employment visa, or permanent residence.

What Is OPT?

Optional Practical Training allows eligible F-1 international students to obtain temporary employment related to their field of study.

Most qualifying students can receive up to 12 months of OPT employment authorization. Students with qualifying science, technology, engineering, or mathematics degrees may be eligible for an additional 24-month STEM OPT extension.

For many international graduates, OPT is an important bridge between graduation and longer-term immigration options such as H-1B employment.

ICE now alleges that portions of the system have been exploited through fake companies and nonexistent employment arrangements.

What Did ICE Investigators Find?

Federal investigators conducted worksite visits involving employers in Virginia, Texas, Georgia, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Florida.

According to ICE officials and media reports, investigators encountered alleged employers operating from:

empty buildings;
locked offices where no employees appeared to be working;
residential homes supposedly employing large numbers of OPT workers;
mailbox or P.O. box addresses;
locations shared by multiple companies that apparently did not actually lease office space; and
businesses allegedly being managed from outside the United States.
Investigators also described so-called phantom employees — students who had employment authorization and were reported as working for a company but allegedly never actually performed legitimate work there.

In one particularly striking example reported by federal officials, approximately 500 students reportedly listed employment with a company that claimed to have only three workers.

Authorities have also said they are examining suspicious financial transactions, overseas management arrangements, shell companies, and other evidence that could point to coordinated fraud rather than isolated violations.

Why Is This Dangerous for F-1 Students?

An OPT employment authorization document does not give a student permission to create fictional employment simply to remain in the United States.

OPT employment must comply with the applicable immigration requirements, including the requirement that the work be related to the student’s field of study.

STEM OPT has additional requirements. The employer generally must participate in E-Verify, the student and employer must complete Form I-983, and the employer must provide a genuine training opportunity with appropriate supervision.

If ICE determines that employment was fictitious, a student could potentially face allegations that he or she violated F-1 status.

Depending on the facts, consequences could include problems with SEVIS records, loss of immigration status, termination of employment authorization, future visa denials, removal proceedings, or allegations of fraud or misrepresentation.

A Fake OPT Job Can Follow You Into an H-1B or Green Card Case

This investigation is particularly important for students who have already moved beyond OPT.

Do not assume that because your OPT period ended several years ago, the government will never look at it again.

USCIS can review your previous immigration history when you later apply for:

H-1B status;
an employment-based green card;
adjustment of status;
another nonimmigrant visa;
permanent residence through marriage; or
U.S. citizenship.
If the government discovers that an applicant previously claimed employment with a company that did not actually exist, it may ask whether the person properly maintained F-1 status and whether false information was provided to the government.

That can turn what appeared to be an old student-status issue into a serious problem in a later immigration case.

What If You Did Not Know the Employer Was Fraudulent?

Not every student associated with a suspicious company necessarily committed immigration fraud.

Some international students may have legitimately believed they were accepting employment from a real company.

Others may have been recruited by staffing agencies, consulting companies, third-party recruiters, or intermediaries without understanding that the employer’s business structure or OPT practices were questionable.

Intent matters.

There is an enormous difference between a student who knowingly paid a fake company to create employment records and a student who performed legitimate work but later discovers that the employer itself is under investigation.

If your former employer is being investigated, do not automatically assume that your immigration case is ruined. But you should have your records reviewed before filing your next immigration application.

OPT Students Should Preserve Their Evidence Now

Current and former OPT students should maintain evidence showing that their employment was real.

Useful documentation may include:

offer letters;
employment contracts;
pay stubs;
W-2 or tax records;
bank records showing salary payments;
Form I-983 for STEM OPT;
supervisor correspondence;
work emails;
projects and work product;
performance reviews;
time records;
proof of the physical or remote work location; and
evidence showing how the position related to the student’s degree.
If USCIS or ICE later questions the employment, these records may become extremely important.

Be Careful With Companies Selling OPT Employment

International students should be extremely cautious when a company promises to place them on payroll simply so they can maintain F-1 status.

Warning signs can include an employer asking the student to pay the company instead of receiving a genuine salary, no identifiable supervisor, no meaningful work assignments, a company with no real office or business operations, fabricated training plans, or an arrangement in which the student is listed as an employee but does not actually perform work.

If someone tells you that you can simply pay for an OPT job in order to stay legally in the United States, that is a major warning sign.

Federal Scrutiny of International Students Is Increasing

The OPT investigation is part of a much broader increase in federal scrutiny of international student programs in 2026.

The government has been examining not only whether students properly entered the United States to study, but whether they continue complying with F-1 requirements after graduation and whether employment used to maintain status is legitimate.

ICE has made clear that its investigation is continuing.

The more than 10,000 students already identified may therefore represent only the first group of cases reviewed.

