Immigration News & Updates Archives - Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq.

Understanding Your Rights During ICE Operations and TPS Uncertainty

Martha Arias — Thu, 23 Jul 2026 20:47:19 +0000

ICE Operations, TPS for El Salvador, and Employment Authorization: What Our Community Should Know?

I want to begin by sincerely thanking Andreina Gándica and the entire team at Buenos Días América for welcoming me and for creating a thoughtful space to discuss questions that are affecting immigrant families, workers, employers, and business owners across the United States.

During our conversation, we addressed several difficult but important subjects: community reactions to ICE operations, the difference between administrative and judicial warrants, the possible consequences of physically interfering with federal officers, the specialized Alien Terrorist Removal Court, the future of Temporary Protected Status for El Salvador, and the employment challenges faced by TPS beneficiaries whose work permits appear to have expired.

These matters require careful explanations. Immigration enforcement policies and court decisions are changing rapidly, and people should not make decisions based on incomplete social media posts, rumors, or general assumptions.

The information below reflects official government sources available as of July 23, 2026.

Community Support Must Remain Peaceful and Lawful

Many people understandably feel compelled to protect their neighbors, employees, customers, friends, or relatives when they witness an immigration enforcement operation. Peaceful support, lawful observation, and expressing disagreement with government policy are different from forcibly interfering with federal officers.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 111, it is a federal offense to forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with certain federal officers while they are performing their official duties. The word “forcibly” is important. Verbal disagreement, peaceful protest, or observing an operation does not automatically establish a violation of this law. The actual conduct, the degree of force or physical interference, and the surrounding circumstances matter.

Pushing an officer, forcibly blocking an officer’s movement, forming a physical barrier that prevents officers from carrying out an arrest, or physically helping someone escape could result in arrest or prosecution depending on the facts. State or local obstruction and resisting-arrest laws may also apply, but those laws differ from one jurisdiction to another.

Separate federal laws may become relevant when a person intentionally conceals or assists someone sought by federal authorities.

18 U.S.C. § 1071 applies when a person harbors or conceals someone for whom a federal arrest warrant or other qualifying process has been issued, knows or has notice of that warrant, and acts with the intent to prevent the person’s discovery or arrest. Merely knowing someone, peacefully warning the public about visible enforcement activity, or expressing opposition to an arrest does not automatically satisfy those elements.

Similarly, 8 U.S.C. § 1324 contains criminal provisions involving knowingly bringing, transporting, concealing, harboring, or shielding certain noncitizens from detection. These offenses contain specific requirements involving conduct, knowledge, reckless disregard, intent, and, in some situations, financial gain. The law does not make every act of friendship, transportation, shelter, community support, or peaceful advocacy a federal crime.

The safest recommendation is simple: do not physically confront, surround, touch, threaten, or attempt to overpower federal officers.

Practical Tips During an Immigration Enforcement Operation

When immigration officers appear at a home, workplace, restaurant, or other location:

Remain calm and do not run, push, threaten, or physically resist.
Do not provide false information, false identification, or fraudulent documents.
Do not destroy, alter, or conceal records.
Do not hide a person or create an escape route.
Ask the officers to identify themselves and explain the purpose of their visit.
Ask to inspect the document or warrant they are relying upon.
Note the name of the person or premises listed, the address, the document title, the issuing official, and whether a judge signed it.
Clearly communicate whether consent to enter or search is or is not being given.
Contact an immigration attorney promptly.
When lawful and without interfering, witnesses may document observable events from a safe location and preserve relevant security-camera footage.

Recording and privacy laws vary by jurisdiction. Documentation should never be performed in a way that obstructs officers or places anyone in physical danger.

Administrative Warrants and Judicial Warrants Are Not the Same

One of the most important questions raised during the interview was whether ICE may enter a home, restaurant, or business without a warrant signed by a judge.

ICE uses civil immigration documents that are commonly called administrative warrants. For example, Form I-200, Warrant for Arrest of Alien, directs authorized immigration officers to arrest a named individual believed to be removable from the United States. Form I-205, Warrant of Removal/Deportation, is generally associated with taking into custody and removing a person who is subject to a final removal order. These documents are ordinarily signed by authorized immigration officers, not by federal judges or magistrate judges.

A judicial warrant is issued by a court and signed by a judge or magistrate judge. An administrative immigration warrant should not be treated as though it were automatically identical to a judicial search warrant.

In February 2026, the Department of Homeland Security publicly announced its position that ICE may use administrative warrants to enter a residence in certain cases involving a person with a final order of removal. DHS stated that ICE was using that authority for residential entry when the targeted person had received a final removal order. This is the federal agency’s stated enforcement position; it should not be described as a universal Supreme Court ruling that every administrative warrant authorizes entry into every residence.

The legality of any particular entry may depend on several issues, including:

The type of document presented;
The person and address named;
Whether the location is actually the named person’s residence;
Whether consent was given;
Whether officers claim an emergency or another exception;
Whether the officers remained within the scope of their asserted authority; and
How the Fourth Amendment applies to the specific facts.

Because the legal and policy landscape is evolving, a person should not attempt to resolve a warrant dispute through physical resistance. Ask to see the document, state clearly whether consent is being given, do not obstruct the officers, and contact counsel immediately.

What About Restaurants and Other Businesses?

A restaurant or business may contain several legally different areas. A dining room, store floor, reception area, or customer lobby that is ordinarily open to the public is not necessarily treated the same as a locked office, employee-only room, kitchen, file room, records area, warehouse, or private residence attached to the property.

Whether officers may enter or search a specific area can depend on whether the area is open to the public, whether consent was given, what warrant or legal authority the officers present, who or what they are seeking, and whether another recognized legal exception applies.

A business owner should establish a response plan before an enforcement visit occurs. Employees should know:

Who is authorized to speak for the business;
Who will contact legal counsel;
Where employment and personnel records are maintained;
Which areas are public and which are restricted;
That no employee should provide false information;
That no employee should destroy records; and
That no one should physically interfere with the officers.

A disagreement over authority should be documented and addressed through counsel and the courts—not through a physical confrontation.

A Necessary Clarification About the Alien Terrorist Removal Court

During the interview, we also discussed what is sometimes described as a “secret court.” The more accurate name is the Alien Terrorist Removal Court of the United States.

According to the court’s official website, Congress created the court in 1996 as a specialized federal court. The Chief Justice of the United States designates five federal district judges to consider government applications seeking the removal of certain noncitizens alleged to fall within federal terrorism-related immigration provisions.

The governing procedures are found in 8 U.S.C. §§ 1531–1537. Certain materials or proceedings may involve classified information or sealed records, which is one reason the court is sometimes characterized as secret.

However, it would be inaccurate and unnecessarily alarming to suggest that peaceful protest, criticism of immigration policy, attending a demonstration, or lawfully observing an ICE operation automatically makes someone a terrorist.

Lawful protest or peaceful disagreement, standing alone, does not establish that a person falls within federal terrorism-related immigration provisions. The government must rely on conduct and legal grounds that satisfy the applicable statutory definitions.

The court received unusual public attention in July 2026. On July 15, 2026, the United States filed an application identified as 2026-TRC-1. The court held a hearing on July 16, 2026. According to the court’s official order, no sworn testimony was taken. The court had questions about the connection the government alleged between the respondent’s actions and the specific statutory provisions being invoked. The government was ordered to supplement the application with additional factual or legal analysis.

This proceeding deserves careful monitoring. Nevertheless, one pending case should not be used to tell ordinary protesters or community members that peaceful civic participation automatically exposes them to terrorism allegations.

Protect Your Documents Before a Problem Occurs

Families and workers should keep organized copies of:

Passports and identification pages;
Employment Authorization Documents;
Form I-797 and Form I-797C notices;
TPS applications and renewal filings;
Proof of filing and delivery;
Immigration court orders and hearing notices;
Prior immigration applications;
Attorney correspondence; and
Documents showing another lawful basis for employment authorization.

Do not rely exclusively on documents saved on a mobile telephone. Keep secure electronic and paper copies that a trusted person can access during an emergency.

A receipt notice is important, but it does not automatically prove continuing employment authorization in every case. Its legal effect depends on the filing date, eligibility category, previous EAD, applicable Federal Register notice, pending application, and current USCIS guidance.

TPS for El Salvador: The Current Legal Situation

The January 17, 2025 Federal Register notice for El Salvador extended the country’s TPS designation for 18 months, from March 10, 2025, through September 9, 2026. The current USCIS El Salvador TPS page also continues to display September 9, 2026, as the announced end of that extension.

There is, however, another important statutory provision.

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(3), the Secretary must review a TPS designation and determine whether the qualifying conditions continue. When the required determination is not made at least 60 days before the designation period ends, the statute provides that the designation is automatically extended for six months. The Supreme Court also described this statutory mechanism in its June 25, 2026 TPS opinion, explaining that when the Secretary takes no action, a TPS designation automatically extends for another six months.

As of July 23, 2026, I have not located a later El Salvador termination or extension determination in the Federal Register. Based on the public official record presently available, the statutory six-month automatic-extension mechanism appears to have been triggered. However, USCIS has not yet updated its El Salvador country page with complete implementation instructions reflecting a later date.

This distinction is important. TPS status and TPS-related documentation are related, but they are not always extended through identical procedures or on identical dates. A statutory extension of a country designation does not necessarily mean that every expired physical EAD may automatically be presented to an employer without additional USCIS or Federal Register guidance.

Salvadoran beneficiaries should therefore:

Monitor the official USCIS country page;
Review new Federal Register notices;
Preserve all TPS and EAD receipt notices;
Avoid assuming that an expired card is automatically valid;
Obtain an individual document review before traveling; and
Speak with an attorney before making employment or immigration decisions.

What the Supreme Court Decided About TPS

On June 25, 2026, the Supreme Court decided Mullin v. Doe, together with Trump v. Miot. Those cases involved challenges to TPS terminations affecting Syria and Haiti—not El Salvador.

The Court held that the TPS statute bars judicial review of the nonconstitutional claims presented in those cases. It also concluded that the equal-protection claim concerning the termination of Haiti’s designation was unlikely to succeed at the interim-relief stage. The lower-court orders postponing the terminations were reversed and the cases were remanded.

That ruling significantly limits certain legal challenges to a Secretary’s TPS designation, termination, or extension determination. It does not necessarily eliminate every possible constitutional claim, and it did not itself terminate TPS for El Salvador.

El Salvador remains governed by its own official notices, the applicable statute, and any later agency action specifically addressing that country.

An Expired EAD Does Not Always Mean the Same Thing

The employment authorization discussion requires particular care because several different extension mechanisms have applied.

The January 2025 El Salvador Federal Register notice automatically extended certain TPS-related EADs with eligible category and expiration dates through March 9, 2026. That blanket Federal Register extension has passed.

A person may nevertheless have had a separate automatic extension based on a timely filed Form I-765 renewal. That is a different mechanism and must be evaluated using the filing date, EAD category, prior card, receipt notice, TPS designation period, and current USCIS rules.

USCIS announced an interim rule effective October 30, 2025, that generally ended automatic EAD extensions for renewal applications filed on or after that date, subject to any separately applicable law, Federal Register notice, or other authorized exception.

USCIS has also explained that TPS-based renewal applications that were pending on or filed after July 22, 2025, but before October 30, 2025, are subject to a separate limitation enacted through H.R. 1. For that group, the automatic extension is limited to one year or the duration of TPS, whichever is shorter. A person cannot simply rely on an older calculation promising a full 540-day extension.

Because the one-year period measured from July 22, 2025, reached its outside date on July 22, 2026, a worker whose authorization depended solely on that capped extension should not assume that the prior 540-day calculation remains valid after that date.

A person may still have continuing employment authorization through:

A newly issued, unexpired EAD;
Another qualifying immigration status;
Another acceptable Form I-9 document;
A separate statutory or Federal Register extension; or
Individual documentation that establishes current authorization.

The correct conclusion cannot be reached by looking only at the expiration date printed on one card or by looking only at a receipt notice.

What Documents Can an Employee Show an Employer?

The Department of Justice Immigrant and Employee Rights Section explains that workers generally choose which acceptable documents to present during the Form I-9 process. A worker may present either an acceptable List A document or a qualifying combination of one List B and one List C document. An employer generally may not demand a specific immigration document based on the worker’s citizenship, immigration status, or national origin.

When a qualifying automatic extension applies, the employee may need to present a combination that includes:

The expired EAD;
The Form I-797C receipt notice for the timely filed renewal;
Matching eligibility categories;
Evidence that the filing date qualifies; and
The properly calculated extension period.

However, the receipt notice by itself does not automatically establish employment authorization in every situation.

The employee may also choose to present other acceptable Form I-9 documentation when available. Employers should review the current USCIS Handbook for Employers and the Form I-9 Lists of Acceptable Documents rather than relying on assumptions about nationality or immigration status.

The Department of Justice states that employers may not, based on citizenship, immigration status, or national origin:

Request more or different documents than Form I-9 requires;
Specify which acceptable documents the worker must present;
Reject documents that reasonably appear genuine and relate to the worker; or
Treat workers differently during reverification.

At the same time, federal law generally prohibits an employer from knowingly continuing to employ a person who is not authorized to work. If an employee cannot establish continuing employment authorization through acceptable documentation or a valid extension, the employer may not simply ignore that issue.

Whether an employer uses suspension, unpaid leave, termination, or another lawful and consistently applied measure may also depend on workplace policies and applicable employment law. Any decision should be handled without unlawful citizenship-status or national-origin discrimination.

Can a Delayed Work Permit Be Expedited?

USCIS accepts expedite requests on a case-by-case basis and generally requires supporting evidence. One recognized criterion is severe financial loss to a person or company. Filing an expedite request does not guarantee faster processing or approval.

