US Immigration News

The Harvard Immigration Clinical Program (HIRCP) continues to advance its mission through the steadfast support of dedicated partners. Among these, the Murthy Fund stands out as a vital source of strength, enabling the program to operate at the highest levels of clinical teaching, advocacy, and student engagement.

Under the leadership of Sabrineh Ardalan, Director of HIRCP at Harvard Law School, the program has expressed deep appreciation for this ongoing commitment. Contributions from the Murthy Fund are not merely supportive—they are foundational. They ensure that HIRCP can sustain its operations while responding to the evolving complexities of immigration law and policy.

During Fiscal Year 2025, the Murthy Travel Fund played a pivotal role in advancing professional development, clinical teaching, and experiential learning. It facilitated hands-on training, close supervision, and scholarly engagement, all of which are central to the program’s academic mission. This support has enabled HIRCP to maintain a high level of expertise, ensuring that students are both rigorously trained and meaningfully prepared for real-world legal challenges.

HIRCP’s reach is significant. Across its four programs, it serves hundreds of clients annually while educating over 200 law students. The program is rooted in a trauma-informed approach to lawyering, offering holistic representation that integrates social work support for both clients and students. This model not only enhances legal outcomes but also fosters a deeper understanding of the human dimensions of immigration advocacy.

The impact of this work is perhaps best reflected in the voices of its students. One such voice is Martha Ball ’25, a participant in the Harvard Immigration Clinic and recipient of the CLEA Outstanding Clinical Student Award. Reflecting on her experience, she shared:

“I have drawn so much inspiration from being a part of the HIRC community. The instructors within HIRC are phenomenal and are incredibly generous with their expertise and guidance. The clinic has trained and prepared me for the various legal strategies I will be using and has inspired me to find a position where I can do the work that I truly love.”

HIRCP remains eager to deepen its relationships with supporters like the Murthy Fund. Opportunities to connect—whether through conversation or in-person visits in Cambridge—are welcomed as a way to share more about the program’s work and the tangible difference such generosity makes.

In an era of shifting legal landscapes and growing need, the partnership between HIRCP and its supporters ensures that both clients and students are equipped with the tools, knowledge, and compassion necessary to navigate the challenges ahead.

 

 

Copyright © 2026, Murthy Law Firm. All Rights Reserved

The post Sustaining Impact: The Murthy Fund and Harvard Immigration Clinical Program appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

The EB5 program offers a path to a green card for a foreign national who invests in a U.S. business that creates American jobs. But “investing in a U.S. business” can mean two very different things under EB5. An investor can put money either directly into their own business venture (a direct investment) or put money into a project run by someone else through a regional center (a regional center investment). Both can lead to the green card, but each requires a different level of involvement from an investor.

The Big Picture: Same Green Card, Two Different Roads

Whichever path is chosen, EB5 requires the same core ingredients: a qualifying investment amount, money that is truly “at risk,” and the creation of at least ten full‑time U.S. jobs tied to the investment project. What changes between the two options is who runs the business, who creates the jobs, and how involved in this process the investor needs to be.

EB5 Direct Investment: It’s Your Project

In a direct EB5 investment, the investor puts money into their own U.S. business. That might be a restaurant, a manufacturing company, a medical practice, a franchise, or any other lawful for‑profit enterprise. In this case, the investor is not a silent check‑writer. Instead, EB5 requires direct investors to be engaged in the day‑to‑day management of the business or in policy formation, so they must actually run the company or help to steer it.

The job creation responsibility also sits squarely with the investor. The business itself must create at least ten full‑time positions for qualifying U.S. workers, and those jobs must be direct W2 employees of the company, not contractors and not estimated positions. If the business fails to hire, the investor’s green card is at risk.

Direct EB5 tends to appeal to entrepreneurs who want to build and run a business anyway, who have industry experience, and who want full control over how their money is used. The flip side is real operational risk: running a business that hits ten full‑time hires is a significant undertaking, and the investor’s immigration outcome may be tied to how well that business performs.

EB5 Regional Center: It’s Someone Else’s Project

A regional center is a USCIS‑designated organization that sponsors larger pooled EB5 projects, like hotels or multifamily developments. Importantly, the investor is not investing in the regional center itself. The regional center is essentially the broker. The actual investment goes through the regional center into a job creating entity (JCE), which is the operating business that uses the capital and employs the workers.

