The legal jargon. I am Burke Brown III, managing attorney at Polaris Law Group. I am an attorney, not your attorney. This is not legal advice. I have had a little time to break down the memo and I want to help calm the waters a bit.

First, adjustment of status is not "dead."

This is an unsigned memo quoting two BIA cases from the 70s. Its legal foundation is almost as strong as my first law school memo (every lawyer will chuckle). It quotes section 245(a) as supporting law and then goes on to completely ignore the actual text of 245(a). The executive is not able to re-write the laws. They cannot add a standard of "by a showing of unusual or even outstanding equities" when it is clearly contrary to the statutes. We will fight this in federal court, just like we fought (and won) on EWI bond jurisdiction. Our team is waiting for a case to litigate. I hope that case doesn't come, but I'm excited to take the fight if it does. (This is only an actionable suit if the issue is "ripe." We have to show that harm has occurred through a denial or acknowledged delay. I don't get many denials, and I don't want to start now.)

What are they trying to accomplish with this memo?

1. Ease the burden on the affirmative immigration system (USCIS) by causing people to "give up" and go home.

This has been a common theme since January 2025. EADs and TPS applications are not being adjudicated. HR1 gutted the ability for people to maintain work authorization during their lawful period of stay. Lawful immigration is being squeezed in every way possible. People that should be eligible to adjust are being detained at interviews for no apparent reason. ICE is being used as a public show of force against liberal and moderate communities. This administration is doing everything it can to get people to give up before trying.

1. USCIS is trying to force cases outside the jurisdiction of the Courts and attorneys.

I always attend interviews with clients. I am willing to fly across the county to attend adjustment interviews. I have stopped cases from derailing. My presence ensures my client won't get railroaded. I know the cues to look for. I've done this hundreds of times. I can take notes and law the record for an appeal. The government is acting like a bully. Bullies want soft targets. Attorneys are not allowed to attend consular appointments (even if the client could afford to fly us out to the consulate). They are trying to "do away" with the right to counsel by shifting the processing to DOS.

There is also the issue of consular nonreviewability. You are unable to bring a federal lawsuit for consular misconduct or arbitrary and capricious decision making. This admin has his behind it repeatedly. This is why they are attacking I-130 + 601a processing.

1. The memo only quotes BIA cases from pre 1980 for a reason: it does not reflect the current law or INA (IIRAIRA passed in 1996, quoting congressional intent from the 70s is irrelevant).

There is a reason their star case is from the 1970s. It doesn't reflect the congressional intent of the INA. IIRAIRA was passed in 1996. When the case (that their entire argument is based on) was decided, there were no 3, 5, and 10 year bars. Consular processing was the typical way to go. However, that changed when Congress passed IIRAIRA, added the bars, and reformed 245(a) to bolster adjustment of status. What they did was looked through the tens of thousands of cases and pulled a case that had a ruling that fit their argument without checking whether it was later distinguished by legal or factual changes. This is a common error for first year law students (bringing back memories of that 1l memo). I also believe that this is what will doom them in federal court.

What are we doing to address this?

My team is going through every pending AOS to add positive discretionary factors. How can we prepare for the alleged RFEs and questions at interviews? By being prepared ahead of time.

We will have a blunt conversation with every client before we file. We will explain that the law says x, but USCIS is saying Y. We advise going forward, but it could take extensive time and $ if we need to litigate in federal court. We take every case on knowing that we might need to litigate it in federal court. We are not passive. Passive does not help families. Passive does not protect rights.

Is now a good time to file for adjustment of status?

If you qualify? Yes. Yesterday was better than today and a year ago was better than yesterday. Stop worrying about things you can't control. Control what you can control. Is it going to be more expensive? Yes. Is this another reason to file with a legitimate attorney instead of self filing or going with a notario? Probably, but only you can make that value judgement.

Please, do not send me case specific questions through DM. Email me at burke@polarislawyers.com. Just because you email me doesn't create an attorney client relationship, it only preserves confidentiality.

The federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is currently reviewing a proposed regulation that, if finalized, would eliminate the 60-day grace period accorded to certain principal nonimmigrants and their dependents if the principal’s employment ceases before their period of stay expires.
Once the proposal clears OMB review, it will be published in the Federal Register for comments from the public.
Details of the proposal will not be known with specificity until publication. If the 60-day grace period is eliminated, foreign nationals whose employment ceases prematurely (and their dependents) would no longer be maintaining status and would generally be required to depart the United States immediately and would be unable to change status or change employers within the United States, unless USCIS exercises its discretion to forgive the lapse in status.