A person seeking expedited processing because of a delayed work permit may submit evidence such as:

A letter from the employer identifying a suspension or termination date;
A written job offer that may be withdrawn;
Recent pay statements;
Rent or mortgage obligations;
Essential household expenses;
Medical expenses;
Dependents’ financial needs;
Evidence that insurance or essential benefits will be lost; and
Other records demonstrating immediate and severe financial consequences.

USCIS may distinguish ordinary inconvenience from severe financial loss. The agency also considers whether the need for expedited treatment resulted from the applicant’s failure to file on time or respond to a request.

In my experience, expedite requests can produce different outcomes. Some are granted and lead to faster action; others remain pending or are denied. No attorney can ethically promise that USCIS will grant an expedite request.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can ICE enter my home with an administrative warrant?

DHS publicly announced in February 2026 that ICE was using administrative warrants to enter residences in certain cases involving people with final removal orders. This is the agency’s stated enforcement position, not a universal Supreme Court decision establishing that every administrative warrant permits entry into every residence.

The legal analysis may depend on the document, the named individual, the address, consent, any claimed emergency, and the specific circumstances. Do not physically resist. Ask to inspect the document, clearly state whether consent is being given, and contact an attorney promptly.

Can ICE enter a restaurant or business?

The answer depends in part on whether officers seek access to an area ordinarily open to customers or a private, locked, employee-only, or records area. It may also depend on consent, the document presented, the person or evidence being sought, and any other asserted authority.

A business owner should ask to inspect the warrant or document, contact counsel, and avoid physical interference.

Can someone be arrested for forming a human barrier against ICE?

Yes, depending on the conduct. Federal law prohibits forcibly resisting, impeding, intimidating, or interfering with covered federal officers performing official duties. A physical barrier that forcibly prevents officers from moving or completing an arrest could create criminal exposure. Peaceful protest, verbal disagreement, and lawful observation are not automatically the same as forcible interference.

Is it illegal to warn others that ICE officers are nearby?

Not automatically. Peacefully communicating publicly observable information is not, by itself, identical to physically obstructing an officer, intentionally concealing a person subject to a federal warrant, or knowingly harboring someone in violation of federal law.

Liability depends on the person’s actual actions, knowledge, intent, and the elements of the particular statute.

Does the Supreme Court’s TPS decision automatically end TPS for Salvadorans?

No. The June 25, 2026 Supreme Court decision concerned TPS terminations for Syria and Haiti. It limited judicial review of the nonconstitutional claims presented and rejected interim relief on the equal-protection claim before the Court. It did not independently terminate the El Salvador designation.

Is TPS for El Salvador definitely ending on September 9, 2026?

The current USCIS page still displays September 9, 2026, as the end of the previously announced extension. However, federal law provides for an automatic six-month extension when the Secretary does not make the required determination at least 60 days before the designation period ends.

As of July 23, 2026, I have not located a later El Salvador determination in the Federal Register. Based on the official public record, the statutory automatic-extension mechanism appears to apply, although USCIS has not yet issued complete updated implementation guidance.

Does an extension of TPS automatically extend every work permit?

Not necessarily. The extension of a country’s TPS designation and the extension of a particular physical EAD may arise under different provisions and may have different documentation requirements.

A worker should review the EAD category, printed expiration date, Form I-797C receipt, Form I-765 filing date, applicable Federal Register notice, and current USCIS guidance.

Is my expired EAD valid because I filed a renewal?

Not automatically. Some timely filed renewals may qualify for an automatic extension, but eligibility depends on the filing date, category, prior EAD, receipt notice, TPS period, and current rules.

TPS-related automatic extensions are also subject to the current one-year-or-duration-of-TPS limitation for certain pending or transitional applications.

May my employer demand that I present a new EAD?

An employer generally must allow a worker to choose among the acceptable Form I-9 documents and may not demand a particular document because of the worker’s citizenship, immigration status, or national origin.

The worker must still establish current employment authorization through acceptable documentation.

Can my employer suspend or terminate me if I cannot prove current work authorization?

An employer generally may not knowingly continue employing a person who lacks employment authorization. However, employers must follow Form I-9 rules, accept valid documentation, and avoid discriminatory treatment.

Whether the employer uses leave, suspension, termination, or another lawful measure may depend on workplace policy and other applicable laws.

Will USCIS approve an expedite request because I may lose my job?

Possible job loss or other severe financial consequences may support an expedite request, but approval is discretionary. USCIS evaluates each request individually and usually requires supporting evidence. A request does not guarantee faster processing.

Legal Disclaimer:

This article is provided for general educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, does not create an attorney-client relationship, and should not be relied upon as a substitute for advice based on an individual case.

Immigration enforcement policies, court decisions, employment-verification rules, TPS designations, work-permit extensions, and agency procedures may change rapidly. The correct legal analysis depends on the individual’s documents, filing dates, immigration history, location, employment circumstances, court orders, and procedural posture.

Official statutes, regulations, Federal Register notices, agency guidance, and court orders control over any general summary contained in this article. Individuals and employers should consult qualified legal counsel before taking action.

Martha L. Arias, Esq.
Immigration Law Attorney

Do You Have Questions About ICE, TPS, or a Delayed Work Permit?

When an immigration enforcement encounter, expiring TPS period, delayed employment authorization document, or employer reverification request threatens your family or employment, the actual documents must be reviewed carefully.

You may contact my office at (305) 671-0018 to request a consultation.

Every case is different. Filing dates, immigration history, pending applications, removal orders, work-authorization categories, and prior notices can completely change the legal analysis.

CALL NOW

BOOK AN APPOINTMENT

The post Understanding Your Rights During ICE Operations and TPS Uncertainty appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

Alien Registration Rule

Martha Arias — Wed, 08 Jul 2026 15:35:30 +0000

Alien Registration Rule:

What Immigrants Should Understand Before Taking Action

Many people in our community are hearing about changes related to alien registration requirements and feeling worried. That is understandable. When immigration rules involve registration, fingerprints, forms, and possible enforcement, families want clear information, not rumors.

DHS has issued regulatory updates addressing alien registration requirements under the Immigration and Nationality Act. These rules are intended to clarify how certain noncitizens who may not have previously registered can comply with existing statutory requirements.

The regulations also describe the use of specific forms for collecting biographic information and documenting registration. In some cases, DHS has referenced forms such as Form G-325 (Biographic Information), although the exact forms and procedures may vary depending on the individual’s situation and current USCIS guidance.

This is a serious topic, but it must be handled carefully. Not every person has the same obligation, the same immigration history, or the same risk. Some individuals may already have documents or filings that serve as evidence of registration. Others may need legal guidance before taking any action.

The most important message is this: do not panic, and do not file anything without understanding the consequences.

Immigration history matters. A person’s date of entry, prior applications, prior removal orders, criminal history, current status, pending cases, and family ties can all affect what should be done.

Families should also be cautious about social media advice. Immigration cases are highly individualized, and general advice may not apply to every situation.

If you are unsure whether you are already registered or whether you must take additional steps, speak with a qualified immigration attorney before acting.

Martha L. Arias, Esq.
Immigration Law Attorney

Contact our office to schedule an appointment.

With a passion for immigration law and a commitment to client advocacy, Immigration Law Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq. provides the experienced legal representation for U.S. citizenship, employment and business visas, specialized on investor visas, green card petitions and deportation defense. If you are unsure whether you are already registered or whether you must take additional steps, speak with immigration law attorney Martha Arias before acting.

MIAMI OFFICE:
ARIAS VILLA, PLLC
Address: 9100 S Dadeland Blvd, #510
Miami, FL 33156
Phone: (305) 671-0018
Mobile: (305) 233-3110
Email: martha@ariasvilla.com

OFFICE HOURS:
Monday: 9 AM – 5:30 PM
Tuesday: 9 AM – 6 PM
Wednesday: 9 AM – 6 PM
Thursday: 9 AM – 5:30 PM
Friday: 9 AM – 3 PM
Saturday: Closed
Sunday: Closed

Disclaimer: This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information contained in this post may not reflect the most current legal developments and should not be relied upon as a substitute for consultation with a qualified immigration attorney. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Arias Villa, PLLC or any of its attorneys. Each immigration case is unique, and outcomes depend on the specific facts and circumstances involved. If you have questions about your situation, you should seek legal advice from a licensed attorney.

Martha L. Arias, Esq.
Immigration Law Attorney

Dedicated Immigration Law Attorney

For professional and dedicated immigration legal services, reach out to our immigration attorney Martha Arias and her team at Arias Villa, PLLC. Schedule your consultation today and let us help you achieve your immigration goals.

CALL NOW

BOOK AN APPOINTMENT

The post Alien Registration Rule appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

New USCIS Signature Rule

Martha Arias — Tue, 07 Jul 2026 16:51:21 +0000

New USCIS Signature Rule:

Why Every Immigration Form Must Be Reviewed Carefully Before Filing

A USCIS signature rule taking effect on July 10, 2026, is a reminder of something very simple but very important in immigration law: every signature matters.

The Department of Homeland Security has amended its regulations to clarify that if USCIS accepts an immigration benefit request and later determines that it does not have a valid signature, USCIS may, in its discretion, reject or deny the request. The rule is intended to clarify USCIS procedures for handling benefit requests that do not meet signature requirements.

This may sound like a technical issue, but for immigrants, families, employers, and investors, a missing or incorrect signature can have serious consequences. Immigration filings often involve strict deadlines, supporting evidence, filing fees, and legal eligibility questions. When a form is rejected or denied because of a signature issue, the person may lose valuable time, miss a deadline, or face unnecessary stress.

This rule can affect many different types of immigration filings, including family petitions, green card applications, work permit applications, naturalization applications, asylum-related filings, and employment-based immigration requests.

What should applicants do now?

First, never assume that a form is complete simply because the answers have been filled in. Before filing, every page should be reviewed carefully. The correct person must sign the correct form in the correct place. If a parent, legal guardian, preparer, interpreter, petitioner, beneficiary, employer, or attorney must sign a particular section, that section must be handled properly.

Second, applicants should be careful when using older forms, copied forms, online templates, or incomplete packets. USCIS forms and instructions can change, and one missing signature can create avoidable problems.

Third, families should understand that immigration paperwork is part of a legal process. A signature generally confirms that the person understands the filing and certifies that the information is true and correct.

For employers and business immigration cases, this rule is also important. A company representative, petitioner, applicant, or attorney may each have different signature responsibilities depending on the case type.

My advice is simple: before sending any immigration filing to USCIS, review the entire packet carefully. Make sure the correct edition of the form is being used and that all required signatures are present.

Martha L. Arias, Esq.
Immigration Law Attorney

Schedule a Consultation with Immigration Attorney

Immigration law is already stressful enough. A person should not lose time or opportunity because of a preventable filing mistake.

If you are preparing an immigration filing and are unsure whether your forms, documents, or signatures are complete, it is wise to speak with an immigration attorney before submitting the case.

For professional and dedicated immigration legal services, reach out to our team at Arias Villa, PLLC. Schedule your consultation today and let us help you achieve your immigration goals.

CALL NOW

BOOK AN APPOINTMENT

This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship. Immigration laws and policies change frequently, and the information provided may not reflect the most current legal developments. Every case is unique, and you should not rely on this information as a substitute for personalized legal advice. If you have questions about your specific situation, you should consult with a qualified immigration attorney.

The post New USCIS Signature Rule appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

The U.S. Supreme Court Upholds The Birthright Citizenship

Martha Arias — Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:22:52 +0000

Supreme Court Upholds Birthright Citizenship: What Families Should Know

In my recent conversation today with Radio Caracol, we discussed one of the most important immigration and constitutional issues affecting families in the United States: birthright citizenship.

On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Trump v. Barbara. The Court held that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.

This decision is important because the Fourteenth Amendment states that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States and of the state where they reside. The executive order at issue attempted to deny citizenship to certain children born in the United States based on the immigration status or temporary presence of their parents. The Supreme Court rejected that interpretation.

For many families, this decision brings clarity. Children who were born in the United States continue to be recognized as U.S. citizens, even if their parents were undocumented or were temporarily present in the country at the time of birth.

However, it is very important to understand what this decision does not do. A U.S. citizen child does not automatically give lawful immigration status to the parents, does not automatically stop deportation, and does not automatically create a green card case for the parents.

A U.S. citizen generally must be at least 21 years old to petition for a parent. USCIS explains this requirement on its official page about bringing parents to live in the United States as permanent residents. In most family-based cases, the process begins with Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, but USCIS also explains that filing or approval of Form I-130 does not, by itself, give the relative immigration status or an immigration benefit. Families should also review the government’s general explanation of family-based immigration and sponsoring a relative.

During the interview, I also explained that this decision should not be confused with approval of “birth tourism.” The U.S. Department of State has stated that consular officers will deny a B visa application when they have reason to believe the applicant is traveling primarily to give birth in the United States to obtain U.S. citizenship for the child. You can read the State Department’s guidance here: Birth Tourism Update.

FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA

Immigration law is deeply personal because it affects children, parents, homes, businesses, and futures. A headline may sound simple, but the consequences for each family can be very different. The correct legal answer often depends on the person’s entry history, current status, prior immigration record, possible inadmissibility issues, and whether the case must be handled inside the United States or through a U.S. consulate abroad.

Martha L. Arias, Esq.
Immigration Law Attorney

Dedicated Immigration Law Attorney in Kendall

If you have questions about birthright citizenship, family petitions, consular processing, adjustment of status, or another immigration matter, I encourage you to seek legal guidance based on your specific situation.

For professional immigration legal services, call U.S. Immigration Law Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq. and schedule your consultation today and let us help you achieve your immigration goals.

CALL NOW

BOOK AN APPOINTMENT

Disclaimer: This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this information does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every immigration case is different, and you should consult with an immigration attorney about your specific circumstances.

ORIGINAL TRANSCRIPT:

RADIO CARACOL:
Bueno, Martha, vamos a explicarle a la audiencia qué significa jurídicamente esto que acabo de leer sobre la decisión de la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos.

