US Immigration News

The White House has issued a new proclamation purporting to extend the September 2025 H1B entry restrictions for another year, again requiring a $100,000 payment for certain H1B workers seeking entry.

Notably, the prior implementation of the $100,000 payment was vacated by a federal district court, and the First Circuit declined to stay that decision. The legal implications of this new proclamation remain to be seen.

The post NewsFlash! H1B $100K Payment: Back Again? appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

A new Executive Order directs DOL, DHS, and DOS to consider an H1B employer’s recent or planned layoffs of similarly situated U.S. workers when reviewing LCAs, H1B petitions, visas, and admission.

It also calls for expanded interagency coordination and a review of previously filed LCAs.

Importantly, this is SEPARATE from today’s Proclamation addressing the $100,000 H1B payment / entry restriction.

The post NewsFlash! H1B Update: New Executive Order Targets Employer Layoffs appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

A derivative child in an employment-based immigration case does not necessarily lose eligibility for a green card upon reaching the biological age of 21. The Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) provides a special age calculation that may preserve the person’s classification as a “child,” provided the calculated CSPA age is under 21 and the other statutory requirements are satisfied.

This article uses a hypothetical example to explain how CSPA may protect a derivative child whose adjustment-of-status application was filed several years ago under the Dates for Filing chart (Chart B). The dates are illustrative and do not correspond to an actual case.

How CSPA Age Is Calculated

For a qualifying derivative child in an employment-based preference case, the basic formula is:

CSPA age = biological age when an immigrant visa becomes available for CSPA purposes, minus the number of days the underlying immigrant petition was pending.

The petition’s pending period generally runs from the date the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers in the employment-based context, was properly filed through the date it was approved. Filing the Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, is important, but the filing date does not by itself determine or freeze the child’s CSPA age.

In addition to having a calculated CSPA age under 21, the derivative generally must seek to acquire lawful permanent resident status within one year of visa availability and must remain unmarried. A properly filed Form I-485 is one recognized means of satisfying the sought-to-acquire requirement.

Illustrative Facts

Assume a derivative child was born on August 14, 2005. The principal beneficiary’s Form I-140 was filed on April 10, 2016, and approved on April 15, 2016, resulting in a five-day petition-pending period.

Assume further that USCIS authorized employment-based adjustment applicants to use the Dates for Filing chart in November 2020. The family’s priority date was eligible under the applicable chart for the correct employment-based preference category and country of chargeability. The principal beneficiary and derivative child properly filed their Forms I-485 on November 5, 2020, and the derivative has remained unmarried.

The question is whether the derivative may remain protected under CSPA despite reaching the biological age of 21 on August 14, 2026.

Special Rule for Adjustment Applications Filed Before August 15, 2025

USCIS changed its CSPA visa-availability policy effective August 15, 2025. Under the current general rule, USCIS ordinarily uses the Final Action Dates chart (Chart A) to determine when a visa becomes available for calculating CSPA age.

USCIS also adopted a transition rule for adjustment applications filed before August 15, 2025. For those applications, USCIS applies the CSPA visa-availability policy that governed before the change. Under that prior policy, the relevant date is generally the later of the petition’s approval date or the first day of the month when USCIS considered a visa available for accepting and processing an adjustment application. This can include a month in which USCIS authorized use of the Dates for Filing chart (Chart B).

The USCIS Policy Manual explains the current rule and the transition treatment for applications filed before August 15, 2025 in Child Status Protection Act.

Applying the Rule to the Hypothetical

In this example, the Form I-140 was approved in April 2016. Assuming the priority date was eligible under the USCIS-authorized Dates for Filing chart for November 2020, the relevant visa-availability date would generally be November 1, 2020, because that date is later than the petition’s approval date.

The derivative child was approximately 15 years, 2 months, and 18 days old on November 1, 2020. Subtracting the five days during which the Form I-140 was pending results in a calculated CSPA age of approximately 15 years, 2 months, and 13 days. That is well below age 21.