Contact Shepelsky Law Group

If you are currently on OPT or STEM OPT, previously worked for an employer that you believe may have been questionable, or are preparing to move from F-1 status to H-1B status or permanent residence, now is the time to review your immigration history.

Do not wait until USCIS sends you a Request for Evidence or ICE questions whether your former employer was legitimate.

Shepelsky Law Group assists international students and other immigrants with complex immigration histories, employment-based immigration, adjustment of status, waivers, removal defense, and cases involving possible status violations or allegations of immigration fraud.

Call Shepelsky Law Group at (718) 769-6352 to schedule a consultation or book your consultation at www.ShepelskyLaw.com and review your immigration options before filing your next case.

3 days ago | [YT] | 0

Marina Shepelsky

Florida Driver Licenses Will Begin Showing U.S. Citizenship Status in 2027

Florida is preparing a major change to its driver licenses and state identification cards that will make US citizenship status listed directly on state-issued identification.

Under a new Florida law, by July 1, 2027, newly issued, renewed, or replacement Florida driver licenses and identification cards issued to people recorded as U.S. citizens must include their U.S. citizenship status.

The change is part of a broader Florida election-law package aimed at strengthening citizenship verification for voter registration and voter-roll maintenance.

Who Will Be Affected?

The law does not require every Florida resident to immediately replace an existing driver’s license on July 1, 2027.

Instead, the citizenship designation will generally be added when a U.S. citizen:

receives a new Florida driver license or state ID;
renews an existing license or ID; or
requests a replacement card.
Media reporting on the law has also indicated that noncitizens who already have valid Florida driver licenses will generally be able to continue using those licenses until they expire rather than automatically replacing them in July 2027.

What If You Become a U.S. Citizen/Naturalize?

The law also addresses immigrants who naturalize.

If a Florida resident becomes a U.S. citizen and timely updates his or her legal status with the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, the state must provide a replacement or renewed driver license or identification card reflecting the new citizenship status without charging a replacement fee. You will have to apply for a new license with your new US citizenship status.

This makes it especially important for newly naturalized citizens to update their records after their naturalization ceremonies.

Why Is Florida Making This Change?

The driver-license provision is connected to Florida’s broader effort to verify citizenship for voting purposes.

Florida election officials will increasingly rely on citizenship information contained in government databases, including information maintained by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, when reviewing voter registrations and determining whether a person may be eligible to vote.

Supporters of the new law argue that displaying and recording citizenship status will make it easier to verify voter eligibility.

Critics have raised concerns about privacy, incorrect government records, and the possibility that naturalized citizens or other eligible voters could face additional questions if government databases contain outdated information.

Immigrants Should Keep Their Government Records Consistent

For immigrants, one practical lesson is increasingly important: make sure your immigration and state records accurately reflect your current legal status.

If you become a U.S. citizen, update your information with the Social Security Administration and the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles.

If a government agency incorrectly lists you as a noncitizen after you have naturalized, do not ignore the discrepancy.

As federal and state agencies increasingly share and compare citizenship and immigration information, inconsistent records may cause unnecessary problems with driver licenses, voting records, employment verification, and other government processes.

Contact Shepelsky Law Group

If you are eligible for naturalization, have questions about becoming a U.S. citizen, or are concerned that government records contain incorrect information about your immigration or citizenship status, Shepelsky Law Group can help.

Contact Shepelsky Law Group at (718) 769-6352 or book your consultation at www.ShepelskyLaw.com to discuss your path to U.S. citizenship.

4 days ago | [YT] | 0

Marina Shepelsky

New Public Charge Rules for Green Card Applicants Take Effect September 18, 2026
AUG 20, 2026

The U.S. government is significantly expanding the public charge analysis used in certain Green Card cases. Beginning September 18, 2026, USCIS will apply new rules when deciding whether an applicant is likely to become dependent on government assistance in the future. The change follows the Department of Homeland Security’s rescission of the more limited 2022 public charge regulations.

Under the new policy, USCIS officers may examine a much broader picture of an applicant’s circumstances. This can include the applicant’s age, health, family situation, financial resources, assets, education, skills, employment history, and receipt of certain government benefits. Means-tested public benefits received on or after September 18, 2026 may be considered as part of the analysis. However, USCIS is still required to look at the totality of the circumstances, and no single factor—such as unemployment, disability, or age—automatically makes someone inadmissible as a public charge.

The new rules are particularly important for people filing Form I-485 to adjust status and obtain a Green Card inside the United States. Applicants who are subject to the public charge ground should expect USCIS to scrutinize their financial circumstances more closely. In many family-based cases, the Form I-864 Affidavit of Support will remain extremely important, but USCIS may also evaluate whether the sponsor realistically has the income and resources necessary to support the immigrant. Applicants should not assume that simply submitting an I-864 automatically resolves every public charge concern.