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Bueno, la decisión de la Corte fue una decisión muy específica. La pregunta que se le hizo a la Corte Suprema fue si las personas que nacen en Estados Unidos, de padres indocumentados o de personas que están temporalmente presentes en el país, si esos niños son ciudadanos americanos.

La Corte dijo que sí. ¿Por qué? Porque esas personas están sujetas a las leyes o a la jurisdicción de Estados Unidos. La Enmienda 14 de la Constitución de Estados Unidos dice que todas las personas que nacen en Estados Unidos están sujetas a la jurisdicción del país y si residen dentro del pais, son ciudadanos americanos.

El gobierno, cuando emitió esa acción ejecutiva el año pasado, sostuvo que los hijos nacidos de padres indocumentados, o de personas que estaban temporalmente en Estados Unidos, no eran ciudadanos americanos porque, según esa interpretación, no estaban sujetos a la jurisdicción de Estados Unidos porque no residian en Estados Unidos.

El que estaba indocumentado segun esta interpretacion no esta bajo juridiccion y el que esta solo temporalmente, no reside dentro de los Estados Unidos. Esto era como la interpretacion de ese memorandum de la administracion.

La Corte estuvo en desacuerdo. La Corte dijo que no; que la Enmienda establece claramente que las personas que nacen dentro de Estados Unidos están sujetas a las leyes y a la jurisdicción de este país. Entonces, esa interpretación, “sujeto a la jurisdicción”, fue básicamente lo que se interpretó.

RADIO CARACOL:
Bueno, Martha Arias, abogada de inmigración, ¿quiénes se benefician directamente con esta decisión? ¿Aplica para hijos de inmigrantes indocumentados, para personas que están con visas de turismo, estudiantes o de trabajo? ¿Quiénes se benefician directamente?

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Se benefician todos. Fíjate que esto tiene un efecto hacia atrás y hacia adelante, es decir, es retroactivo porque aplica para el pasado y para el futuro, a menos que el Congreso determine otra cosa.

Los hijos de inmigrantes indocumentados que han nacido en el país son ciudadanos americanos. Imagínate si la Corte hubiera dicho otra cosa. Básicamente, medio Estados Unidos se podría desocupar, porque ¿cómo se le va a quitar la ciudadanía a todas esas personas que ya nacieron aquí y que siempre se han considerado ciudadanos?

RADIO CARACOL:
Claro, esa era precisamente la pregunta que te iba a hacer. ¿Qué habría pasado si la Corte hubiera respaldado la orden del presidente Trump? Imagínate.

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:

Un día me senté a tomarme un cafecito en la mañana y a pensar en eso. Me decía: vamos a suponer que se diera esa locura de que la Corte dijera que no tienen ese derecho. ¿Cuántos millones de ciudadanos de Estados Unidos serían despojados de su ciudadanía? ¿Qué impacto económico, social y de todo tipo podría tener eso?

Imagínate que, por decir una cifra baja, cinco millones de personas recibieran una notificación diciéndoles: “Mire, señor, usted ya no es ciudadano americano. Venda su casa, venda su carro, coja su maleta y váyase”. Personas que tienen títulos universitarios, empresas, empleados, familias y toda una vida construida aquí.

Yo pensaba en cuál sería el impacto de eso y realmente me parecía abrumador. No creo haber escuchado que algo así haya pasado en ninguna parte del mundo.

El efecto de esta decisión, entonces, es que todos aquellos que nacieron aquí, aunque sus padres fueran indocumentados, siguen siendo ciudadanos americanos.

Ahora, en segundo lugar, quienes vienen temporalmente y, por una emergencia o alguna circunstancia, tienen hijos aquí, también tendrían hijos ciudadanos americanos. Pero ahí sí yo les diría a las personas que tengan cautela y que no vengan a tener hijos a Estados Unidos con ese propósito, porque eso tampoco es correcto.

Esa es una de las razones por las que algunas personas apoyaban la iniciativa o la acción ejecutiva del presidente. Claro, a nadie le parece correcto que exista turismo de embarazo o turismo por nacimiento.

RADIO CARACOL:
Para allá iba yo con una pregunta más adelante. Estaba leyendo un artículo de The Guardian donde se menciona que, tras este fallo, el presidente Trump y algunos aliados estarían buscando la forma de hacerlo por vía legislativa, aunque enfrentarían importantes obstáculos constitucionales.

Por tu experiencia, Martha, ¿crees que esta decisión es definitiva?

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Desde mi conocimiento legal y de jurisprudencia, considero que, bajo la Constitución de este país, es definitiva. Sin embargo, todos sabemos que el Congreso de un país, concretamente aquí en Estados Unidos, puede cambiar la Constitución.

Ahora bien, eso se ha hecho muy pocas veces. La Constitución de Estados Unidos es una de las cartas magnas que más ha perdurado en el tiempo y no ha tenido tantas modificaciones.

La Corte Suprema interpreta la Constitución, pero no la cambia. En este caso, el Congreso también tiene que seguir la Constitución, porque el Congreso no puede emitir leyes inconstitucionales.

Entonces, si la Corte ya dijo que esto es constitucional, yo no soy constitucionalista, obviamente, pero pienso que va a ser muy complicado que el Congreso pueda modificar la Constitución para cambiar esto.

Ahora, el gobierno, el Ejecutivo en este caso, sí tiene todo el derecho de actuar de otra forma. De hecho, ya lo estaba haciendo.

Por ejemplo, cuando mujeres embarazadas entran a Estados Unidos para tener sus hijos aquí y luego el consulado se da cuenta, he conocido muchos casos en mi oficina en los que les cancelan las visas. También les exigen mostrar prueba de que pagaron el parto, porque muchas de ellas venían, tenían a sus hijos con Medicaid y luego se iban.

Entonces, todo va en su punto medio. Creo que muchas personas estamos de acuerdo en decir que quienes pagamos impuestos en Estados Unidos no tenemos por qué pagar el parto de una señora que quiere venir únicamente a tener su hijo aquí.

RADIO CARACOL:
Sí, eso es el famoso turismo por nacimiento. Incluso se dice que ofrecían paquetes turísticos para que las mujeres vinieran a tener sus hijos acá. Los niños nacían, eran ciudadanos americanos, y después se iban sin pagar la cuenta.

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Exactamente. Eso los consulados lo han tomado con mucho cuidado y, como te digo, están negando visas y también están quitando visas.

Yo tuve clientes que me llamaban y me decían: “Es que nosotros ya teníamos todo preparado, nos debemos ir”. Y yo les decía: “Me parece que ustedes no deben hacer eso”.

Incluso, muchos de ellos tenían a uno de los padres como ciudadano americano. Y en esos casos yo les decía: si ustedes son ciudadanos americanos, ese hijo, aunque nazca fuera de Estados Unidos, también puede ser ciudadano americano por el padre o la madre. Entonces, no hay necesidad de incurrir en eso.

Sé que este tema es controversial y no a todo el mundo le cae bien, pero así es. En muchos países del mundo, la persona que nace en ese país adquiere la ciudadanía de ese país. Son pocos los países cuya Constitución establece reglas distintas. Por ejemplo, Alemania tiene reglas más estrictas sobre este tema.

Me parece que va a ser complicado para el Congreso cambiar esto. Y si miramos el tiempo que le queda al Congreso actual, teniendo elecciones en noviembre, creo que el tiempo es corto para lograr un cambio constitucional de esta naturaleza.

RADIO CARACOL:
Martha, como el tiempo apremia, ahora vamos a dar tu número telefónico porque hay muchas preguntas e inquietudes sobre este tema y sobre otros asuntos de inmigración.

Me están escribiendo por Instagram una persona pregunta si esta decisión cambia algo para los procesos migratorios de los padres. Es decir, ¿el hecho de que un hijo sea ciudadano protege automáticamente a sus padres?

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
El hijo que es ciudadano americano puede pedir a sus padres, y puede continuar haciéndolo. Ahora, si esos padres están indocumentados y el hijo todavía no tiene 21 años, eso no los protege automáticamente. El hijo tiene que esperar hasta cumplir 21 años para poder pedir a sus padres.

Y si el padre o la madre entró ilegalmente a Estados Unidos, tampoco significa que esté protegido simplemente porque el hijo sea ciudadano. Lo pueden deportar igual.

Pero, en términos de petición familiar, sí: el hijo ciudadano americano puede pedir a sus padres cuando tenga 21 años o después de cumplir los 21 años.

RADIO CARACOL:
Claro que sí. Pues vamos a hacer lo siguiente. En temas de inmigración hay mucha desinformación, especialmente con este tema de la Corte. Si usted quiere estar bien informado, si conoce a alguien que tenga una situación relacionada con un niño que nació aquí y es ciudadano americano, o si hay nerviosismo en su familia por este tema, lo invito a que se comunique con la abogada Martha Arias.

Ella es abogada de inmigración y tiene muchísima experiencia para responder preguntas sobre este tema y sobre otros asuntos migratorios.

Martha, vamos a dar muy despacio tus datos, tu número telefónico y tus redes sociales para que la audiencia de Caracol se comunique contigo.

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Claro. El número telefónico es 305-671-0018. Repito: 305-671-0018. Tenemos otro número que es el 305-233-3110

Mi página web es [www.ariasvilla.com](http://www.ariasvilla.com). También pueden buscarme en Google escribiendo “Martha Arias, abogada de inmigración” o “Martha Arias immigration attorney”.

En Instagram nos pueden seguir como @martha_arias98.

RADIO CARACOL:
Perfecto. Y en tu página también estás compartiendo mucha información.

Parece que hemos perdido comunicación con la abogada Martha Arias, pero repito el número telefónico: 305-671-0018. Nuevamente, 305-671-0018. Ese es el número telefónico de la abogada de inmigración Martha Arias.

Si usted tiene esta inquietud o cualquier otra pregunta de inmigración, si conoce a un familiar o a un amigo que necesite orientación, puede comunicarse con ella. Repito: 305-671-0018. Ese es el número telefónico de la abogada de inmigración Martha Arias.

HOST:
Well, Martha, let’s explain to the audience what this legally means, what I just read about the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States.

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Well, the decision of the Court was a very specific decision. The question that was asked to the Supreme Court was whether people who are born in the United States, of undocumented parents or of people who are temporarily present in the country, whether those children are American citizens.

The Court said yes. Why? Because those people are subject to the laws or to the jurisdiction of the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States says that all people who are born in the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the country and if they reside within the country, they are American citizens.

The government, when it issued that executive action last year, maintained that the children born of undocumented parents, or of people who were temporarily in the United States, were not American citizens because, according to that interpretation, they were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because they did not reside in the United States.

The person who was undocumented, according to this interpretation, is not under jurisdiction, and the person who is only temporarily here does not reside within the United States. This was like the interpretation of that memorandum of the administration.

The Court disagreed. The Court said no; that the Amendment clearly establishes that people who are born inside the United States are subject to the laws and to the jurisdiction of this country. So, that interpretation, “subject to the jurisdiction,” was basically what was interpreted.

HOST:
Well, Martha Arias, immigration attorney, who benefits directly from this decision? Does it apply to children of undocumented immigrants, to people who are here with tourist visas, student visas, or work visas? Who benefits directly?

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Everyone benefits. Notice that this has an effect backward and forward, that is, it is retroactive because it applies to the past and to the future, unless Congress determines otherwise.

The children of undocumented immigrants who have been born in the country are American citizens. Imagine if the Court had said something else. Basically, half of the United States could empty out, because how are we going to take citizenship away from all those people who were already born here and who have always been considered citizens?

HOST:
Of course, that was precisely the question I was going to ask you. What would have happened if the Court had supported President Trump’s order? Imagine.

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
One day I sat down to have a little coffee in the morning and to think about that. I said to myself: let’s suppose that this craziness happened, that the Court said they do not have that right. How many millions of citizens of the United States would be stripped of their citizenship? What economic, social, and all kinds of impact could that have?

Imagine that, to say a low number, five million people received a notice telling them: “Look, sir, you are no longer an American citizen. Sell your house, sell your car, grab your suitcase and leave.” People who have university degrees, businesses, employees, families, and an entire life built here.

I thought about what the impact of that would be, and it really seemed overwhelming to me. I do not think I have heard that something like that has happened anywhere in the world.

The effect of this decision, then, is that all those who were born here, even if their parents were undocumented, continue to be American citizens.

Now, secondly, those who come temporarily and, because of an emergency or some circumstance, have children here, would also have American citizen children. But there I would tell people to be cautious and not to come to the United States to have children with that purpose, because that is not correct either.

That is one of the reasons why some people supported the initiative or the executive action of the president. Of course, it does not seem correct to anyone that pregnancy tourism or birth tourism should exist.

HOST:
That is where I was going with a question later. I was reading an article from The Guardian where it mentions that, after this ruling, President Trump and some allies would be looking for a way to do it through legislation, although they would face important constitutional obstacles.

From your experience, Martha, do you believe this decision is definitive?

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
From my legal knowledge and jurisprudence, I consider that, under the Constitution of this country, it is definitive. However, we all know that the Congress of a country, specifically here in the United States, can change the Constitution.

Now, that has been done very few times. The Constitution of the United States is one of the fundamental charters that has endured the most over time and has not had so many modifications.

The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, but it does not change it. In this case, Congress also has to follow the Constitution, because Congress cannot issue unconstitutional laws.

So, if the Court already said that this is constitutional, I am not a constitutional attorney, obviously, but I think it is going to be very complicated for Congress to be able to modify the Constitution to change this.

Now, the government, the Executive in this case, does have every right to act in another way. In fact, it was already doing so.

For example, when pregnant women enter the United States to have their children here and then the consulate finds out, I have known many cases in my office in which their visas are canceled. They are also required to show proof that they paid for the delivery, because many of them came, had their children with Medicaid, and then left.

So, everything goes in its middle point. I believe that many people agree in saying that those of us who pay taxes in the United States do not have to pay for the delivery of a woman who wants to come only to have her child here.