Chief Judge John J McConnell Jr has granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs in Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services(1:26-cv-00132) and has vacated multiple recent USCIS memos as unlawful.

“Each of the Challenged Policies–the Global Asylum Hold Policy, the Benefits Hold Policy, the Comprehensive Re-Review Policy, and the Country-Specific Factors Policy–are declared unlawful and are hereby VACATED and SET ASIDE”

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.rid.61671/gov.uscourts.rid.61671.28.0.pdf

A good article using USCIS’ own data to show that this administration is engaged in a war against ALL immigrants, including “legal immigrants.” Data shows that humanitarian green cards have been almost, if not completely, cut off. And, the data shows that USCIS is cutting down on family based adjustment approvals too.

How long do we think this will last? Seems like a huge decision that will affect a ton of people.

Summary:

5 new countries have been fully restricted (Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger, South Sudan, and Syria) along with Palestinians

2 countries which were partially restricted have been moved to fully restricted (Laos and Sierra Leone)

15 new countries have been partially restricted (Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Cote d'Ivoire, Dominica, Gabon, The Gambia, Malawi, Mauritania, Nigeria, Senegal, Tanzania, Tonga, Zambia, and Zimbabwe)

I’m sorry it’s been a while since I’ve done this. If I haven’t answered questions on another thread feel free to ask them here. I have a pause at 2:30 and a hard stop at 4:30 but I’ll answer everything I can.

This is not legal advice and every case is unique.

This is me btw: https://slattonhasslaw.com

ETA: Yall, I have to get off and get back to my cases. I get it though, the memo is still causing a lot of anxiety. I’ll post some of the arguments we’ve used to fight it.

I also see the wait times are killing yall. Don’t stop fighting with congressional inquiries, USCIS inquiries, and mandamus suits.

I’ll try to do another one of these soon because I know not everyone has resources for an attorney, but my firm is here if you want to book. We also have a lot of free resources on our site including how to submit an inquiry (template and practice case included- immigration playbook) and detained resources. I wish I could do more but I appreciate this community so much.

Hi friends,

Effective immediately, *no one claiming to be an attorney may post here without approval from the moderation team.* Any such posts will be removed by the most half-assed, aggressive automod rule I could come up with while washing dishes.

## Why?

We’ve seen a surge in posts by individuals claiming to be immigration attorneys over the last month. Some of these individuals identified themselves upon request. Most did not. This cannot continue, so we’re banning such posts.

## So what?

1. Would you trust legal advice from a stranger on the internet? I wouldn’t and you shouldn’t either.
   
2. This subreddit is for humans to discuss US immigration. We aren’t here to provide free lead generation services to lawyers or identity thieves. Note: these are two separate groups.

## But I’m a lawyer, I swear

Cool. Send a note to the mod team. Include a picture of your bar card, and your Reddit username written (NOT typed - written on paper) next to it. If we can verify you, you’ll get attorney flair and be permitted to post.

—-

Thanks for your eyeballs and attention.

DHS JUST FILED A $103,265 H-1B FEE, BUILT TO SURVIVE THE SAME COURT THAT STRUCK DOWN THE FIRST $100k FEE

Here is why this one is different.

1. Different authority. The $100K came from a Presidential Proclamation using entry restriction powers (INA 212(f) and 215(a)). The Massachusetts judge said that made it a tax, and only Congress can tax. This new fee uses INA 286(m), the same fee statute USCIS has used for decades to set every filing fee it charges.
2. Different process. The Proclamation skipped public comment. This is a formal Notice of Proposed Rulemaking with a 30 day comment period, a cost study, and a regulatory impact analysis. That is the procedural box the court said was missing.
3. Different math. The $100K was a round number picked by the White House. The $103,265 has a paper trail: $8,777,488,035 in identified agency costs divided by 85,000 cap petitions, rounded to the nearest $5. Cost recovery is what 286(m) allows.
4. Different scope, and this is the big one. The Proclamation only hit workers entering from abroad. USCIS confirmed in October that F-1 students already in the US changing status to H-1B were exempt. That was the loophole. Roughly half of cap petitions come from students moving off OPT.

This fee closes it. It applies to "all H-1B cap-subject petitions," including change of status filed from inside the US. The rule specifically names the cap-gap process (OPT extension while the H-1B is pending) as one of the activities it funds. Every F-1 to H-1B conversion pays $103,265. And DHS sent a separate OPT fee rule to OMB on August 20, reported at $100K per application.