Unlike direct EB5, regional center investors do not actively manage the project. They are limited partners or similar passive stakeholders, and the job creating entity is responsible for creating the jobs. Regional center investments also get to count indirect and induced jobs (jobs created by economic activity flowing from the project, measured by approved economic models), which makes the ten‑job requirement much easier to satisfy than in a direct investment.

Regional center EB5 tends to appeal to investors who want a more passive experience, who are focused primarily on the green card outcome, and who are comfortable trusting a project sponsor rather than running a business themselves. The tradeoff is less control: the investor is relying on the regional center’s and the JCE’s ability to execute the project, create the jobs, and eventually return the capital.

A Time‑Sensitive Wrinkle: The Regional Center Program Sunsets

There is one more detail that matters a great deal for anyone considering the regional center path. The regional center program is not a permanent feature of U.S. immigration law; it is authorized by Congress and is currently set to expire on 30.Sep.2027. Direct EB5 is not affected by that sunset, but regional center EB5 is.

There is a grandfathering rule where EB5 applications filed on or before 30.Sep.2026 are guaranteed to continue being processed after the program expires, even if Congress does not reauthorize it. Applications filed between 01.Oct.2026 and 30.Sep.2027 may be proceed while the program is still active, but there is no statutory guarantee that they will continue to be adjudicated if the program lapses. For investors leaning toward a regional center, that 30.Sep.2026 date is effectively the safe‑harbor deadline.

The Bottom Line

EB5 is one program with two different experiences. Direct investment puts the investor in the driver’s seat as owner, operator, and job creator. Regional center investment puts the investor in the passenger seat, investing through a sponsor into a project where someone else does the building and the hiring. Murthy Law Firm attorneys are available to consult regarding the best path for you.

 

Copyright © 2026, MURTHY LAW FIRM. All Rights Reserved

The post EB5 Direct Investment vs. Regional Center: What’s the Difference? appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

USCIS is rolling out enhanced security checks for many immigration applicants, including expanding FBI background screening and pausing some cases during implementation. Expect stricter review and more delays.

The post Case Delays Due to Increased USCIS Vetting appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

Answer

Generally speaking, you are not required to be working in the same field at the time of applying for naturalization as when you received your green card. However, in some circumstances it may be an issue. Before seeking new post-green card employment or applying for naturalization, it is best to consult with an attorney because of the nuances involved. (29.Apr.2026)

Sheela Murthy and other senior attorneys provide guidance that clarifies the law. For information on our FREE online services, click here. Access more FAQs here.

 

 

Copyright © 2026, MURTHY LAW FIRM. All Rights Reserved

The post I have an employment-based green card and am getting ready to file for citizenship. Since obtaining my green card, I have changed jobs and am no longer working in the same field. Is this a problem? appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

Answer

No. Unlike the RC program, the direct investment EB5 program is not scheduled to sunset on 20.Sep.2027, and is therefore not subject to the grandfathering deadline. (29.Apr.2026)

Sheela Murthy and other senior attorneys provide guidance that clarifies the law. For information on our FREE online services, click here. Access more FAQs here.

 

 

Copyright © 2026, MURTHY LAW FIRM. All Rights Reserved

The post I understand that EB5 Regional Center (RC) cases must be filed by 30.Sep.2026 to be grandfathered into the EB5 category, as the RC program is scheduled to sunset on 30.Sep.2027. Does the same deadline apply to direct investment EB5 filings? appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

Answer

Yes. General PERM processing times can be found on the DOL’s FLAG website. If you have your case number, you can check the specific status of your case using the DOL’s Case Status Search tool. (29.Apr.2026)

Sheela Murthy and other senior attorneys provide guidance that clarifies the law. For information on our FREE online services, click here. Access more FAQs here.

 

 

Copyright © 2026, MURTHY LAW FIRM. All Rights Reserved

The post Is there a way to check the status of my pending PERM application while the ETA Form 9089 is processing with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL)? appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

The Trump administration now requires consular officers to ask nonimmigrant visa applicants if they fear returning home and to deny visas on that basis. The asylum door is moving from the border to the embassy.