HOST:
Yes, that is the famous birth tourism. It is even said that tourist packages were offered so that women would come to have their children here. The children were born, they were American citizens, and then they left without paying the bill.

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Exactly. The consulates have taken that very carefully and, as I tell you, they are denying visas and also taking visas away.

I had clients who called me and told me: “It is that we already had everything prepared, we should go.” And I told them: “It seems to me that you should not do that.”

Even many of them had one of the parents as an American citizen. And in those cases I told them: if you are American citizens, that child, even if born outside the United States, may also be an American citizen because the father or mother is a citizen. So, there is no need to incur in that.

I know this topic is controversial and it does not sit well with everyone, but that is how it is. In many countries of the world, the person who is born in that country acquires the citizenship of that country. There are few countries whose Constitution establishes different rules. For example, Germany has stricter rules about this topic.

It seems to me that it is going to be complicated for Congress to change this. And if we look at the time that the current Congress has left, with elections in November, I believe the time is short to achieve a constitutional change of this nature.

HOST:
Martha, since time is pressing, now we are going to give your telephone number because there are many questions and concerns about this topic and about other immigration matters.

People are writing to me on Instagram, and one person asks whether this decision changes something for the immigration processes of the parents. That is, does the fact that a child is a citizen automatically protect his or her parents?

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
The child who is an American citizen can petition for his or her parents, and can continue doing so. Now, if those parents are undocumented and the child is not yet 21 years old, that does not protect them automatically. The child has to wait until turning 21 years old to be able to petition for his or her parents.

And if the father or the mother entered the United States illegally, it also does not mean that he or she is protected simply because the child is a citizen. They can be deported anyway.

But, in terms of a family petition, yes: the American citizen child can petition for his or her parents when he or she is 21 years old or after turning 21 years old.

HOST:
Of course. Well, we are going to do the following. In immigration topics there is a lot of misinformation, especially with this topic of the Court. If you want to be well informed, if you know someone who has a situation related to a child who was born here and is an American citizen, or if there is nervousness in your family about this topic, I invite you to communicate with attorney Martha Arias.

She is an immigration attorney and has a great deal of experience answering questions about this topic and about other immigration matters.

Martha, we are going to give your information very slowly, your telephone number and your social media, so that the Caracol audience can communicate with you.

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Of course. The telephone number is 305-671-0018. I repeat: 305-671-0018. We have another number, which is 305-233-3110.

My website is www.ariasvilla.com. You can also look for me on Google by writing “Martha Arias, immigration attorney” or “Martha Arias immigration attorney.”

On Instagram you can follow us as @martha_arias98.

HOST:
Perfect. And on your page you are also sharing a lot of information.

It seems that we have lost communication with immigration attorney Martha Arias, but I repeat the telephone number: 305-671-0018. Again, 305-671-0018. That is the telephone number of immigration attorney Martha Arias.

If you have this concern or any other immigration question, if you know a family member or a friend who needs guidance, you can communicate with her. I repeat: 305-671-0018. That is the telephone number of immigration attorney Martha Arias.

The post The U.S. Supreme Court Upholds The Birthright Citizenship appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

Breaking: Supreme Court rejects limits on birthright citizenship.

Martha Arias — Tue, 30 Jun 2026 17:18:15 +0000

Breaking Immigration News: The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against President Trump’s proposed restrictions on birthright citizenship.

The Court’s decision reaffirms that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment.

This is an important constitutional and immigration law development. I will continue reviewing the full opinion and will share a more detailed explanation soon.

For immigration guidance, please speak with a qualified immigration attorney about your specific situation.

The post Breaking: Supreme Court rejects limits on birthright citizenship. appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

Supreme Court TPS Decision & What TPS Holders Can Do Now

Martha Arias — Tue, 30 Jun 2026 12:35:19 +0000

Last Updated: June 30, 2026

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued an important immigration decision involving Temporary Protected Status, commonly known as TPS, for Haitian and Syrian nationals. This decision may affect many families who have been living and working in the United States under TPS protection.

On June 25, 2026, the Supreme Court decided Mullin v. Doe, consolidated with Trump v. Miot, and held that the TPS statute bars judicial review of many non-constitutional challenges to the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to terminate a country’s TPS designation. You can read the official Supreme Court decision here: Mullin v. Doe, 25-1083 and 25-1084.

This does not mean every TPS holder has the same immigration situation. It also does not mean that every TPS holder is without options. But it does mean that affected TPS holders should take this moment seriously and review their immigration history, family connections, employment possibilities, pending applications, and any other legal path that may be available.

At the same time, we are also watching the Supreme Court closely for the pending birthright citizenship ruling in Trump v. Barbara, a separate case involving Executive Order 14160 and citizenship for certain children born in the United States. The official Supreme Court docket for that case is available here: Trump v. Barbara, No. 25-365. I will address that case separately in a full article once the Court issues its final ruling.

What Is Temporary Protected Status?

Temporary Protected Status is a temporary immigration protection available to eligible nationals of certain countries when conditions in those countries make return unsafe or impractical. According to the official USCIS Temporary Protected Status page, TPS may allow eligible individuals to remain in the United States, obtain work authorization, and request travel authorization while the country’s TPS designation remains in effect and while the person continues to meet TPS requirements.

It is important to understand that TPS is temporary. DHS and USCIS have repeatedly stated in official notices that TPS does not, by itself, lead to lawful permanent residence or another immigration status. In the Federal Register notice terminating Syria’s TPS designation, DHS explained that TPS beneficiaries may remain in the United States and work during the designation period, but that “the granting of Temporary Protected Status does not result in or lead to lawful permanent resident status or any other immigration status.” You can review the official Syria notice here: Termination of the Designation of Syria for Temporary Protected Status.

What Did the Supreme Court Decide?

In Mullin v. Doe, the Supreme Court ruled that the TPS statute limits judicial review of many challenges to DHS decisions involving the designation, termination, or extension of TPS for a foreign country. The Court stated that 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(5)(A) bars judicial review of non-constitutional claims connected to those determinations. The official opinion is available here: Supreme Court Opinion: Mullin v. Doe.

The Court also concluded that the Haitian TPS respondents were not entitled to interim relief on their equal protection claim. In practical terms, the decision reverses the lower-court interim relief that had postponed the TPS terminations during litigation.

This ruling is significant because it may affect how courts handle future challenges to TPS terminations for other countries as well. However, each TPS designation, each Federal Register notice, and each person’s immigration history must still be reviewed carefully.

Who Is Directly Affected by This Decision?

This decision directly involved litigation over the termination of TPS designations for Haiti and Syria.

For Haiti, DHS published a Federal Register notice terminating Haiti’s TPS designation effective February 3, 2026. That notice is available here: Termination of the Designation of Haiti for Temporary Protected Status. USCIS also maintains a country-specific page for Haiti TPS updates here: USCIS TPS Haiti.

For Syria, DHS published a Federal Register notice terminating Syria’s TPS designation effective November 21, 2025. That notice is available here: Termination of the Designation of Syria for Temporary Protected Status. USCIS also maintains a country-specific page for Syria TPS updates here: USCIS TPS Syria.

If you are from Haiti or Syria and have TPS, you should not rely only on general news reports. You should check the official USCIS country page, review your notices, and speak with an immigration attorney about your specific situation.

What Happens When TPS Ends?

When a TPS designation ends, the consequences depend on the person’s individual immigration history.

DHS has stated in official Federal Register notices that when a country’s TPS designation is terminated, TPS beneficiaries generally return to the same immigration status or category they had before TPS, if that status still exists, or to another lawful immigration status they obtained while they had TPS. The Federal Register explains this principle clearly in official TPS notices, including the Syria TPS termination notice: Federal Register Syria TPS Termination Notice.

For some people, that may mean they still have another valid immigration status. For others, it may mean they no longer have lawful status after TPS ends. Some may also have pending applications, family petitions, employment-based possibilities, asylum-related claims, or immigration court cases.

That is why a personal legal review is very important. TPS holders should not assume that one answer applies to everyone.

What Can a TPS Holder Do Now in the United States?

The most important step is to review possible immigration options before there is an emergency. Below are several areas that TPS holders may need to evaluate.

1. Review Family-Based Immigration Options

Some TPS holders may have a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse, parent, adult child, or other qualifying family member who may be able to file a family-based petition. USCIS provides official information about family immigration here: USCIS Family of U.S. Citizens and here: USCIS Green Card Eligibility Categories.

Family-based options depend on many facts, including how the person entered the United States, whether they were inspected and admitted or paroled, whether they have prior removal orders, whether they have unlawful presence issues, and whether any waivers may be required.

2. Review Adjustment of Status Possibilities

Some people may be eligible to apply for a green card from inside the United States through adjustment of status. USCIS explains the adjustment process here: USCIS Adjustment of Status.

Adjustment of status is not available to everyone. A person’s manner of entry, visa history, family relationship, employment petition, criminal history, immigration violations, and prior orders of removal may all affect eligibility. TPS alone does not automatically create adjustment eligibility, so this should be reviewed carefully.

3. Review Employment-Based Immigration Options

Some TPS holders may have employers who are willing to sponsor them for employment-based immigration. USCIS provides official information about employment-based immigrant categories here: USCIS Permanent Workers.

Employment-based immigration can involve several steps, including employer sponsorship, labor certification in some categories, immigrant petitions, visa availability, adjustment of status, or consular processing. Employers and workers should review the timing carefully because the end of TPS may affect work authorization and long-term planning.

4. Review Asylum or Other Humanitarian Protection

Some individuals may fear return to their country because of persecution, violence, political opinion, religion, nationality, race, or membership in a particular social group. USCIS provides official information about asylum here: USCIS Asylum.

Asylum is a separate legal process from TPS. It has its own deadlines, evidence requirements, risks, and legal standards. People who fear return should not assume that TPS automatically becomes asylum. They should seek legal guidance to understand whether asylum, withholding of removal, Convention Against Torture protection, or another form of relief may apply.

5. Review Any Immigration Court Case

If a TPS holder has ever been in removal proceedings, received a Notice to Appear, missed a hearing, or had an immigration judge issue an order, that history must be reviewed. The Executive Office for Immigration Review provides an official online case information system here: EOIR Automated Case Information.

A prior removal order can create serious complications. It may affect adjustment of status, travel, detention risk, and eligibility for certain applications. Anyone with immigration court history should not wait until TPS ends to review the record.

6. Review Work Authorization and I-9 Issues

TPS work authorization can become complicated when litigation, Federal Register notices, and automatic extensions overlap. USCIS provides official information for employers and employees through I-9 Central here: USCIS I-9 Central.

TPS holders should keep copies of their Employment Authorization Documents, USCIS receipts, approval notices, and any official automatic-extension notices. Employers should be careful to follow official USCIS and I-9 guidance rather than making assumptions based only on news reports.

7. Be Careful With Travel

TPS holders should not travel outside the United States without legal advice. Even when travel authorization is available, travel can create risks depending on a person’s immigration history, prior unlawful presence, removal orders, criminal issues, pending applications, or future adjustment strategy.

USCIS explains that TPS beneficiaries may request travel authorization as a matter of discretion on its official TPS page: USCIS Temporary Protected Status. But permission to request travel authorization does not mean travel is safe for every person.

Call Today for Your Immigration Related Questions

If you have TPS and are concerned about how the Supreme Court decision may affect your future in the United States, legal guidance may help you understand your options before urgent problems arise.

Reach out to our Immigration Law Attorney Martha Arias and her team at Arias Villa, PLLC. Schedule your consultation today and let us help you achieve your immigration goals.

Stay informed. Keep your documents organized. Do not rely on rumors when your family, work authorization, and future may be affected.

CALL NOW

BOOK AN APPOINTMENT

What Documents Should TPS Holders Organize Now?

TPS holders should gather and organize important documents, including:

TPS approval notices
Employment Authorization Documents
USCIS receipts
Passport and identity documents
I-94 records, if available
Proof of entry or parole
Family immigration petitions
Marriage, birth, divorce, and death certificates
Tax records
Employment records
Criminal court records, if any
Immigration court documents, if any
Prior removal orders, if any
Evidence of residence in the United States
Any pending USCIS, EOIR, or Department of State filings

Having these records ready can make a legal consultation much more productive and may help avoid delays.

Birthright Citizenship Ruling Watch

Separately, many families are also waiting for the Supreme Court’s decision in the birthright citizenship case, Trump v. Barbara. That case involves Executive Order 14160 and the question of whether the federal government may limit recognition of U.S. citizenship for certain children born in the United States.

The Supreme Court docket for Trump v. Barbara is available here: Trump v. Barbara, No. 25-365. The prior Supreme Court decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc. addressed universal injunctions, but the Court stated that it was not deciding whether Executive Order 14160 violates the Citizenship Clause or federal citizenship law. You can review that official decision here: Trump v. CASA, Inc..

As of this article, we are watching closely for a final Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. Barbara. Families should not assume the law has changed until the Supreme Court issues its final decision and the government provides official implementation guidance. I will address that issue separately in a full article after the Supreme Court decision.

Frequently Asked Questions

Did the Supreme Court end TPS for everyone?

No. The Supreme Court decision involved TPS terminations for Haiti and Syria. However, the decision may affect how future TPS termination challenges are handled because the Court interpreted the TPS statute’s judicial-review limitation broadly. TPS holders from other countries should review the official USCIS TPS country pages and not assume that every country is affected in the same way.

Does TPS automatically lead to a green card?

No. USCIS and DHS have stated in official TPS guidance and Federal Register notices that TPS does not by itself lead to lawful permanent residence or another immigration status. However, some TPS holders may have a separate family-based, employment-based, humanitarian, or other immigration option.

If I have TPS from Haiti or Syria, should I leave the United States immediately?