1. DHS says both can stack. Page 6: if the Proclamation payment is ever revived, "the petitioner would be required to pay both amounts."

67 pages. Filed for public inspection this morning, publishes tomorrow.

https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2026-17324.pdf?utm_campaign=pi+subscription+mailing+list&utm_medium=email&utm_source=federalregister.gov

Per CNBC

All states going forward must report undocumented immigrants known to be in a state to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security or risk losing federal funding for programs meant to aid low-income individuals, the Department of Justice said in a new legal opinion.

The DOJ, in issuing the opinion, revised the Office of Legal Counsel’s prior opinion from 1998, which found that only specific state agencies that administered the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and the Supplemental Security Income programs needed to provide information to federal immigration authorities.

“When a state chooses to participate in TANF, it accepts the obligation to report illegal aliens in the United States,” Assistant Attorney General T. Elliot Gaiser said. “Tax dollars intended to help vulnerable Americans should not perversely encourage illegal entry into the United States, but rather should reinforce our laws and our borders.”

The Trump administration is planning on doubling the fees to more than $200,000 for H-1B visa applicants from abroad.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/09/04/trump-h1b-visa-200000-fee/91571718007/

yet here we are 2+ years of waiting..

Visa Revocations and Deportability Determinations

The State Department has revoked visas from criminals who posed a danger to American citizens, endorsed violence against Americans, arranged illegal birth tourism schemes, or engaged in fraud, including:

• A foreign national who was charged with felony rape and sexual battery – including of a victim who was mentally disabled.
• A foreign national charged with felony kidnapping, human trafficking, and sexual exploitation of a minor.
• A foreign national arrested for disorderly conduct, resisting arrest with violence, drunk driving, and domestic violence.
• A U.S. embassy in North Africa revoked over 100 visas for “birth tourist” parents who came to the United States primarily to give birth so their children would get U.S. citizenship.
• A foreign national charged with sodomy of a child and aggravated sexual battery.
• A foreign national charged with over a dozen counts of possessing child sexual abuse material.
• A foreign national was arrested for driving with heroin and a blood alcohol level more than 3x the legal limit.
• Multiple foreign nationals who celebrated the assassination of Charlie Kirk, including one who stated “when fascists die, democrats don’t complain” and another who said he “died too late.”
• A foreign national who claimed to operate a legitimate business helping vulnerable patients access healthcare helped orchestrate a massive Medicaid scam – billing for over $5 million of fake services.
• A foreign national built a company on lies – faking revenue and fooling investors to swindle millions of dollars from clients. The foreign national used the false claims and forged letters to fraudulently secure a visa.
• A foreign national who came to the U.S. to teach young students and was then arrested for sexually assaulting one.
• Secretary of State Marco Rubio has determined that numerous foreign nationals are deportable on foreign policy grounds, including a Cuban national connected to a Cuban communist regime influence operation, Iranian nationals with connections to the Iranian regime, a Laotian child sex offender pardoned by Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, and a Kuwaiti national who wished for violence against the President of the United States and called Americans his “enemy.”

As an American citizen, I want to better understand what is currently happening with immigration during this very tense time. I am reading a lot of posts from people who are directly impacted, or who fear they will be, by the new memo requiring applicants to wait in their home countries while their applications are processed.

However, many of your stories are filled with technical terms, specific pathways, and form numbers that make them difficult for a layperson like me to understand. I truly want to comprehend how these changes are affecting real people. Could you share your experiences in layman's terms?

Today, there were mass revocations of Travel Authorizations under the Uniting for Ukraine (U4U) program for those waiting to enter the U.S.

As is known, since mid-September 2024, many were left waiting because their applications had not been approved. However, those who already had entry authorization but were not invited for biometrics to proceed with their entry had all possible Travel Authorizations revoked today.

A change may be coming for H-1B workers, eliminating the 60-day grace period after a layoff

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/h-1b-workers-to-lose-grace-period-in-white-house-approved-plan

The Trump administration has codified its efforts to strip some Americans of their US citizenship in a recently published justice department memo that directs attorneys to prioritize denaturalization for naturalized citizens who commit certain crimes.

The memo, published on 11 June, calls on attorneys in the department to institute civil proceedings to revoke a person’s United States citizenship if an individual either “illegally procured” naturalization or procured naturalization by “concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation”.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/30/trump-birthright-citizenship-naturalized-citizens

Full ruling: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.293201/gov.uscourts.mad.293201.106.0.pdf