We can provide phone, zoom, or in person consultations
Published on:

By

The U.S. immigration landscape is shifting again for H-1B workers and employers. On September 19, 2025, the President issued a Presidential Proclamation on Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers, a significant policy change aimed at reforming the H-1B visa program. Under this directive, certain H-1B petitions filed on or after 12:01 a.m. Eastern time on September 21, 2025 must include an additional $100,000 payment as a condition of eligibility.

USCIS has now issued more instructions interpreting the Proclamation. Employers and foreign professionals must understand how this new requirement works .

Who Must Pay the $100,000

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

The recent presidential proclamation imposing a $100,000 fee on certain H-1B petitions has caused alarm among employers, workers, and their counsel. At Zneimer & Zneimer, P.C., we want our clients to understand the scope of this rule, why it applies only to entry, and what risks arise when a worker changes employers and later travels abroad.

Authority under INA § 212(f)

The proclamation rests on INA § 212(f), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), which empowers the president to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens” or impose “any restrictions” deemed appropriate on their admission. Importantly, this power governs entry at the border, not the status of people who are already inside the United States.  By its terms, the proclamation:

  • Applies to foreign nationals outside the U.S. seeking to enter after the effective date after 12:01 AM (ET) on September 21, 2025
  • Does not apply to extensions of status or change-of-status petitions filed while the worker remains inside the United States.
  • Does not alter the validity of previously approved H-1B petitions or visas.

USCIS and CBP have both confirmed that the rule is entry-focused as it imposes a condition of admission, not a retroactive obligation for individuals already maintaining lawful status in the U.S.

What Happens with New Petitions and Travel?

A thorny question arises under the Proclamation when a worker already in the U.S. changes status to H-1B or is already in H-1B and changes employers after the effective date of the proclamation.  In both cases, the filing will be a new H-1B petition on behalf of the foreign worker.   Suppose a beneficiary has a valid H-1B petition and a subsequent employer files a new petition (“H-1B transfer”). While the worker remains in the U.S., the proclamation does not apply based on its express terms:

 Section 1.  Restriction on Entry.

(a)  Pursuant to sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), the entry into the United States of aliens as nonimmigrants to perform services in a specialty occupation under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), is restricted….

(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall restrict decisions on petitions not accompanied by a $100,000 payment for H-1B specialty occupation workers under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the INA, who are currently outside the United States….

See, Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers, Presidential Proclamation (Sept. 19, 2025), issued under INA §§ 212(f) and 215(a), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(f), 1185(a).

Let’s parse this language. 

Textual Analysis Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Immigration law often hides in the details of statutory authority. When the White House announces changes to visas, the form of the announcement – executive order or presidential proclamation – signals the legal foundation beneath it. With the recent H-1B fee increase, the administration chose a proclamation. That choice tells us a great deal about power, process, and potential challenges.

Executive Orders Talk To the Agency

An executive order directs the federal bureaucracy. It tells agencies how to interpret or enforce existing law. For example, a president may issue an executive order instructing the Department of Homeland Security to review fraud detection in the H-1B program. An executive order does not create new legal obligations for the public. It organizes how agencies carry out duties Congress has already assigned.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

On September 19, 2025, President Trump issued a Proclamation titled Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers. This Proclamation introduces a substantial new cost for employers filing new H-1B petitions and signals further regulatory reforms to the H-1B program.  The H-1B Attorneys of Zneimer & Zneimer provide this brief guidance.

Key Change – New $100,000 Filing Requirement

Effective September 21, 2025 at 12:01 a.m. ET, any new H-1B petition must be accompanied by a $100,000 payment. This requirement applies to:

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Immigration law is never just about paperwork. Meeting the statutory requirements for a benefit such as adjustment of status, naturalization, or certain employment-based petitions does not guarantee approval. In many cases, the final hurdle is discretion. USCIS officers must decide whether to grant a benefit as a matter of judgment, weighing favorable and unfavorable factors under the “totality of circumstances.” This balancing test is open-ended, meaning officers may consider any relevant fact about the applicant’s conduct, history, and ties.

The immigration lawyers at Zneimer & Zneimer, P.C. carefully follow every development in USCIS policy. The latest Policy Alert, issued August 19, 2025 (PA-2025-16), clarifies several areas where discretion plays a decisive role, especially when an applicant has engaged in or supported anti-American or terrorist activities, when parole or admission applications were inconsistent with the law at the time, and in limited employment-based contexts like National Interest Waivers and EB-5 investor petitions.

The Factors USCIS Weighs

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

At Zneimer & Zneimer P.C., our experienced immigration attorneys often guide physicians through the complicated process of moving from a J-1 visa waiver to a green card. Many physicians who secure a Conrad 30 waiver, DHHS waiver, or other J-1 waiver believe they can immediately apply for adjustment of status, but the law is clear that a J-1 physician must complete the full three-year service obligation before filing for a green card through adjustment of status.