Do not make that decision based only on general news. Leaving the United States may create serious immigration consequences depending on your case. Before making travel or departure decisions, review your immigration history, work authorization, family petitions, court history, and possible relief with a qualified immigration attorney.

Can I still work if my TPS-related work permit has not expired?

Work authorization depends on your document, country designation, applicable Federal Register notices, and any official USCIS updates. TPS holders should review the official USCIS TPS country page and I-9 guidance. Employers should follow USCIS I-9 Central guidance and avoid making assumptions without checking official instructions.

Can a U.S. citizen spouse or child help a TPS holder apply for a green card?

Possibly, but not always. A qualifying family relationship may help in some cases, but eligibility depends on many facts, including entry history, inspection or parole, unlawful presence, prior removal orders, criminal history, and whether a waiver is needed. Family sponsorship should be reviewed individually.

Can a TPS holder apply for asylum?

Possibly, if the person meets the legal standard and procedural requirements. Asylum is separate from TPS. It requires a fear of persecution based on a protected ground and has important filing rules and evidence requirements. People who fear return should seek legal guidance before filing or delaying action.

What if I already have an immigration court case?

You should check your case status through the official EOIR system and speak with an immigration attorney. Missing a hearing or ignoring a court order can have serious consequences. TPS holders with court history should review their complete immigration record as soon as possible.

Should TPS holders apply for anything right now?

It depends on the person’s facts. Some may need to file a family petition, adjustment application, employment petition, asylum application, motion, waiver, or another request. Others may need to wait for official guidance or gather documents first. The important point is to evaluate options early, not after documents expire or removal risk increases.

Does the TPS decision affect the birthright citizenship case?

No. These are separate legal issues. The TPS decision concerns Temporary Protected Status and judicial review of DHS termination decisions. The birthright citizenship case concerns citizenship for certain children born in the United States. We are watching the birthright citizenship ruling closely and will address it separately.

What is the safest next step for a TPS holder?

The safest next step is to organize your documents, confirm your official TPS country guidance, review whether you have another lawful status or pending case, and seek individualized immigration legal advice. Do not rely only on social media or general headlines.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s TPS decision is a serious development for Haitian and Syrian TPS holders and may influence future TPS litigation. But the most important message is this: each person’s case is different.

Some TPS holders may have family-based options. Some may have employment-based options. Some may have asylum-related or humanitarian claims. Some may have immigration court history that must be handled carefully. Others may need waivers or additional legal strategies.

This is not the time to panic, but it is also not the time to wait silently. TPS holders should review their options now, while there may still be time to prepare.

We are also watching the Supreme Court closely for the separate birthright citizenship ruling. Once the Court issues its decision, I will provide a full explanation for immigrant families.

Legal Disclaimer

This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship with Arias Villa, PLLC or attorney Martha L. Arias. Immigration cases depend on individual facts, immigration history, deadlines, documents, court records, government notices, and current law. If you have questions about your specific situation, you should consult with a qualified immigration attorney.

Martha L. Arias, Esq.
Immigration Law Attorney

Dedicated Immigration Attorney for TPS Holders

For professional and dedicated immigration legal services, call immigration attorney Martha Arias at (305) 671-0018 or Schedule your consultation today

CALL NOW

BOOK AN APPOINTMENT

The post Supreme Court TPS Decision & What TPS Holders Can Do Now appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

Supreme Court Decision on Birthright Citizenship

Martha Arias — Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:07:06 +0000

A Historic Citizenship Case Is Pending

What the Supreme Court may decide about children born in the United States.

Last Updated: June 25, 2026

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue two major immigration decisions that could affect many families, workers, employers, and communities across the United States. One case involves birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. The other involves Temporary Protected Status, commonly known as TPS, for Haitian and Syrian nationals.

At the time of this article, the Supreme Court has heard oral arguments in both matters, but final decisions have not yet been issued. That means current rights and protections remain in place unless and until the Court rules otherwise.

Because these cases involve constitutional rights, humanitarian protection, work authorization, and family security, it is important for immigrant families to stay calm, informed, and prepared.

Why These Supreme Court Cases Matter

Immigration law often changes through Congress, federal agencies, court decisions, and executive action. But Supreme Court decisions carry special weight because they can shape how laws are interpreted nationwide.

These two pending cases are especially important because they touch two very different but deeply personal areas of immigration law:

Whether the federal government may limit birthright citizenship for certain children born in the United States.

Whether courts may review the government’s decision to terminate TPS protections for certain countries.

For many families, these are not abstract legal questions. They affect children, parents, work permits, protection from deportation, travel planning, and long-term immigration strategy.

The Birthright Citizenship Case: Trump v. Barbara

The first case involves Executive Order 14160, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” The order was signed on January 20, 2025, and seeks to limit automatic U.S. citizenship for certain children born in the United States.

Under the order, federal agencies would not recognize U.S. citizenship for certain U.S.-born children if, at the time of birth, the mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. The order also applies to certain situations where the mother was lawfully but temporarily present in the United States, such as on a visitor, student, work, or tourist visa, and the father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

The administration argues that these children are not fully “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The challengers argue that the order violates the text of the Fourteenth Amendment, federal citizenship law, and long-standing Supreme Court precedent.

What the Fourteenth Amendment Says

The first sentence of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment says:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

This language has been central to birthright citizenship in the United States for generations.

Federal law also states that a person born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a national and citizen of the United States at birth.

The Supreme Court is now being asked to decide whether the administration’s narrower interpretation of that language is allowed under the U.S. Constitution and the Federal Law.

The Role of United States v. Wong Kim Ark

A major precedent in this debate is the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. In that case, the Court recognized birthright citizenship for a child born in the United States to parents who were subjects of China and who were living in the United States but were not U.S. citizens.

The challengers rely heavily on that case. They argue that birth in the United States has long carried citizenship, with only narrow exceptions, such as children of foreign diplomats.

The government argues that Wong Kim Ark does not resolve the status of children born to undocumented parents or parents present only temporarily.

This is why the Supreme Court’s ruling may be historic. The decision may clarify, narrow, or reaffirm how birthright citizenship is understood under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Current Status of Birthright Citizenship

As of this writing, birthright citizenship remains in effect.

The federal government is currently blocked from enforcing the main parts of Executive Order 14160. However, federal agencies have been permitted to prepare implementation guidance related to the order.

This distinction is important. Preparation is not the same as full enforcement. Families should not assume that a final change has already happened.

Children born in the United States remain protected under the current legal framework unless the Supreme Court issues a decision that changes how the law is applied.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Martha L. Arias (@martha_arias98)

Conclusion

The birthright citizenship case before the U.S. Supreme Court is one of the most important immigration-related constitutional questions in many years. For generations, children born in the United States have been recognized as U.S. citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment, with only narrow exceptions. The pending case asks whether the federal government may limit that protection for certain children born in the United States to parents who are undocumented or temporarily present.

As of this writing, birthright citizenship remains in effect. The Supreme Court has not issued its final decision, and families should be careful not to confuse political discussion, social media commentary, or proposed government action with a final change in the law.

For immigrant families, the best step right now is to stay informed, preserve important records, and seek legal guidance before making decisions that may affect a child’s citizenship, passport, immigration status, or family planning. In moments of uncertainty, reliable information matters.

Disclaimer:
This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship with Arias Villa, PLLC or attorney Martha L. Arias. Immigration and citizenship matters depend on each person’s specific facts, immigration history, family circumstances, documents, deadlines, and current law. If you have questions about how this issue may affect your family, you may always contact our office at 305-671-0018.

Martha L. Arias, Esq.
Immigration Law Attorney

Legal Guidance Matters Right Now

If you are concerned about how the pending Supreme Court birthright citizenship case may affect your child, your family, or your immigration planning, professional legal guidance can help you understand your options and avoid unnecessary mistakes.

CALL NOW

BOOK AN APPOINTMENT

The post Supreme Court Decision on Birthright Citizenship appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

Denaturalization, Green Cards, Detention & Asylum Fees

Martha Arias — Sat, 20 Jun 2026 00:03:31 +0000

New Immigration Enforcement Changes in 2026: What Families, Green Card Applicants, Asylum Seekers, and Naturalized Citizens Should Know

Important Immigration Updates Are Affecting Many Families

Immigration law continues to change quickly, and several recent federal developments are now drawing serious attention from immigrant families, green card applicants, asylum seekers, and naturalized U.S. citizens.

The U.S. Department of Justice has increased its focus on denaturalization cases. USCIS has issued a policy memorandum emphasizing that adjustment of status is discretionary and may be granted only in extraordinary circumstances. DHS and ICE have also announced expanded detention capacity and enforcement resources. At the same time, asylum applicants may now face new fee requirements, including an annual asylum fee for certain pending cases.

These changes do not mean that every person with an immigration case is in danger. They also do not mean that every naturalized citizen, green card applicant, or asylum seeker will be affected in the same way.

But they do mean that people should be more careful, more informed, and more organized when dealing with immigration matters.

In this article, I want to explain these developments in plain language and offer practical tips for families who may be concerned.

1. The Federal Government Is Increasing Denaturalization Enforcement

Denaturalization is the legal process where the government asks a federal court to revoke a person’s U.S. citizenship after naturalization.

This is a very serious process. Citizenship is not taken away automatically. The government must bring a case, and the case must go through the legal system.

Recent Department of Justice announcements show that denaturalization has become a stronger enforcement priority in certain cases. DOJ has recently filed denaturalization actions against naturalized citizens accused of serious offenses, including terrorism-related concerns, war crimes, sexual offenses, fraud, drug-related offenses, and other serious allegations.

The Department of Justice has also issued internal guidance directing its Civil Division to prioritize denaturalization proceedings in cases permitted by law and supported by evidence. The stated priorities include national security concerns, terrorism, espionage, war crimes, human rights violations, gang activity, serious undisclosed felonies, human trafficking, sex offenses, violent crimes, financial fraud, and cases involving alleged fraud or material misrepresentation in the naturalization process.

It is important to be precise: filing a denaturalization action does not mean the person has already lost citizenship. The government must prove its case.

What Naturalized Citizens Should Understand

Naturalized U.S. citizens should be aware that the government may review whether citizenship was lawfully obtained. Cases that may raise concern often involve:

Alleged fraud or misrepresentation during the immigration or naturalization process
Concealment of material facts
Failure to disclose certain criminal history
Use of false identity documents
Concealment of prior immigration violations
Serious criminal convictions
National security or terrorism-related allegations
War crimes, human rights violations, or related accusations

For most naturalized citizens who were truthful and eligible when they became citizens, this development should not create immediate fear.

But for anyone who had a complicated immigration history, prior arrests, name changes, old removal issues, or concerns about what was disclosed in past applications, it may be wise to speak with an immigration attorney before responding to any government inquiry.

2. USCIS Is Taking a Stricter View of Adjustment of Status

USCIS has issued a policy memorandum stating that adjustment of status is a matter of discretion and administrative grace. Adjustment of status is the process that allows certain eligible people already in the United States to apply for lawful permanent residence without leaving the country for consular processing.

This new policy does not mean that all adjustment of status applications are automatically denied. It also does not mean that every green card applicant must leave the United States.

However, it does show that USCIS officers are being directed to look more carefully at whether adjustment should be granted as a favorable exercise of discretion.

That is an important shift.

Even when a person appears eligible for a green card, USCIS may examine the full record, including immigration history, prior entries, unauthorized employment, overstays, criminal history, fraud concerns, public safety concerns, national security concerns, and other discretionary factors.

Why This Matters

For many families, adjustment of status has been the preferred path because it may allow the applicant to remain in the United States while the green card case is pending.

If USCIS takes a stricter view, some applicants may face more questions, more requests for evidence, longer review, or a greater risk that USCIS may determine adjustment is not appropriate in that person’s case.

For some applicants, consular processing abroad may become part of the discussion. Consular processing can carry risks, especially for people who may have unlawful presence, prior immigration violations, prior removals, misrepresentation issues, or possible waiver needs.

Before filing an adjustment of status application, applicants should understand not only whether they are technically eligible, but whether there are any facts that may cause USCIS to exercise discretion against them.

3. ICE Detention Capacity and Enforcement Resources Are Expanding

The Department of Homeland Security has publicly discussed expanded detention capacity and increased enforcement resources. DHS has stated that recent funding provides ICE with enough detention capacity to maintain a much larger average daily detained population and adds new detention beds.

ICE detention remains one of the most serious areas of immigration enforcement because detention can affect people with pending immigration court cases, prior removal orders, criminal history, recent arrests, or other enforcement priorities.

Detention can also create urgent challenges for families because once a person is detained, the case may move quickly, communication becomes harder, and important documents may be difficult to gather.

Who May Be at Higher Risk?

The facts of each case matter, but people may face a higher risk of detention if they have:

A prior order of removal
Missed immigration court hearings
Certain criminal arrests or convictions
Recent encounters with immigration enforcement
Pending removal proceedings
Prior deportation or unlawful reentry issues
Problems with immigration supervision or check-ins
Outstanding warrants or unresolved criminal matters

Not every person with a pending immigration case is at the same level of risk. However, families should be prepared. It is better to organize documents before an emergency happens.

4. New Asylum Fees May Affect Pending Cases

Another important development involves asylum fees.

Official government fee pages now list asylum-related fees, including a $100 initial Form I-589 fee and a $102 Annual Asylum Fee for certain pending asylum applications. The annual fee applies to certain cases that have been pending for one year or more, and the rules may depend on whether the case is pending with USCIS or before EOIR in immigration court.

For immigration court cases, EOIR states that the Immigration Judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals will provide a written order regarding payment of the Annual Asylum Fee.

For USCIS asylum cases, USCIS has stated that applicants must timely pay the Annual Asylum Fee after notification and that USCIS may reject a pending Form I-589 asylum application if the fee is not timely paid.

This is especially important because many asylum cases remain pending for long periods of time. Applicants should not ignore official notices about payment, deadlines, or fee instructions. Missing a required payment may create serious problems for a pending case.