The post New U.S. Visa Rules Could Block Asylum Path appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

If 120 calendar days have passed since your naturalization interview without a decision from USCIS, you have a right to sue USCIS in federal court! Contact Murthy Law Firm to see if this option is right for you.

The post Naturalization Delayed? Take Legal Action! appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

Engaged or Married to a U.S. Citizen? Picking the Right Immigration Route

You are a U.S. citizen, your partner lives abroad, and you want to build your life together in the United States. Whether you are already married or planning to be, there are two main immigration routes to consider: the I-130 immigrant visa petition for spouses, and the I-129F K-1 petition for fiancé/es. Both lead to the same destination, a green card, but they take different paths to get there. Picking the right one depends on your situation, your timing, and your priorities.

The Big Picture: Marriage Now or Later?

The core question for this choice is: do you want to get married before your partner comes to the U.S., or do you want them to come here first and then get married while you are both in the U.S.? If you marry abroad, the I-130 immigrant visa process is the path. If you want to marry in the U.S., the K-1 fiancé/e visa is the best choice. Neither path is objectively better, and each has trade-offs. This article walks through pros and cons of both so couples can make an informed decision.

Option One: The I-130 Spousal Petition

Once you are legally married, the U.S. citizen spouse can file an I-130 petition with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). The central requirement, beyond a valid legal marriage, is proving that the marriage is bona fide, meaning it was entered into for love and a shared life together, not just to obtain a green card. Evidence of a bona fide marriage can include joint financial accounts, photos together over time, and communication history, among other documents.

Once the I-130 is approved, the case moves to the National Visa Center (NVC) for processing. After the NVC receives the required forms and documentation, the case is scheduled for an immigrant visa interview at a U.S. consulate abroad. Upon approval and entry into the U.S., the spouse is a lawful permanent resident, and no separate adjustment-of-status application is required.

Option Two: The K-1 Fiancé/e Visa

If the couple is not yet married and wants to marry in the U.S., the K-1 fiancé/e visa is the route. The U.S. citizen files an I-129F petition with USCIS. To qualify, the couple must establish a bona fide intention to marry within 90 days of entry into the U.S., and the parties must have met in person within the two years before filing the petition, with limited exceptions.

Once the I-129F is approved, it travels to the NVC, which assigns a case number and forwards the case to the consulate. The foreign national fiancé/e then applies for the K-1 visa, completes a medical exam, and attends a consular interview. Processing times vary widely from consulate to consulate and case to case. Upon arrival in the U.S., the couple must marry within 90 days. After the wedding, the foreign national spouse still must file an adjustment-of-status application with USCIS to obtain the green card. A word of caution: if the couple marries abroad before entering the U.S., they lose eligibility for the K-1 and will need to pursue the I-130 route.

Timelines: Neither Path is Fast

Standalone I-130 petitions for spouses of U.S. citizens are taking close to 14 months at the USCIS as of this writing, and how long the consular processing stage takes after that depends upon the country and consulate involved.

I-129F timing is less predictable. The I-129F plus consular processing stage may be slightly shorter than the I-130 route, but the comparison does not end at arrival. Once the K-1 beneficiary enters the U.S. and marries, the adjustment-of-status application that follows has its own processing time. While the adjustment-of-status application is pending, the immigrating spouse can apply for work authorization.

What About Accompanying Children?

Each process has its own rules if the foreign national partner has a minor child who needs to come along. With the I-130 path, when the petitioner is a U.S. citizen, a separate I-130 petition must be filed for each child. But for K-1 cases, any minor, unmarried children of the K-1 fiancé/e can accompany the parent in K-2 status and then adjust status in the U.S. after the marriage.

The Bottom Line

There is no universally correct choice between the I-130 and K-1 routes, and the best choice will depend on the couple’s individual circumstances. Immigration through marriage is one of the most personal areas of U.S. immigration law, and small details can meaningfully change which path makes sense. Murthy Law Firm attorneys are available to consult on the available options and preparing a strong petition from the start.

 

Copyright © 2026, MURTHY LAW FIRM. All Rights Reserved

The post K-1 vs I-130 appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

USCIS now allows PDF upload filing for Form I-485 (Adjustment of Status) in certain employment-based cases. However, PDF-upload filing hasn’t always worked reliably in other case types. Consult your attorney before using this option to understand potential risks.