Understanding this requirement is critical for avoiding delays, denials, and immigration complications.

Why Does the Three-Year Service Requirement Exist?

The legal foundation comes directly from the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and its regulations.  According to the INA, a physician who received a J-1 waiver based on agreeing to serve in an underserved area may not apply for a green card until completing the required service.  The INA specifically prohibits a J-1 waiver physician from applying for adjustment of status until completing at least three years of full-time employment in a designated shortage area.

Federal regulations bar J-1 waiver physicians from filing Form I-485 until the service is completed and require physicians to submit evidence proving that they have fulfilled the three-year commitment before adjustment of status can be filed.

In other words, physicians cannot adjust status while still working toward completion of their waiver service. Filing early will result in a denial.

Physician National Interest Waivers (PNIW): Is There an Exception?

Some physicians pursue a Physician National Interest Waiver (PNIW) to obtain permanent residence without employer sponsorship. However, even for PNIW applicants, the three-year service completion rule applies. Specifically, the National Interest Waiver for physicians requires:

  • The physician to work full-time in a medically underserved area or a Veterans Affairs facility.
  • The physician to complete either three or five years of service (depending on when the petition was filed).
  • The physician must complete the required service before adjustment of status can be granted.

A physician applying for a PNIW may file the I-140 petition before completing the service. However, the Form I-485 adjustment of status application cannot be approved until the physician satisfies the full three- or five-year service requirement.  USCIS will hold the I-485 pending until the service is completed.  There is no exception that allows a physician who has not completed the service obligation (whether for a J-1 waiver or PNIW) to actually receive a green card through adjustment.

To summarize the NIW and J-1 waiver interaction: Continue reading →

Published on:

By

The immigration lawyers of Zneimer & Zneimer remind noncitizens that effective April 11, 2025, all noncitizens present in the United States for 30 days or longer must comply with updated alien registration requirements under Section 262 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), applicable regulations at 8 CFR Part 264, and Executive Order 14159.

Noncitizens are already registered if they submitted one of the prescribed registration forms listed in 8 CFR 264.1(a) and provided fingerprints (unless fingerprinting was waived), or if they were issued one of the prescribed documents listed in 8 CFR 264.1(b) as evidence of registration.

Forms that are considered Application for Registration Forms (8 CFR 264.1(a)):

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

As January 2025 approaches, individuals and businesses across the United States feel a growing sense of uncertainty surrounding potential changes in U.S. immigration policy. Despite President-Elect Donald Trump’s assurance that Project 2025 will not dictate his administration’s agenda, his recent appointment of Tom Homan, former Acting ICE Director and contributor to Project 2025, as Border Czar suggests that some aspects of Project 2025 may still shape the future of U.S. immigration policy. Drawing on our experiences from the first Trump administration and a careful analysis of Project 2025 recommendations, the Chicago immigration law firm of Zneimer & Zneimer anticipates the return of a stricter immigration enforcement agenda. Here, we provide a closer look at anticipated policy changes, reinstatements, and potential legal options.

Policies Likely to Reappear

  • Increased Requests for Evidence and Denials: During Trump’s first term, USCIS issued an unprecedented number of RFEs and Notices of Intent to Deny, adding complexity to the approval process. This trend could continue, especially in business and family immigration, resulting in possible delays.
  • Mandatory Interviews: Project 2025 favors reinstating in-person interview requirements for adjustment of status, naturalization, and visa applicants, which may further contribute to backlogs and extend processing times.
  • Changes to Forms, Fees, and Filing: Anticipated changes could include updated forms and an emphasis on online filing. Pay.gov issues and unexpected fees, especially those tied to non-asylum applications funding asylum processing, may add unplanned expenses and confusion.
  • Termination of DACA, TPS, and Humanitarian Programs: Project 2025’s recommendations target DACA, TPS, and other humanitarian protections, potentially impacting Afghan, Ukrainian, and other protected individuals.
  • Reduced Asylum and Refugee Admissions: We expect stricter eligibility standards and lower quotas for asylum and refugee admissions, potentially slowing down humanitarian processing.
  • Increased Employer Audits and Site Visits: FDNS site visits and audits may increase, affecting businesses that sponsor foreign workers under programs like H1B and PERM.
  • No Deference to Prior Adjudications: Reinstating a policy that requires all renewal cases to undergo new scrutiny, Project 2025 rejects deference to prior USCIS approvals, adding potential hurdles to previously approved cases.
  • Travel Bans and Security Vetting: Additional security measures, including intensified vetting and administrative processing, could lead to new travel bans and prolonged processing times.
  • Public Charge Requirements: Project 2025 calls for strict public charge criteria, likely reintroducing Form I944 and its stringent financial requirements.
  • Family Detention Policies and the Flores Settlement: Project 2025 aims to overturn the Flores Settlement, which protects immigrant children in detention. Ending Flores could lead to prolonged family detentions and potential family separations, sparking significant litigation efforts.
  • Remain in Mexico Policy: The “Remain in Mexico” policy may reemerge, requiring asylum seekers from Central and South America to wait outside the U.S. while their cases are processed.