What Asylum Applicants Should Do

Asylum applicants should carefully monitor:

Mail from USCIS
Mail from the immigration court
Online USCIS account notices, if applicable
Attorney correspondence
Payment deadlines
Hearing notices
Address updates

If you move, you must make sure your address is properly updated with the correct agency. Many immigration problems begin not because the person ignored the case, but because important notices were sent to an old address.

Martha L. Arias, Esq.
Immigration Law Attorney

Dedicated Immigration Law Attorney

If you are concerned about adjustment of status, consular processing, asylum fees, ICE detention, naturalization, or a prior immigration filing, you may contact our office to schedule a consultation.

CALL NOW

BOOK AN APPOINTMENT

Practical Tips for Immigrants and Families Right Now

These updates can feel overwhelming, but there are practical steps families can take.

Tip 1: Keep Copies of Every Immigration Filing

Keep a complete copy of every immigration application ever filed for you or by you. This may include:

Naturalization applications
Green card applications
Asylum applications
Work permit applications
Family petitions
Waiver applications
Consular processing documents
Immigration court filings
Prior notices from USCIS, ICE, CBP, EOIR, or the Department of Justice

If you do not have copies, try to gather what you can before there is an emergency.

Tip 2: Do Not Guess on Immigration Forms

Immigration forms ask serious questions. A wrong answer, incomplete answer, or misunderstood question can create long-term problems.

If you do not understand a question, do not guess. Ask for legal guidance before filing.

Tip 3: Review Criminal History Before Filing

Even old arrests can matter.

Sometimes people believe a case “does not count” because it was dismissed, sealed, expunged, or happened many years ago. Immigration law may treat criminal records differently than state criminal law.

Before filing for a green card, citizenship, asylum, or another benefit, review your full record with an immigration attorney.

Tip 4: Be Careful Before Traveling

Travel can create problems for some people with pending cases, prior unlawful presence, removal history, or unresolved immigration issues.

Before leaving the United States, speak with an immigration attorney, especially if you have a pending green card case, asylum case, TPS, parole, DACA, or prior immigration violations.

Tip 5: Do Not Ignore Government Notices

If you receive a letter from USCIS, ICE, EOIR, CBP, or the Department of Justice, do not ignore it.

Deadlines can be short. Some notices require a response, payment, appearance, or legal action.

Tip 6: Update Your Address Correctly

If you move, update your address with the correct immigration agency. Depending on your case, this may include USCIS, EOIR, ICE, or more than one agency.

Do not assume that updating your address with one office automatically updates it everywhere.

Tip 7: Prepare a Family Emergency File

Every immigrant family should consider keeping a secure emergency file with:

Copies of passports
A-numbers
Immigration receipts
Court hearing notices
Attorney contact information
Medical information
School information for children
Important family documents
Trusted emergency contacts

This is not about fear. It is about preparation.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can the government take away U.S. citizenship from a naturalized citizen?

In some cases, the government may bring a denaturalization case in federal court. This usually involves allegations that citizenship was obtained unlawfully, fraudulently, or through concealment of important facts. Citizenship is not revoked automatically. The government must pursue the case through the legal system.

Should all naturalized citizens be worried?

No. Most naturalized citizens who were eligible and truthful during the process should not assume they are at risk. However, anyone with concerns about old immigration filings, criminal history, identity issues, or possible mistakes in prior applications should seek legal advice before responding to any government inquiry.

Does the new USCIS policy mean adjustment of status is no longer available?

No. Adjustment of status still exists. However, USCIS is emphasizing that adjustment is discretionary and may be granted only when the applicant qualifies and when USCIS believes the case deserves favorable discretion. Applicants should be more careful before filing.

Will more green card applicants have to go through consular processing?

Possibly, depending on the facts of the case. The new policy may lead to closer review of adjustment of status applications, and in some cases, consular processing may become more likely. But this does not apply the same way to every person. Some applicants may still qualify for adjustment of status in the United States.

Is consular processing risky?

It can be risky for some people. Applicants with unlawful presence, prior removals, fraud concerns, criminal history, or waiver issues may face complications when they leave the United States. Before choosing consular processing, it is important to understand the risks.

Are asylum applicants now required to pay new fees?

Certain asylum applicants may now be required to pay fees, including an initial Form I-589 fee and an Annual Asylum Fee for certain pending cases. The exact requirement may depend on whether the case is pending with USCIS or EOIR and how long the case has been pending.

What happens if an asylum applicant does not pay a required fee?

Failure to timely pay a required asylum fee may create serious problems for the pending application. USCIS has stated that it may reject pending Form I-589 asylum applications if the Annual Asylum Fee is not timely paid after notice. For immigration court cases, EOIR states that an Immigration Judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals will provide a written order regarding payment.

Can ICE detain someone with a pending immigration case?

Yes, depending on the facts. A pending case does not always prevent detention. Risk may be higher for people with prior removal orders, missed hearings, criminal issues, or recent enforcement encounters.

What should I do if a family member is detained by ICE?

Try to gather the person’s full name, date of birth, country of birth, A-number, location of detention, immigration history, criminal history, and copies of any immigration papers. Contact an immigration attorney quickly because detention cases may move fast.

Should I file an immigration application now or wait?

That depends on your case. Some people should move forward; others should first review risks, prior filings, criminal history, travel history, and eligibility. Immigration strategy should be based on facts, not fear.

Why Legal Guidance Matters More Than Ever

Immigration law has always required careful preparation, but these recent changes make preparation even more important.

A person may be eligible for an immigration benefit and still face problems if the case is not presented correctly. A family may believe a case is simple, but old travel history, prior visa entries, criminal records, public charge questions, misrepresentation concerns, or missed deadlines can change the strategy.

Before filing, responding, traveling, or attending an interview, it is wise to understand the full picture.

At Arias Villa, PLLC, we help individuals, families, business owners, professionals, and immigrants understand their options and prepare immigration matters carefully. Every case is different, and the right strategy depends on the facts.

Legal Disclaimer

This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration law changes frequently, and every case depends on its own facts. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship. For advice about your specific situation, please consult with a qualified immigration attorney.

Martha L. Arias, Esq.
Immigration Law Attorney

Experienced Immigration Law Attorney

If you are concerned about adjustment of status, consular processing, asylum fees, ICE detention, naturalization, or a prior immigration filing, you may contact Arias Villa, PLLC to schedule a consultation.

CALL NOW

BOOK AN APPOINTMENT

The post Denaturalization, Green Cards, Detention & Asylum Fees appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

Federal Judge Vacates $100,000 H-1B Visa Fee

Martha Arias — Wed, 10 Jun 2026 16:57:35 +0000

A federal judge has vacated the $100,000 fee that the government had imposed on certain new H-1B visa petitions. This is an important development for employers, professionals, universities, healthcare organizations, and skilled workers who rely on the H-1B visa program.

The H-1B visa is commonly used by U.S. employers to hire foreign professionals in specialty occupations, including technology, education, healthcare, engineering, finance, and other fields that often require a bachelor’s degree or higher.

According to the court, the administration did not have the legal authority to impose this $100,000 payment requirement through the challenged policy. For now, this means employers should not be required to pay that additional $100,000 fee when filing affected H-1B petitions.

However, this matter may not be over. The government may appeal the decision, and employers should continue to follow official USCIS and Department of State updates before filing or making business decisions.

For businesses, investors, and professionals, this ruling is a reminder that immigration rules can change quickly. Before filing an H-1B petition or planning a hiring strategy, it is important to review the most current requirements and understand how they apply to the specific case.

Martha L. Arias, Esq.
Immigration Law Attorney

Martha L. Arias, Esq.

Business & Employment Immigration Attorney

If you are an employer, investor, entrepreneur, or professional exploring U.S. business immigration options, the right legal guidance can help you understand the visa strategy, filing requirements, timing, and potential risks before you move forward.

Arias Villa, PLLC assists clients with business visas, investor visas, employment-based immigration, H-1B matters, and related immigration planning. To discuss your options, contact immigration attorney Martha Arias and her team at Arias Villa, PLLC. Schedule your consultation today and let us help you achieve your immigration goals.

CALL NOW

BOOK AN APPOINTMENT

Disclaimer: This article is for general informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Immigration rules may change, and each case should be reviewed individually.

The post Federal Judge Vacates $100,000 H-1B Visa Fee appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

Rhode Island Ruling: Hope for Delayed Immigration Cases

Martha Arias — Tue, 09 Jun 2026 19:40:32 +0000

What the Rhode Island Court Ruling May Mean for Delayed Immigration Cases

During my recent interview with Jessica Morales on TVV, we discussed an important federal court decision from Rhode Island that may affect thousands of people whose immigration cases have been delayed or paused.

On June 5, 2026, Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island struck down several USCIS policies that had delayed or frozen decisions on immigration benefits for people from 39 countries. Reports describe the affected benefits as including asylum decisions, work permits, green cards, and naturalization applications. The court found that the policies exceeded agency authority and were unlawful under administrative law principles.

This does not mean that every case will be decided immediately. One important point I shared in the interview is that the court’s decision did not set a specific deadline for USCIS to act. The government may appeal, and it may also ask for a stay of the ruling while the appeal is pending. Until USCIS provides clearer instructions or higher courts take further action, many families will still need to watch their cases carefully.

WATCH IT ON SPOTIFY

FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA

For people whose work permits, asylum decisions, green card cases, or citizenship applications have been delayed, the next step depends on the facts of the case.

Some applicants may have strong reasons to request expedited action, especially if the delay is causing serious financial hardship, the loss of a driver’s license, employment problems, medical complications, or family hardship. Others may be in a better position to wait and monitor the situation.

We also discussed the recent USCIS policy memorandum regarding adjustment of status. USCIS announced in May 2026 that adjustment of status is considered an extraordinary discretionary benefit, and the agency’s memorandum discussed discretion in adjustment cases. However, many practical questions remain because attorneys, applicants, and even officers still need clear guidance on how these standards will be applied case by case.

Finally, with the World Cup taking place in the United States, I reminded viewers that visitors and noncitizens should carry proper identification and proof of lawful status when appropriate. CBP provides an official I-94 website where travelers can retrieve their most recent I-94 record, check travel history, and review travel compliance information.

My message is simple: stay informed, keep copies of your immigration documents, check your USCIS account regularly, and do not assume that a public announcement automatically solves an individual case. Immigration law is moving quickly, and each case deserves careful review.

Legal Disclaimer:
This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration cases depend on individual facts, documents, dates, immigration history, and government action. Speaking with an attorney does not create an attorney-client relationship unless a formal agreement is signed.

Martha L. Arias, Esq.
Immigration Law Attorney

Martha L. Arias, Esq.

Dedicated Immigration Law Attorney

If your work permit, asylum decision, green card, or citizenship case has been delayed, legal guidance may help you understand what can be done.

CALL NOW

BOOK AN APPOINTMENT

SPANISH TRANSCRIPT:

Entrevista de Martha Arias con Jessica Morales en TVV

JESSICA MORALES:
En esta parte revisamos información de carácter migratorio en los Estados Unidos.

Es que un juez federal de Rhode Island ordenó, a finales de la semana pasada, a la administración Trump levantar la pausa administrativa que impedía procesar solicitudes de asilo y beneficios migratorios, como permisos de trabajo, residencia permanente y ciudadanía, para personas de 39 países considerados de alto riesgo.

Este fallo impacta a miles de personas en Estados Unidos y, para abordar el alcance de esta medida y también sus detalles, nos acompaña Martha Arias, abogada de inmigración. Abogada, gracias por estar con nosotros.

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Muchísimas gracias, Jessica, por invitarme, y un saludo para usted, todo su equipo de trabajo y todos sus seguidores.

JESSICA MORALES:
Gracias. Luego de esta decisión, de este dictamen de este juez federal, ¿qué podríamos esperar, en principio, de la administración de los Estados Unidos?

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
A ver, ¿qué podemos esperar? Podemos esperar dos cosas.

La primera es que apelen. Tienen 30 días para apelar y, dentro de esa apelación, pueden pedir también que se pause la aplicación de esta orden del juez. Es decir, que no se aplique; es decir, que continúe la pausa. Eso podemos esperar.

Los expertos analizan el punto y dicen que probablemente el gobierno federal va a apelar y va a pedir una pausa de este fallo del juez. Esa es una posibilidad.

La otra posibilidad es que el gobierno, USCIS, actúe y empiece a decirnos, o a emitir un comunicado, de cómo va a empezar a evaluar y a procesar todos esos casos que han estado paralizados ya por casi dos años.

JESSICA MORALES:
Esto, ya luego de este dictamen, ¿en cuánto tiempo USCIS debería empezar a reactivar estos trámites administrativos que estaban objeto de esta pausa?

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
El fallo del juez John McConnell no dice, no establece, un término bajo el cual tiene que regirse inmigración. Es decir, no le dice: “tiene que decidir en tanto tiempo” o “reactivar los casos en tanto tiempo”. No lo dice.

Por lo tanto, aquí lo único que podemos esperar es que el gobierno actúe de acuerdo con el fallo y reactive los casos cuando lo considere pertinente, o que apele.

Entonces, no hay un término fijo guiado por este fallo.

JESSICA MORALES:
En esta apelación, si resulta que la administración no tiene una respuesta favorable, ¿puede ir a otra instancia, como la Corte Suprema?

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Correcto. Si la Corte Suprema autoriza el certiorari, que es como la revisión que ellos autorizarían para tomar el caso, puede ser. Entonces, primero, este juez federal tiene que ir a una corte de apelaciones; después, posiblemente, puede ir a la Corte Suprema.

Vamos a esperar a ver cuál va a ser el camino que esto vaya a tomar. Y pues todos sabemos que la Corte Suprema ha estado muy, por decirlo así, condescendiente con las políticas administrativas de la administración actual. O sea que no sé qué posibilidad tenga este caso en la Corte Suprema.