The post Big News! I-485 Online Filing Now Available appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

For many years, the EB2 India category consistently had a cutoff date more favorable than its EB3 counterpart. Since October 2020, however, there has been considerable back-and-forth, with the EB3 India cutoff date surging ahead of EB2, then EB3 stalling and the EB2 cutoff date again passing it. These fluctuations have continued into fiscal year 2026, with the April 2026 Visa Bulletin creating renewed opportunities for certain EB2 India applicants. This ongoing volatility has led to sustained interest in interfiling. In these FAQs, MurthyDotCom addresses questions on interfiling.

1. What is interfiling? Is this different from “transferring the basis” of my I-485? Also, is this different from “upgrading” or “downgrading?”

If a foreign national has a pending I-485 and wishes to change the basis for the I-485 (e.g., substitute an EB2 I-140 for the EB3 I-140 submitted with the I-485 application), the USCIS refers to this process in its Policy Manual as a “transfer of the underlying basis.” See 7 USCIS-PM A.8. Immigration attorneys typically refer to this process as interfiling.

The more colloquial terms, “upgrading” and “downgrading” in the I-485 context, are synonymous with interfiling and refer to moving from one employment-based category to another if you have an approved I-140 petition already.

2. What are the requirements to transfer the basis of my I-485 from one category to another?

To qualify to interfile, the USCIS requires that ALL the following conditions are satisfied:

• The applicant must have continuously maintained eligibility to adjust status.
• The I-485 application must be pending.
• The applicant must be eligible for the category requested.
• The priority date must be current under the Final Action Dates chart on the date the interfiling request is submitted.

In addition, the decision to grant or deny a transfer request is a matter of USCIS discretion. For simple transfers between the first three employment-based categories, USCIS has indicated a general willingness to grant such requests, but the applicant should not assume that any transfer request will be approved automatically. USCIS also may consider factors such as the reason for the request, the availability of supporting documentation, and the degree of additional processing time required.

3. How do I make a request to transfer the basis of my I-485?

To transfer from one employment-based category to another, the request must be submitted in writing and should include a signed and completed Form I-485, Supplement J (Confirmation of Valid Job Offer or Request for Job Portability Under INA Section 204(j)). Note that the Supplement J form was retitled in its December 2024 edition, replacing the prior reference to “Bona Fide” job offer with “Valid” job offer. The request also should include a cover letter identifying the pending I-485 receipt number, the current and requested basis (with I-140 receipt or approval numbers), and a copy of the I-485 receipt notice. Filing addresses are subject to change; applicants should consult the current USCIS filing instructions for Form I-485 Supplement J before submitting their request. Note that “Related Links” at the bottom of the page, provides a link to Green Card for Employment-Based Immigrants, which indicates a specific lockbox to which these requests should be sent.

4. Will the USCIS acknowledge my transfer request?

The USCIS does not issue a separate written acknowledgment that the transfer of basis has been effectuated. However, USCIS will issue a receipt notice for the I-485 Supplement J filing, which serves as confirmation that the package was received. In practice, the only definitive confirmation that the transfer was completed often is the eventual approval of the I-485 under the new category. Given this lack of visibility, it is advisable to retain proof of mailing (e.g., certified mail receipt or tracking confirmation) and to bring a copy of the Supplement J and transfer request letter to any adjustment interview. If a receipt notice is not received in 30–45 days (due to high volume at the lockbox), it is best to email the USCIS lockbox to follow up.

5. Do I have to be in valid nonimmigrant status to transfer the basis of my I-485?

No, this is not a requirement. The “continuing eligibility” requirement for interfiling focuses on whether there has been any break in the underlying petition basis supporting the I-485, not on whether the applicant is currently in valid nonimmigrant status. The applicant generally must have been in lawful status at the time the I-485 application originally was filed. For interfiling purposes, however, a person who is in a period of authorized stay (such as on an EAD under the pending I-485), or who is outside the United States (having traveled on advance parole or while maintaining H or L status), should not be prevented from submitting an interfiling request. Employment-based applicants also may benefit from the INA 245(k) exemption, which forgives certain status violations of 180 days or less for applicants in the first three employment-based preference categories.