New Proposals from Project 2025

  • Deportations and ICE Raids: Project 2025 advocates for expanded ICE operations and deportations, which could strain agency resources.
  • State Cooperation with Immigration Enforcement: FEMA funds could become contingent on state cooperation with ICE, including sharing DMV and other state records.
  • Stricter Eligibility for T and U Visas: Project 2025 proposes heightened eligibility standards for humanitarian visas, including the power to pause certain applications for backlogged visa categories.
  • ICE and USCIS Restructuring: Project 2025 recommends aligning ICE’s mission more closely with immigration enforcement, proposing that USCIS focus primarily on screening and vetting functions.
  • Elimination of T and U Visas: The elimination of visas for trafficking and crime victims under Project 2025 would limit relief to those actively cooperating with law enforcement, favoring the S visa as the primary form of relief.
  • Detention and Bond Reforms: Project 2025 proposes strict guidelines for bond issuance, aiming to prevent noncitizens from “bonding out” before case resolution.
  • Increased Security in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP): ICE may further restrict student visas from countries considered national security risks.
  • Merging Immigration Functions: Project 2025 recommends merging ICE, CBP, and USCIS functions to create a more cohesive enforcement body.
  • Denaturalization and Criminal Investigations Units: The reinstatement of a denaturalization unit within USCIS, in addition to a criminal investigations unit, would aim to address fraud concerns in visa programs prone to exploitation.

Regulatory Agenda Highlights

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

It did not take long. Mere days after the PIP opened, Texas, Idaho, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Wyoming  filed a Complaint for injunction with the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint against the Parole in Place (PIP) Keeping Families Together program, raises arguments that challenge the legality and appropriateness of the program. However, these allegations reveal significant oversights. Zneimer & Zneimer, P.C. has reviewed the complaint and the motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) filed in this case. Our firm remains committed to advocating for the protection of nuclear families, particularly those involving noncitizen members, while strictly adhering to the applicable legal standards and procedures. Through this blog, we aim to offer insights into why preserving these families serves a substantial public interest.

Allegations Challenging the Executive’s Parole Authority 

The complaint alleges that the Department of Homeland Security is overstepping its authority by using parole to allow noncitizens to remain in the United States instead of going for consular processing abroad. It claims that the parole authority should only be exercised on a case-by-case basis for “urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit,” and that the PIP program circumvents this by effectively creating a pathway to permanent residency for a large number of individuals. This argument is grounded in a restrictive interpretation of the parole authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5). The complaint points to the language of the statute, allowing for parole “for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit” and alleges that PIP does not account for this statutory requirement.  It is ironic that the states that claim to support families now argue against a program whose purpose is to prevent the disruption of established families, particularly those involving U.S. citizen children, which falls within the realm of “significant public benefit.” By allowing these families to remain undisrupted, the program indeed addresses urgent humanitarian concerns and promotes social stability, which is a substantial public benefit recognized in both statutory and case law.  Additionally, the complaint’s argument that parole should only be granted in narrowly defined, individual cases overlooks the program’s requirement that each person apply individually and individually qualify for the PIP.  The PIP program does not grant permanent residency or citizenship.  It simply allows individuals to remain with their families while their immigration status is resolved. This approach is humane and legally justified under the existing statutory framework.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

When seeking U.S. permanent residency under the EB-2 visa category, which is designed for individuals with advanced degrees or exceptional abilities, the National Interest Waiver (NIW) presents an option. This waiver essentially waives the job offer requirement and the test of the U.S. market for U.S. worker, assuming the applicant’s endeavor will significantly benefit the United States. However, the complexity and strictness of the evidence required to prove such benefit mean that many applicants fail without adequate legal guidance. Zneimer & Zneimer P.C., a law firm with extensive experience in NIW petitions, has reviewed over two thousand AAO decisions and can spot common pitfalls to avoid RFEs or denials.

Understanding the NIW Criteria

The criteria for an NIW, set by the precedent case In re Dhanasar, are stringent:

Continue reading →
Contact Information
4141 N Western Ave
Chicago, IL 60618
Phone: 773-516-4100
Fax: 773-304-3185

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2014 – 2025, Zneimer & Zneimer, P.C.
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design