Pero bueno, por lo menos el juez fundamentó muy bien su decisión. Fíjate que, en esta decisión, el juez claramente dice que él no se está metiendo en la parte analítica de la política del Ejecutivo. Es decir, él dice: el Ejecutivo tiene derecho a establecer políticas administrativas.

Lo que yo, como juez, estoy analizando es únicamente la legalidad de estas políticas, porque la ley establece unos parámetros y esta política no tiene fundamento en la ley, porque únicamente se están pausando casos debido a la nacionalidad de la persona, no porque esas personas hayan cometido algo malo o hayan violado la ley. Simplemente por haber nacido en X o Y país están siendo sancionadas.

Entonces, el juez me parece a mí que hace un buen razonamiento, yo creo que previendo que haya una apelación y previendo que esto llegue a la Corte Suprema.

JESSICA MORALES:
Ahora, mientras se espera esta respuesta de USCIS, de las autoridades migratorias, acerca de cómo se va a empezar a acatar esta medida de este juez federal, o mientras se conoce si va a haber o no va a haber apelación, ¿qué deben hacer las personas cuyos trámites migratorios están en este momento bajo esta pausa administrativa? ¿Qué medidas deberían tomar?

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Bueno, aquí es importante que los que vayan a recibir, o están bajo un problema financiero que les vaya a causar un problema financiero grande, por ejemplo, el que no tengan sus permisos de trabajo porque están pausados, yo pienso que esas personas deberían empezar a mandar cartas para pedirle al gobierno que agilice sus trámites en acato a la decisión de este juez de Rhode Island.

Muchas personas pueden tener ese “financial hardship”, o ese daño financiero. Entonces deberían hacerlo.

Otras, si no tienen esa forma de mostrar que hay un problema financiero grave, pues podrían esperar hasta que se determine si se va a apelar o no, y si hay una próxima decisión.

Pero muchas personas pueden pedir al gobierno, a USCIS, que empiece a ejecutar esta orden del juez. Esto va a ocasionar todavía aún más peticiones que se manden para hacerle agilización a los casos, pero es lo mismo que estamos viendo en este momento: mandamos a pedir agilización y ellos tienen papeles y papeles que siguen recibiendo, y los casos siguen en ese limbo.

Mira, una de las cosas que precisamente dice también el juez en su decisión es que no es justo que muchas de esas personas estén en el limbo y que les esté ocasionando un daño, un perjuicio no solamente económico, sino social y familiar, porque hay personas que no pueden conducir porque no tienen su licencia de conducir; no pueden llevar a sus hijos al trabajo o al estudio, a la universidad, qué sé yo.

Entonces, esto tiene unas implicaciones, y las personas deberían también estar empezando a mandar esas cartas a inmigración.

JESSICA MORALES:
Y además de eso, estimamos que deben estar muy atentos al punto en el que están sus casos; es decir, revisar sus cuentas de inmigración, estar atentos a ver si hay alguna comunicación, porque si es así, en cualquier momento podrían ser llamados o les podrían solicitar evidencia. Le consultamos esto a usted, abogada: ¿estos son escenarios que se pueden presentar?

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Sí, pero hay dos escenarios aquí.

Uno es que muchas de estas personas que tenían el asilo pendiente fueron llamadas a sus citas de asilo y presentaron las evidencias. Lo que pasa es que no les han dado una respuesta o una decisión a su caso de asilo. Este es un grupo de personas.

Pero también hay otro grupo de personas que tienen su asilo pendiente por muchos años y no los han llamado.

Realmente ese tipo de personas no están tan sujetas al memorándum, porque el memorándum pausó la decisión, pero no pausó el procesamiento. Muchos casos siguieron siendo procesados y tuvieron entrevistas. De hecho, hemos tenido entrevistas con clientes todo este año y el año pasado. Pero lo que se pausó fue la decisión: tienen la entrevista y no hay una decisión.

Ahora, los permisos de trabajo, eso también está pausado, muchos de ellos. Dicen: “Bueno, yo tuve la entrevista, no he tenido una decisión, pero pedí un permiso de trabajo que todavía tampoco me han aprobado y necesito que me lo aprueben para sacar mi licencia de conducir”, por ejemplo.

Entonces, estas personas son las que se ven afectadas por la pausa y estas personas son las que deberían estar pidiendo que se agilice ahora.

Si tienen su permiso de trabajo por cinco años y solamente están pidiendo una decisión, pues esas personas pueden estar más tranquilas y simplemente no actuar, y simplemente escuchar o esperar a ver qué va a pasar con esta decisión, si inmigración la va a acatar o van a apelar, o qué es lo que va a pasar.

JESSICA MORALES:
Ahora, ha habido seis meses de esta pausa, aproximadamente medio año de esta pausa ha transcurrido. ¿Esto podría implicar algún tipo de retraso en otros casos? Ustedes, como abogados, como profesionales que día a día tienen que estar atendiendo este tipo de situaciones de sus clientes, ¿qué se puede esperar? ¿Se atenderán los casos que están pausados primero? ¿Se atenderán los que van llegando? ¿Cómo podría manejarse?

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Bueno, no sabemos cómo la administración irá a manejarlos. Hay casos definitivamente pausados por seis meses, pero no solamente están esos casos pausados. Recuerde que recientemente la administración también emitió otro memorándum donde dice que las personas deberían ir a recibir las residencias fuera de los Estados Unidos.

Esas personas que han estado teniendo las citas de residencia después de este otro memorándum, sus casos también están pausados; es decir, no les han dado una decisión. Y no les han dado una decisión porque el gobierno no ha emitido tampoco unas guías claras para los oficiales de inmigración para tomar las decisiones de acuerdo con ese memorándum.

Entonces, si a esos casos que llevan seis meses pausados les sumamos los que ahora también tienen las decisiones pausadas por el nuevo memorándum, es bastante lo que tiene atrasado la administración.

No sé cómo lo irán a enfrentar: si van a continuar procesando los casos que van entrando primero o van a empezar a procesar esos casos pausados primero. Eso es algo que el gobierno nos tendrá que informar.

JESSICA MORALES:
Ahora, a propósito de esta nueva medida del Servicio de Ciudadanía e Inmigración, que dice que el ajuste de estatus en los Estados Unidos solo podrá hacerse en circunstancias extraordinarias; es decir, hay personas que están en ese trámite de ajuste de estatus y tendrían que ir a sus países y hacer el trámite ante el consulado de su país para poder obtener esa residencia o ese ajuste y luego venir a los Estados Unidos.

¿Cuáles son esas circunstancias extraordinarias, Martha? ¿Cómo se está manejando luego del anuncio, hace ya varios días, hace más de una semana?

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Sí, no hay unas guías del gobierno todavía explícitas, ni para nosotros como abogados, ni para nuestros clientes, ni tampoco para los oficiales de inmigración, de cómo se van a analizar esas circunstancias extraordinarias.

Sin embargo, tenemos unas, vamos a decir, unas pistas de cómo se podrían evaluar. Esto se va a determinar con factores. Factores como, por ejemplo, el tiempo de estadía de la persona en los Estados Unidos. Esto es lo que se llama comunidad o lazos comunitarios. Eso quiere decir si la persona tiene propiedades, tiene bienes aquí, negocios; si tiene familia, hijos, nietos, esposa, padres; si la persona tiene retiro en los Estados Unidos, servicios médicos que la están cubriendo, etcétera.

El otro factor es como los antecedentes penales: si esa persona tiene delitos, convicciones criminales graves o no. Eso también se determina como un factor.

Otros factores, por ejemplo, son factores humanitarios o cuestiones médicas, sean de ellos o de un familiar inmediato que esté bajo su cuidado, su supervisión.

También se mira el tipo de violaciones migratorias que haya tenido esa persona, o si no las ha tenido. Si anteriormente esa persona había violado la ley, había entrado en forma irregular o qué violaciones migratorias tenía.

Entonces, como un conjunto de factores, eso es lo que se llama la totalidad de las circunstancias, lo que en otros casos hemos visto que usa inmigración como discreción.

Acuérdese que, en este caso, en este memorándum, lo que inmigración está diciendo es que van a ser unas cuestiones extraordinarias que se van a analizar caso por caso, para ellos tomar su discreción de si aprueban o no esas peticiones dentro de los Estados Unidos.

El mismo inmigración salió como dos o tres días después de haberse emitido este memorándum a aclarar y a decir que no se está quitando el derecho a pedir la residencia dentro de los Estados Unidos, como ordena la ley o como la ley lo permite; que lo que ellos están haciendo es ejercer su discreción, que siempre la han tenido bajo la ley, para decir si aprueban un caso o no porque cumpla con esas circunstancias extraordinarias.

Y volvemos a repetir: esas circunstancias extraordinarias son estos factores que en el pasado se han usado como factores discrecionarios.

JESSICA MORALES:
En otro tema, Martha, no quisiéramos despedirla, ya nos queda poco tiempo, pero no quisiéramos despedirla sin solicitarle sus consideraciones y su sugerencia como abogada en relación con un evento internacional que va a tener como sede los Estados Unidos, que es el Mundial.

Ya las autoridades migratorias han dicho que se van a enfocar, o las autoridades de seguridad, en garantizar la seguridad de personas y de instalaciones, pero que no se descarta también que se aplique algún tipo de medida migratoria si es necesario.

¿Qué sugieren ustedes como abogados a quienes están en trámites en este momento?

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
A ver, tienen que tener mucho cuidado, porque yo también escuché directamente en estos días al Departamento de Seguridad Nacional diciendo que obviamente no había redadas, pero que sí se iba a descartar la posibilidad de detener personas que el gobierno considerara que eran un peligro para la defensa nacional o la seguridad nacional.

Y esa parte de la defensa nacional me parece que es muy delicada, porque no sé cómo ellos puedan considerar, de entrada, que personas sean un peligro para la defensa nacional. Obviamente, terroristas y estos actos, eso sí es algo que hay que cuidarse y el gobierno debe hacer sus funciones.

Pero de ahí a un ciudadano común y corriente, que de pronto no tenga un estatus legal definido y que quiera ir a ver un partido con sus tickets, si esa persona va a ser fichada como un extranjero que puede hacer una violación a la defensa nacional, no sé. Es delicado.

Mi consejo es que las personas mantengan con ellas su identificación. Si son residentes o ciudadanos, que mantengan su identificación. Si están en un estatus como, por ejemplo, una visa de turista, que vinieron con esa visa para visitar, para el Mundial, tengan una copia o sáquenle una copia, o ténganla en sus celulares, en su bolsillo, en su billetera, de la I-94, que es ese permiso de estadía que le dan cuando entra a los Estados Unidos.

Mucha gente no sabe que eso lo tienen que bajar de internet y lo tienen que imprimir, porque anteriormente el gobierno le daba a la gente una tarjeta blanca, cuadradita, pequeña, que se llamaba, ahí dice, I-94. Pero hace muchos años no la dan. La persona tiene que ir a la página de CBP, Customs and Border Protection, y bajar ese documento.

Mi mejor consejo: vayan a Google y pongan “I-94 Retrieval”. En inglés se escribiría como “retrieval”. Pongan “I-94 Retrieval” y vayan allí. Van a tener que usar su pasaporte, van a entrar su número de pasaporte, su nombre como está en el pasaporte, fecha de nacimiento, país de nacionalidad, y ahí les va a salir esa I-94.

Háganle una captura de pantalla para que la guarden en sus celulares, o imprímanla y la escanean, o imprímanla y la guardan en su billetera.

Mantengan esa prueba de legalidad, sobre todo los extranjeros que vienen de visita. También los que están aquí tal vez con un asilo pendiente, o con un TPS, o un permiso de trabajo, también por el DACA. Esas personas también deben mantener en su billetera, consigo, esa identificación en caso de que un oficial se las pida, porque eso no es solamente la licencia; es ese ID que muestra su estatus migratorio.

JESSICA MORALES:
Martha, muchísimas gracias por habernos acompañado y haber compartido con nosotros sus comentarios, consideraciones y análisis en cuanto a estos aspectos de carácter migratorio en los Estados Unidos.

Martha Arias, abogada de inmigración, con nosotros.

ENGLISH TRANSLATION:

Immigration Attorney Martha Arias Interview with Jessica Morales on TVV

JESSICA MORALES:
In this part, we review information of an immigration nature in the United States.

A federal judge in Rhode Island ordered, at the end of last week, the Trump administration to lift the administrative pause that prevented the processing of asylum applications and immigration benefits, such as work permits, permanent residence, and citizenship, for people from 39 countries considered high risk.

This ruling impacts thousands of people in the United States, and to address the scope of this measure and also its details, we are joined by Martha Arias, immigration attorney. Attorney, thank you for being with us.

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Thank you very much, Jessica, for inviting me, and greetings to you, your whole work team, and all your followers.

JESSICA MORALES:
Thank you. After this decision, this ruling by this federal judge, what could we expect, in principle, from the administration of the United States?

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Let’s see, what can we expect? We can expect two things.

The first is that they appeal. They have 30 days to appeal and, within that appeal, they can also ask that the application of this judge’s order be paused. That is, that it not be applied; that is, that the pause continue. That is what we can expect.

The experts analyze the point and say that probably the federal government is going to appeal and is going to ask for a pause of this judge’s ruling. That is one possibility.

The other possibility is that the government, USCIS, acts and begins to tell us, or to issue a communication, about how it is going to begin to evaluate and process all those cases that have already been paralyzed for almost two years.

JESSICA MORALES:
After this ruling, in how much time should USCIS begin to reactivate these administrative procedures that were subject to this pause?

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
The ruling of Judge John McConnell does not say, does not establish, a term under which immigration has to govern itself. That is, it does not tell it: “you have to decide in such amount of time” or “reactivate the cases in such amount of time.” It does not say that.

Therefore, here the only thing we can expect is that the government acts according to the ruling and reactivates the cases when it considers it appropriate, or that it appeals.

