This week, there have been several notable changes in US immigration policy that merit long-term monitoring:
1. BIA Overturns 14-Year Precedent: Advance Parole Departures May Trigger 3-Year/10-Year Bans
2. USCIS Authorized to Gradually Mandate Electronic Filing, Paper Filings May Require Exemption Applications in the Future
3. State Department Permanently Implements B-1/B-2 Visa Bond Program, with Some Applicants Potentially Required to Pay Up to $20,000
4. DOJ Files Lawsuits Against New York, Connecticut, and Vermont, Challenging In-State Tuition and Aid for Undocumented Immigrants
5. USCIS Tightens RFE Policy: Some Incomplete Application Cases May Face Direct Denials
In addition, the Public Charge rule taking effect on September 18 remains a key legal immigration issue in the coming weeks.
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) on August 13, in Matter of Milagro Delcarmen-Lara, 29 I&N Dec. 830 (BIA 2026), overturned the 2012 precedent in Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly.
The new ruling specifies that leaving the US on Advance Parole constitutes a “departure” under immigration law.
What does this mean?
If an individual accrues sufficient unlawful presence before departure and uses Advance Parole to exit the US, they may trigger the penalties under INA §212(a)(9)(B):
– Accumulation of over 180 days of unlawful presence: Potential 3-year ban
– Accumulation of one year or more of unlawful presence: Potential 10-year ban
BIA clarified that this new interpretation applies only to future departures and does not retroactively apply to departures before August 13, 2026. This is expected to have a significant impact on individuals awaiting I-485 adjustment of status and holding Advance Parole.
Over the past decade, the Arrabally case provided crucial protection for some immigrants: even with a degree of unlawful presence, using Advance Parole for travel and returning to the US typically did not result in a ban solely due to that departure. Now, the DOJ has overturned this protective policy.
Not all Advance Parole holders will be affected.
The key lies in whether one has accumulated sufficient unlawful presence triggering the bans, along with their immigration status and case background. Therefore, individuals with a history of unlawful presence, currently adjusting their status, or preparing to travel on Advance Parole need to pay close attention to this change.
On August 11, DHS published an Interim Final Rule in the Federal Register authorizing USCIS to mandate electronic filing for certain immigration benefit applications. This rule took effect on August 11.
USCIS can now require immigrants who have electronically filed forms for at least 180 days to switch to online submissions; exemptions may be granted for those unable to e-file.
An important detail
This does not mean that all forms must be filed electronically from August 11 onwards. Rather, USCIS now has the legal authority to request specific forms to be electronically filed.
When each form will transition to mandatory electronic filing will be separately communicated by USCIS. The rule mandates USCIS to provide prior notice before implementing any mandatory e-filing requirements.
What about paper filings?
Individuals meeting the criteria but unable to e-file can submit a new Form I-936, Request for Waiver of E-Filing Requirement. The current fee for the I-936 application is $25; waivers are typically granted for 30 days following approval for submission of relevant paper applications. Specific exemptions for certain immigrant benefits, such as VAWA, T, U, and TPS applications, have designated fee waiver arrangements in the rule.
Why is this important?
This could represent a significant institutional shift for USCIS from a “paper-based, with electronic support” to primarily electronic filing.
This may have long-term effects on:
– Green card applications
– Citizenship naturalization
– Work permits
– Family-based immigration
– Employment-based immigration
– Legal professionals and immigration service organizations
On August 3, the State Department announced the final rule making the 12-month visa bond pilot program, which started in 2025, a permanent Visa Bond Program. The rule applies to certain B-1/B-2 business and tourist visa applicants, where consular officers can request eligible applicants to pay up to $20,000 in visa bonds. The applicable countries will be announced by the State Department, and adjustments can be made based on circumstances.
During the pilot period from 2025 to 2026:
– Applicants from 50 countries were impacted by the visa bond program
– Approximately 20,000 visa applications were requested to post bonds
– Nearly half eventually paid the bond
– The government estimated an 83% decrease in the issuance of B-1/B-2 visas for pilot program countries.
It’s important to note that this does not mean “all travelers must pay $20,000.” It targets specific countries and eligible B-1/B-2 visa applicants. The bond is usually refundable upon meeting visa conditions, timely departure, etc.
On August 10, the DOJ announced lawsuits against New York, Connecticut, and Vermont, challenging the states’ laws allowing certain undocumented immigrant students to receive in-state tuition and related financial aid.
The DOJ contends that these policies violate federal law by providing in-state tuition or aid to some undocumented immigrants that US citizens in other states cannot access. It’s part of the DOJ’s ongoing challenge of state policies.
This is not just an education policy issue but also involves a power conflict between federal immigration law and state government education policies.
New York, Connecticut, and other states have stated they will defend these policies. If these cases reach the appeals courts or even the Supreme Court, they could have implications for other states nationwide.
This news is particularly noteworthy for Chinese immigrant families whose children are attending high school or university in the US.
USCIS updated its policy on August 5, emphasizing that applicants have a responsibility to prove their eligibility and submit all required initial evidence when filing immigration benefit applications. If applicants fail to submit the initial evidence explicitly requested in the law or forms, USCIS may deny the case without issuing a Request for Evidence (RFE) or Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) if the conditions are met.
The new policy applies to relevant applications submitted on or after August 5 or those still pending. Specific application of the policy remains subject to related regulations and policies.
What’s different from before? USCIS previously often gave applicants an opportunity to provide missing information in certain situations. USCIS is reiterating now that an RFE isn’t a “retest opportunity” for applicants. Applicants are expected to have all necessary materials prepared when initially submitting their applications.
Which cases should be noted?
Including:
– I-130
– I-485
– I-140
– Work visa-related applications
– Other USCIS immigration benefit applications
Different types of cases have varying evidence requirements; thus, it’s not a straightforward interpretation as “USCIS will no longer issue RFEs.” While this policy was announced last week, it continues to receive a high level of attention from immigration attorneys and applicants this week.
DHS has formally rescinded the 2022 Public Charge rule, with the new regulation set to be effective on September 18, 2026.
For I-485 applications submitted on or after September 18 and related entry applications, the new Public Charge rule will apply. Applications before September 18 will be processed according to the existing rule.
Concurrently, the State Department has initiated a Public Charge Bond pilot wherein certain immigrant visa applicants, if deemed to pose a public charge issue, may be required by consular officers to apply for a Public Charge Bond through USCIS to overcome this inadmissibility reason while meeting other conditions.
It’s crucial to distinguish between two matters: the new Public Charge rule primarily addresses how immigration officers assess an applicant’s potential public charge status. The Public Charge Bond, on the other hand, serves as an additional mechanism in specific immigrant visa cases to address the inadmissibility due to public charge but is not the same policy.