Another major development is the return of the Public Charge Bond. If USCIS believes an applicant is inadmissible solely because of public charge concerns, USCIS may, in its discretion, give the applicant an opportunity to post a bond using Form I-945 rather than deny the Green Card application outright. The bond is intended to protect the government if the immigrant later receives prohibited public benefits. USCIS—not the applicant—determines whether the bond option will be offered, and it is not available as a matter of right.

The Department of State has also begun using public charge bonds in some immigrant visa cases processed through U.S. consulates abroad. Under a pilot procedure announced in August 2026, a consular officer may notify a selected immigrant visa applicant that a public charge bond may be used to overcome a refusal under INA § 212(a)(4). Bond amounts are determined based on the circumstances of the individual case. This does not mean that every Green Card or immigrant visa applicant must post a bond.

There are also important exceptions. Public charge rules do not apply in the same way to every immigrant. Refugees, asylees, certain VAWA self-petitioners, U and T visa applicants, and several other humanitarian categories have statutory or regulatory protections from the public charge ground of inadmissibility. Green Card holders applying for naturalization also are not applying for admission or adjustment of status simply by filing an N-400.

For immigrants planning to file for adjustment of status after September 18, 2026, financial preparation may now be just as important as proving the underlying family or employment relationship. Applicants should carefully review any public benefits they have received, their household income, employment history, health insurance, assets, debts, sponsor qualifications, and supporting financial documentation before filing.

If you are applying for a Green Card and are concerned about the new public charge rules, government benefits, your sponsor’s income, or whether USCIS could require a public charge bond, contact Shepelsky Law Group before filing. Our immigration attorneys can review your eligibility, identify potential public charge problems, and help prepare the strongest possible application. Call Shepelsky Law Group at +1 (718) 769-6352 [landline] or visit shepelskylaw.com to schedule a consultation.

5 days ago | [YT] | 0

Marina Shepelsky

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IS INTENTIONALLY LIMITING LEGAL IMMIGRATION TO THE U.S.

The Trump administration is not limiting its immigration crackdown to undocumented immigrants alone. New policies are increasingly affecting people who are trying to immigrate legally through family petitions, employment-based visas, Diversity Visas, refugee programs, adjustment of status, and other lawful immigration pathways. A recent Forbes report [source: www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2026/08/17/tru…] describes the administration’s approach as an effort that is now restricting virtually every major category of legal immigration.

According to Forbes, analysts with the National Foundation for American Policy estimate that current policies could reduce legal immigration to the United States by approximately 33% to 50% during President Trump’s four-year term, potentially affecting between 1.5 million and 2.4 million prospective legal immigrants. These restrictions do not affect only immigrants themselves. They also affect U.S. citizens trying to sponsor spouses, parents and children, as well as American employers attempting to hire needed foreign workers.

One of the most significant restrictions involves immigrant visa processing abroad. The State Department has paused immigrant visa issuance for nationals of 75 countries, including Ukraine’s neighboring and former Soviet countries such as Russia, Belarus, Moldova, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, as well as many countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean. Applicants may still be able to submit applications and attend interviews, but visa issuance remains paused for affected nationals subject to limited exceptions. Separately, Presidential Proclamation 10998 fully or partially restricts immigrant or nonimmigrant visa issuance for nationals of 39 countries.

Other legal immigration programs are also facing major obstacles. Forbes reports that the administration has stopped issuance of approximately 55,000 Diversity Visas, while litigation challenging the policy continues. That is especially serious because DV-2026 winners generally must receive their immigrant visas or adjustment of status approvals by September 30, 2026, or lose eligibility based on their DV-2026 selection. Refugee admissions have also been sharply restricted, while several federal lawsuits are challenging government freezes and holds affecting lawful immigration applications.

Family-based immigration and adjustment of status are becoming more difficult as well. USCIS rescinded the 2022 public-charge regulation in July 2026, with the new rule scheduled to take effect on September 18, 2026. The change gives immigration officers greater discretion when determining whether an intending immigrant may become a public charge. At the same time, employment-based immigrants face potential changes involving prevailing wages, PERM labor certification requirements, visa availability, and increased scrutiny of petitions and applications. Forbes warns that these combined measures demonstrate that the current immigration crackdown reaches far beyond unlawful immigration and increasingly affects people attempting to follow the legal immigration system.

If you are in the United States without permanent status, have a pending immigration case, are waiting for an immigrant visa abroad, or have a family member you want to sponsor, now is the time to understand your options. Immigration policies are changing rapidly, and waiting can sometimes eliminate options that are available today. Call Shepelsky Law Group at Tel: (718)769-6352 to schedule an immigration consultation.

Our immigration attorneys can review your history, determine whether you have a path to legalize your immigration status, and help you pursue the strongest available option for a visa, Green Card, humanitarian protection, or other lawful status in the United States.

5 days ago | [YT] | 0