So, there is no fixed term guided by this ruling.

JESSICA MORALES:
In this appeal, if it turns out that the administration does not have a favorable response, can it go to another level, such as the Supreme Court?

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Correct. If the Supreme Court authorizes certiorari, which is like the review that they would authorize in order to take the case, it could be. So, first, this federal judge has to go to a court of appeals; after that, possibly, it can go to the Supreme Court.

We are going to wait and see what path this is going to take. And, well, we all know that the Supreme Court has been very, so to speak, accommodating with the administrative policies of the current administration. So, I do not know what possibility this case may have in the Supreme Court.

But well, at least the judge supported his decision very well. Notice that, in this decision, the judge clearly says that he is not getting into the analytical part of the Executive’s policy. That is, he says: the Executive has the right to establish administrative policies.

What I, as a judge, am analyzing is only the legality of these policies, because the law establishes certain parameters and this policy has no foundation in the law, because cases are being paused only because of the person’s nationality, not because those people have committed something bad or have violated the law. Simply because they were born in X or Y country, they are being sanctioned.

So, the judge seems to me to make good reasoning, I think foreseeing that there will be an appeal and foreseeing that this will reach the Supreme Court.

JESSICA MORALES:
Now, while waiting for this response from USCIS, from the immigration authorities, about how they will begin to comply with this measure from this federal judge, or while it becomes known whether there will or will not be an appeal, what should people whose immigration procedures are currently under this administrative pause do? What measures should they take?

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Well, here it is important that those who are going to receive, or are under a financial problem that is going to cause them a major financial problem, for example, not having their work permits because they are paused, I think those people should begin sending letters to ask the government to expedite their procedures in compliance with the decision of this Rhode Island judge.

Many people may have that “financial hardship,” or that financial harm. So they should do it.

Others, if they do not have that way of showing that there is a serious financial problem, could wait until it is determined whether it is going to be appealed or not, and whether there is a next decision.

But many people can ask the government, USCIS, to begin executing this judge’s order. This is going to cause even more petitions to be sent to request case expedites, but it is the same thing we are seeing at this moment: we send requests for expedites and they have papers and papers that they continue receiving, and the cases remain in that limbo.

Look, one of the things that the judge also precisely says in his decision is that it is not fair that many of those people are in limbo and that it is causing them harm, prejudice not only economic, but social and family-related, because there are people who cannot drive because they do not have their driver’s license; they cannot take their children to work or to school, to the university, who knows.

So, this has implications, and people should also be starting to send those letters to immigration.

JESSICA MORALES:
And besides that, we estimate that they should be very attentive to where their cases are; that is, review their immigration accounts, be attentive to see if there is any communication, because if so, at any moment they could be called or they could be asked for evidence. We consult this with you, attorney: are these scenarios that can arise?

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Yes, but there are two scenarios here.

One is that many of these people who had asylum pending were called to their asylum appointments and presented the evidence. What happens is that they have not been given a response or a decision on their asylum case. This is one group of people.

But there is also another group of people who have had their asylum pending for many years and have not been called.

Really, that type of person is not so subject to the memorandum, because the memorandum paused the decision, but did not pause the processing. Many cases continued being processed and had interviews. In fact, we have had interviews with clients all this year and last year. But what was paused was the decision: they have the interview and there is no decision.

Now, work permits, that is also paused, many of them. They say: “Well, I had the interview, I have not had a decision, but I requested a work permit that they have not approved for me either, and I need them to approve it for me so I can get my driver’s license,” for example.

So, these people are the ones who are affected by the pause and these people are the ones who should be asking for it to be expedited now.

If they have their work permit for five years and they are only asking for a decision, then those people can be more calm and simply not act, and simply listen or wait to see what is going to happen with this decision, whether immigration is going to comply with it or whether they are going to appeal, or what is going to happen.

JESSICA MORALES:
Now, there have been six months of this pause; approximately half a year of this pause has passed. Could this imply some type of delay in other cases? You, as attorneys, as professionals who day by day have to be attending to this type of situation of your clients, what can be expected? Will the cases that are paused be attended to first? Will those that are arriving be attended to? How could it be handled?

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Well, we do not know how the administration will handle them. There are cases definitely paused for six months, but not only those cases are paused. Remember that recently the administration also issued another memorandum where it says that people should go receive their residences outside of the United States.

Those people who have been having residence appointments after this other memorandum, their cases are also paused; that is, they have not been given a decision. And they have not been given a decision because the government has not issued clear guidance either for immigration officers to make the decisions according to that memorandum.

So, if to those cases that have been paused for six months we add those that now also have decisions paused because of the new memorandum, it is quite a lot that the administration has delayed.

I do not know how they are going to face it: whether they are going to continue processing the cases that are entering first or they are going to begin processing those paused cases first. That is something that the government will have to inform us.

JESSICA MORALES:
Now, regarding this new measure from the Citizenship and Immigration Service, which says that adjustment of status in the United States will only be able to be done in extraordinary circumstances; that is, there are people who are in that adjustment of status process and would have to go to their countries and do the process before the consulate of their country in order to obtain that residence or that adjustment and then come to the United States.

What are those extraordinary circumstances, Martha? How is it being handled after the announcement, already several days ago, more than a week ago?

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Yes, there is still no explicit government guidance, neither for us as attorneys, nor for our clients, nor for immigration officers either, as to how those extraordinary circumstances are going to be analyzed.

However, we have some, let’s say, clues about how they could be evaluated. This is going to be determined with factors. Factors such as, for example, the person’s length of stay in the United States. This is what is called community or community ties. That means whether the person has properties, has assets here, businesses; whether the person has family, children, grandchildren, spouse, parents; whether the person has retirement in the United States, medical services that are covering them, etcetera.

The other factor is like criminal history: whether that person has crimes, serious criminal convictions or not. That is also determined as a factor.

Other factors, for example, are humanitarian factors or medical issues, whether of themselves or of an immediate family member who is under their care, their supervision.

They also look at the type of immigration violations that person may have had, or whether they have not had them. Whether previously that person had violated the law, had entered irregularly, or what immigration violations they had.

So, as a set of factors, that is what is called the totality of the circumstances, which in other cases we have seen immigration use as discretion.

Remember that, in this case, in this memorandum, what immigration is saying is that these are going to be extraordinary issues that are going to be analyzed case by case, for them to exercise their discretion as to whether or not they approve those petitions inside the United States.

Immigration itself came out about two or three days after this memorandum was issued to clarify and to say that they are not taking away the right to request residence inside the United States, as the law orders or as the law permits; that what they are doing is exercising their discretion, which they have always had under the law, to say whether they approve a case or not because it meets those extraordinary circumstances.

And we repeat again: those extraordinary circumstances are these factors that in the past have been used as discretionary factors.

JESSICA MORALES:
On another topic, Martha, we would not want to say goodbye to you, we have little time left, but we would not want to say goodbye to you without requesting your considerations and your suggestion as an attorney in relation to an international event that will have the United States as host, which is the World Cup.

The immigration authorities have already said that they are going to focus, or the security authorities, on guaranteeing the security of people and facilities, but that they also do not rule out that some type of immigration measure may be applied if necessary.

What do you, as attorneys, suggest to those who are in procedures at this moment?

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Let’s see, they have to be very careful, because I also heard directly in these days the Department of Homeland Security saying that obviously there were no raids, but that they were not going to rule out the possibility of detaining people whom the government considered to be a danger to national defense or national security.

And that part of national defense seems very delicate to me, because I do not know how they can consider, from the outset, that people are a danger to national defense. Obviously, terrorists and these acts, that is indeed something that must be watched, and the government must perform its functions.

But from there to an ordinary citizen, who perhaps does not have a defined legal status and who wants to go see a match with their tickets, whether that person is going to be flagged as a foreigner who can commit a violation against national defense, I do not know. It is delicate.

My advice is that people keep their identification with them. If they are residents or citizens, they should keep their identification. If they are in a status such as, for example, a tourist visa, and they came with that visa to visit, for the World Cup, they should have a copy or make a copy, or have it on their phones, in their pocket, in their wallet, of the I-94, which is that stay permit that they give you when you enter the United States.

Many people do not know that they have to download that from the internet and print it, because previously the government gave people a white, small, square card, which was called, it says there, I-94. But for many years they have not given it. The person has to go to the CBP page, Customs and Border Protection, and download that document.

My best advice: go to Google and type “I-94 Retrieval.” In English, it would be written as “retrieval.” Type “I-94 Retrieval” and go there. You will have to use your passport, you will enter your passport number, your name as it appears in the passport, date of birth, country of nationality, and there that I-94 will appear.

Take a screenshot of it so you can keep it on your phones, or print it and scan it, or print it and keep it in your wallet.

Keep that proof of legality, especially foreigners who are coming to visit. Also those who are here perhaps with a pending asylum, or with TPS, or a work permit, also through DACA. Those people should also keep that identification in their wallet, with them, in case an officer asks them for it, because that is not only the license; it is that ID that shows their immigration status.

JESSICA MORALES:
Martha, thank you very much for having joined us and for having shared with us your comments, considerations, and analysis regarding these immigration-related aspects in the United States.

Martha Arias, immigration attorney, with us.

The post Rhode Island Ruling: Hope for Delayed Immigration Cases appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

Immigration News & Updates Archives - Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq.

Understanding Your Rights During ICE Operations and TPS Uncertainty

ICE Operations, TPS for El Salvador, and Employment Authorization: What Our Community Should Know?

Community Support Must Remain Peaceful and Lawful

Practical Tips During an Immigration Enforcement Operation

Administrative Warrants and Judicial Warrants Are Not the Same

What About Restaurants and Other Businesses?

A Necessary Clarification About the Alien Terrorist Removal Court

Protect Your Documents Before a Problem Occurs

TPS for El Salvador: The Current Legal Situation

What the Supreme Court Decided About TPS

An Expired EAD Does Not Always Mean the Same Thing

What Documents Can an Employee Show an Employer?

Can a Delayed Work Permit Be Expedited?

Frequently Asked Questions

Can ICE enter my home with an administrative warrant?

Can ICE enter a restaurant or business?

Can someone be arrested for forming a human barrier against ICE?

Is it illegal to warn others that ICE officers are nearby?

Does the Supreme Court’s TPS decision automatically end TPS for Salvadorans?

Is TPS for El Salvador definitely ending on September 9, 2026?

Does an extension of TPS automatically extend every work permit?

Is my expired EAD valid because I filed a renewal?

May my employer demand that I present a new EAD?

Can my employer suspend or terminate me if I cannot prove current work authorization?

Will USCIS approve an expedite request because I may lose my job?

Do You Have Questions About ICE, TPS, or a Delayed Work Permit?

Alien Registration Rule

Alien Registration Rule:

What Immigrants Should Understand Before Taking Action

Contact our office to schedule an appointment.

MIAMI OFFICE: ARIAS VILLA, PLLC Address: 9100 S Dadeland Blvd, #510 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: (305) 671-0018 Mobile: (305) 233-3110 Email: martha@ariasvilla.com

OFFICE HOURS: Monday: 9 AM – 5:30 PM Tuesday: 9 AM – 6 PM Wednesday: 9 AM – 6 PM Thursday: 9 AM – 5:30 PM Friday: 9 AM – 3 PM Saturday: Closed Sunday: Closed

Dedicated Immigration Law Attorney

New USCIS Signature Rule

New USCIS Signature Rule:

Why Every Immigration Form Must Be Reviewed Carefully Before Filing

What should applicants do now?

Schedule a Consultation with Immigration Attorney

The U.S. Supreme Court Upholds The Birthright Citizenship

Supreme Court Upholds Birthright Citizenship: What Families Should Know

Dedicated Immigration Law Attorney in Kendall

Breaking: Supreme Court rejects limits on birthright citizenship.

Supreme Court TPS Decision & What TPS Holders Can Do Now

What Is Temporary Protected Status?

What Did the Supreme Court Decide?

Who Is Directly Affected by This Decision?

What Happens When TPS Ends?

What Can a TPS Holder Do Now in the United States?

1. Review Family-Based Immigration Options

2. Review Adjustment of Status Possibilities

3. Review Employment-Based Immigration Options

4. Review Asylum or Other Humanitarian Protection

5. Review Any Immigration Court Case

6. Review Work Authorization and I-9 Issues

7. Be Careful With Travel

Call Today for Your Immigration Related Questions

What Documents Should TPS Holders Organize Now?

Birthright Citizenship Ruling Watch

Frequently Asked Questions

Did the Supreme Court end TPS for everyone?

Does TPS automatically lead to a green card?

If I have TPS from Haiti or Syria, should I leave the United States immediately?

Can I still work if my TPS-related work permit has not expired?

Can a U.S. citizen spouse or child help a TPS holder apply for a green card?

Can a TPS holder apply for asylum?

What if I already have an immigration court case?

Should TPS holders apply for anything right now?

Does the TPS decision affect the birthright citizenship case?

What is the safest next step for a TPS holder?

Conclusion

Legal Disclaimer

Dedicated Immigration Attorney for TPS Holders

Supreme Court Decision on Birthright Citizenship

A Historic Citizenship Case Is Pending

What the Supreme Court may decide about children born in the United States.

Why These Supreme Court Cases Matter

The Birthright Citizenship Case: Trump v. Barbara

What the Fourteenth Amendment Says

The Role of United States v. Wong Kim Ark

MIAMI OFFICE:
ARIAS VILLA, PLLC
Address: 9100 S Dadeland Blvd, #510
Miami, FL 33156
Phone: (305) 671-0018
Mobile: (305) 233-3110
Email: martha@ariasvilla.com

OFFICE HOURS:
Monday: 9 AM – 5:30 PM
Tuesday: 9 AM – 6 PM
Wednesday: 9 AM – 6 PM
Thursday: 9 AM – 5:30 PM
Friday: 9 AM – 3 PM
Saturday: Closed
Sunday: Closed