6. Can I transfer the basis of my I-485 from EB3 I-140 to EB2 I-140 and then change jobs?

Pursuant to the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21), a person may move to a position that is in the “same or similar occupational classification” as the one set forth in the underlying PERM labor certification once the I-485 has been pending for at least 180 days. Under established USCIS policy, this 180-day “clock” resets upon the submission of an interfiling request. In other words, AC21 portability remains available after interfiling, but only after the applicant has waited at least 180 days from the date of the interfiling request. This is an important consideration for anyone contemplating a job change in the near term after interfiling.

Many practitioners continue to believe that this USCIS policy conflicts with the plain language of AC21, which ties the 180-day period to the pendency of the I-485 application itself rather than to any particular petition basis. Nevertheless, as of this writing, USCIS treats the 180-day clock reset as settled policy, and applicants should plan accordingly. Additionally, note that USCIS has clarified that applicants whose I-140 petitions are based on a national interest waiver (NIW) are eligible for AC21 portability, though because their immigrant visas are not tied to a specific job offer, they do not need to file a Supplement J if they change jobs.

7. I filed my I-485 concurrently with an EB3 I-140, and both the I-485 and I-140 are still pending. Can I interfile an EB2 I-140?

Yes, this is permitted under current USCIS policy. The USCIS Policy Manual now expressly addresses several petition-transfer scenarios: an applicant with a concurrently filed and pending I-140 may replace the pending petition with an already-approved petition, and may replace it with another pending petition, provided the new basis allows for concurrent filing. In practice, USCIS will adjudicate the petition designated as the new basis of the I-485. Applicants should designate clearly, in writing which petition serves as the new basis, because only one petition may support the I-485 at any given time. If the EB2 I-140 still is pending at the time of adjudication, it ultimately must be approved before the I-485 can be granted.

8. Instead of interfiling, am I better off just filing another I-485 application?

As a general rule, the USCIS recommends that applicants interfile rather than submit a new I-485 adjustment-of-status application. Interfiling avoids the need for a new filing fee and preserves the original I-485 filing date for purposes of accruing time toward AC21 portability (subject to the 180-day clock reset discussed above). However, there may be situations in which filing a second I-485 is the better option, particularly when visa bulletin movement is unpredictable across categories and the applicant wants to maintain eligibility under both, as long as they still are maintaining valid nonimmigrant status. An important practical consideration: for any new I-485 filed after 01.Apr.2024, USCIS requires separate filing fees for Form I-765 (EAD) and Form I-131 (advance parole), which previously were bundled into the I-485 fee. This additional cost may weigh in favor of interfiling in many cases. As always, this is something that should be discussed with your attorney.

9. Will my EAD/AP still be valid if I interfile?

Submitting an interfiling request should not impact the validity of one’s existing EAD or advance parole document. Similarly, if EAD and AP applications are pending when an interfiling request is made, USCIS should continue to process those applications in the normal course. However, applicants should be aware of significant recent changes to the EAD landscape that affect all I-485 applicants. Effective in late 2025, USCIS eliminated automatic extensions for most EAD renewal categories, and the maximum validity period for adjustment-of-status-based EADs has been reduced from five years to 18 months. This means more frequent renewal filings now are required, and applicants must plan ahead to avoid gaps in work authorization.

10. If I upgrade from EB3 to EB2, am I allowed to later downgrade back to EB3 if needed?

Historically, USCIS has allowed a person to interfile between categories more than once if needed. However, applicants should keep in mind that each subsequent transfer resets the 180-day AC21 portability clock, is subject to the same discretionary and eligibility requirements (including visa availability at the time of the new request), and requires a new Supplement J filing with supporting documentation. Frequent transfers also may attract additional scrutiny from USCIS adjudicators. Only the employer that holds the I-140 petition can sign an I-485 Supplement J to confirm the valid job offer for their own company (i.e., you cannot have new Company B sign an I-485 Supplement J for Company A’s I-140).

11. Should I submit an updated medical examination (Form I-693) with my interfiling request?

If your I-485 has been pending for a significant period, there is a strong likelihood that your previously submitted medical examination has expired. USCIS cannot approve the I-485 without a valid Form I-693, and while USCIS typically will issue a Request for Evidence (RFE) for a new medical exam, there is no guarantee as to when that RFE will arrive. The USCIS has requested specifically that a medical examination not be submitted with Form I-485 Supplement J. If you separately submit the medical examination to the USCIS mailroom to match up to your file, you still may get an RFE for a new medical and would have to submit again.

While some aspects of immigration have changed in significant ways in the years since MurthyDotCom began publishing articles in 1994, there is much that is still the same. From time to time, clients of the Murthy Law Firm are referred to articles, like this one, which remains relevant and has been updated for our readers.

 

Copyright © 2022-2026, MURTHY LAW FIRM. All Rights Reserved

The post FAQs on Interfiling at the I-485 Adjustment of Status Stage appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

Answer

Yes. The USCIS has stated that it will not deny a new or amended H1B petition solely because the work location differs from the one listed in the original registration. However, the proffered wage must continue to meet or exceed the same OES wage level that was listed on the original registration. The USCIS will consider the totality of the circumstances when evaluating petitions filed with a changed location, so petitioners should ensure the overall case remains consistent and well-documented. (21.Apr.2026)

Sheela Murthy and other senior attorneys provide guidance that clarifies the law. For information on our FREE online services, click here. Access more FAQs here.

 

 

Copyright © 2026, MURTHY LAW FIRM. All Rights Reserved

The post I was selected in the H1B lottery, but my registration listed a different work location than where I actually will be working. Can my employer file the H1B petition for the new location? appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

Answer

If your priority date was current at the time you properly filed your Form I-485, USCIS generally will continue processing your application even if the Visa Bulletin later retrogresses, and your filing remains valid. However, because the USCIS cannot approve your adjustment-of-status application unless a visa number is available per the Final Action Dates chart, your case will remain pending until your priority date becomes current again. (21.Apr.2026)

Sheela Murthy and other senior attorneys provide guidance that clarifies the law. For information on our FREE online services, click here. Access more FAQs here.

 

 

Copyright © 2026, MURTHY LAW FIRM. All Rights Reserved

The post I filed my I-485 adjustment-of-status application when my priority date was current. The Visa Bulletin later retrogressed. What does this mean for my I-485 application? appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

Answer

No, retrogression does not pause the processing of a concurrently filed EAD or AP application. Additionally, it does not affect the validity of an existing EAD or AP, nor does it prevent a person from applying for extensions. (21.Apr.2026)

Sheela Murthy and other senior attorneys provide guidance that clarifies the law. For information on our FREE online services, click here. Access more FAQs here.

 

 

Copyright © 2026, MURTHY LAW FIRM. All Rights Reserved

The post I filed my I-485 adjustment-of-status application when my priority date was current. The Visa Bulletin later retrogressed. Will the USCIS also pause the processing for my pending EAD or AP application? appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

The United Way of Northeast Florida (UWNEFL) hosted its “Tocqueville Society Spring Soirée” on Thursday, April 16, 2026, in Jacksonville—an evening dedicated to honoring the generosity and leadership of its Tocqueville Society members, whose support strengthens the organization’s work across the region.

Among the most powerful moments of the evening was the story shared by Jamie and Justin, a U.S. veteran, who spoke about how their family’s life was profoundly transformed through UWNEFL’s support. Their experience underscored the tangible impact of community-driven philanthropy.

As Chair of the Tocqueville Society, Sheela Murthy reflected on her philosophy of life and leadership, emphasizing the importance of compassion, shared responsibility, and collective action in creating meaningful change.

Set against the sweeping views of the St. Johns River, the soirée took place at the waterfront home of Rene and Lawrence Kurzius. It was an evening marked not only by its beauty, but by a deep sense of purpose—reminding all in attendance that, by working together, we can make a lasting difference in the lives of veterans, families, and the broader community.

 

 

Copyright © 2026, Murthy Law Firm. All Rights Reserved

The post Helping Veterans and Others through UWNEFL appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) recently issued guidance clarifying who will be subject to the $100,000 fee imposed under the 19.Sep.2025, executive proclamation addressing certain H1B filings. While the published guidance outlines specific circumstances in which the fee should apply, the Murthy Law Firm’s experience in practice suggests that the fee is being assessed far more broadly than the agency’s own explanations would indicate. Here we summarize the current USCIS guidance and then explain what we actually are seeing in H1B cases involving consular processing.

Summary of USCIS Guidance on the $100,000 Fee

According to the FAQ issued by USCIS on 21.Sep.2025, the $100,000 fee primarily applies to new H1B petitions filed on or after 21.Sep.2025, where the beneficiary is outside the United States and does not hold a valid H1B visa, and when a petition requests consular notification. Importantly, the subsequent guidance posted on the USCIS Specialty Occupation page does not make the distinction of a “new H1B petition.” The fee also can be assessed in certain situations where the USCIS determines a beneficiary is not eligible for a requested change of status, amendment, or extension.

Petitions filed prior to the 21.Sep.2025 effective date are not subject to the fee. The USCIS also explicitly notes that approved extensions, amendments, or changes of status for individuals inside the United States should not trigger the payment requirement, even if the individual later travels internationally and applies for visa stamping. This portion of the guidance still holds true.

In short, the agency’s published position suggests that the $100,000 fee should be limited in scope and tied closely to new H1B cases involving individuals without existing H1B visa validity who request consular processing. Still, this is not what has been directly observed.

What the Murthy Law Firm is Seeing in Practice

Despite the relatively narrow framework set out by the USCIS, the Murthy Law Firm’s attorneys are observing a different reality in adjudications. In practice, we are seeing requests for evidence (RFEs) issued in nearly all cases that request consular processing, regardless of whether the beneficiary appears to fall squarely within the fee exemption categories described in the USCIS guidance. These RFEs routinely demand payment of the $100,000 fee.

This has occurred even where:

• The individual already holds a valid, previously issued H1B visa stamp, or
• The petition is not a “new” H1B petition, but rather an extension, amendment, or change involving an existing H1B worker.

RFE Responses and Adjudication Delays

When we respond to these RFEs, we typically explain that the beneficiary is not subject to the fee under the USCIS’s own guidance. This includes arguments that:

• The individual is in possession of a valid H1B visa and therefore falls outside the scope of the proclamation, or
• The petition does not constitute a new H1B filing that would lawfully trigger the fee requirement.

Unfortunately, these responses frequently remain pending for extended periods with no further action by the USCIS, even when filed under premium processing. In some cases, adjudication stalls indefinitely. In others, the matter remains unresolved until the beneficiary’s visa stamp expires, at which point a denial is issued.

This practice appears inconsistent with the agency’s published guidance and creates significant uncertainty for employers and H1B workers alike.

Conclusion

While USCIS guidance suggests that the $100,000 H1B fee should apply only in limited circumstances, the Murthy Law Firm’s experience indicates that the fee is being assessed far more broadly in practice, particularly in cases involving consular processing. Employers and H1B workers should be aware of these trends when planning international travel or filing petitions that may involve consular notification. The Murthy Law Firm will continue to monitor developments closely and advocate for adjudications that align with the agency’s own stated policies.

 

Copyright © 2026, MURTHY LAW FIRM. All Rights Reserved

The post Murthy Law Firm Observations on $100,000 H1B Fee: Practice Reality vs Published Guidance appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

Reduce an RFE risk by checking your birth docs before filing for AOS to confirm correct doc type, complete names, and timely registration. Find your country-specific requirements here.

The post Check Your Birth Documents! appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

The Murthy Law Firm has been hearing about increased H1B, H-4, and initial F-1 visa appointment availability — a positive sign for the appointment backlog!

The post Visa Appointment Update appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

Answer

In this scenario, it would be advisable to proactively send in the Supplement J form, as USCIS will not necessarily issue an RFE. (14.Apr.2026)

Sheela Murthy and other senior attorneys provide guidance that clarifies the law. For information on our FREE online services, click here. Access more FAQs here.

 

 

Copyright © 2026, MURTHY LAW FIRM. All Rights Reserved

The post My employment-based I-485 application has been pending for more than 180 days, and I have moved to a new employer and want to request AC21 portability. Should I proactively send in a Form I-485 Supplement J, or wait for an RFE? appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

Answer

It likely can, as long as the in-person component is genuinely required, not optional. (14.Apr.2026)

Sheela Murthy and other senior attorneys provide guidance that clarifies the law. For information on our FREE online services, click here. Access more FAQs here.

 

 

Copyright © 2026, MURTHY LAW FIRM. All Rights Reserved

The post I am an F-1 student in a hybrid program that mixes online classes with required in-person sessions. Can this type of program satisfy the full course of study requirement? appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.