The child’s November 5, 2020 Form I-485 filing did not independently freeze the child’s age. Rather, CSPA protection results from the statutory age calculation, the visa-availability policy applicable to the pre-August 15, 2025 adjustment filing, and compliance with the remaining CSPA requirements.

The Sought-to-Acquire Requirement

A derivative beneficiary generally must seek to acquire lawful permanent resident status within one year after a visa becomes available. A properly filed Form I-485 ordinarily satisfies this requirement.

In the hypothetical, the derivative filed Form I-485 on November 5, 2020, during the same month in which visa availability is assumed to have occurred under the applicable USCIS policy. If USCIS accepted the application as properly filed, this should satisfy the sought-to-acquire requirement.

Unmarried Status Remains Essential

CSPA protects against aging out, but it does not eliminate the requirement that a derivative beneficiary remain unmarried. Marriage generally ends eligibility as a derivative “child,” even if the person’s calculated CSPA age is under 21.

The derivative therefore must remain unmarried through the adjudication of the adjustment application and acquisition of lawful permanent resident status.

Important Facts That Must Be Confirmed

A favorable CSPA calculation depends on more than the dates shown in the hypothetical. The record should confirm that the child was properly included as a derivative beneficiary, the Forms I-485 were properly filed and accepted, and the child has remained unmarried. It should also be confirmed that the priority date qualified under the correct November 2020 Dates for Filing cutoff for the applicable preference category and country of chargeability.

The pending adjustment application must remain viable. A denial, withdrawal, abandonment, or other interruption may affect the analysis. The principal beneficiary also must remain eligible to adjust status, and the underlying Form I-140 must remain valid for adjustment purposes.

Particular care is necessary if the adjustment application has been transferred to a different underlying Form I-140. USCIS generally calculates CSPA age using the petition that actually forms the basis of the adjustment application. A transfer to another petition may therefore require a new calculation using that petition’s filing and approval dates.

Finally, CSPA protection does not resolve unrelated eligibility concerns. The derivative still must satisfy the general requirements for adjustment of status and must not be subject to an independent ground of inadmissibility, adjustment bar, or other disqualifying issue.

Conclusion

Under the hypothetical facts, the derivative child likely remains protected by CSPA after reaching the biological age of 21. The five-day Form I-140 pending period is subtracted from the child’s age on the applicable visa-availability date. If November 1, 2020 is the correct date under the policy applicable to the pre-August 15, 2025 adjustment filing, the resulting CSPA age is approximately 15 years and 2 months.

The analysis remains fact-specific. The priority date, filing chart, country of chargeability, petition history, adjustment filing history, marital status, and sought-to-acquire evidence all should be reviewed before relying on CSPA protection. Individuals with a derivative child who is approaching or has passed age 21 should consult a qualified immigration attorney to evaluate the case under the applicable USCIS policy.

 

Copyright © 2026, MURTHY LAW FIRM. All Rights Reserved

The post CSPA Protection for Employment-Based Derivative Children with Pending Adjustment Applications appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

Answer

Any arrest, charge, or conviction can complicate a nonimmigrant visa application, although a criminal record does not automatically make every applicant inadmissible. The result depends on the offense, criminal statute, disposition, sentence, and other facts. If a criminal ground of inadmissibility applies, the applicant may be eligible to request a discretionary nonimmigrant waiver under INA section 212(d)(3)(A), but approval is not guaranteed. Even if the officer does not find the applicant inadmissible on criminal grounds, the applicant still must establish eligibility for the visa and overcome all other applicable grounds of refusal.

A consular officer commonly may refuse the application under INA section 221(g) while requesting court or police records, considering a waiver, or conducting additional administrative processing. A 221(g) determination is a visa refusal when issued, although it may later be overcome, and there is no guaranteed processing time or favorable result. Before leaving the United States, the individual should have qualified immigration counsel review the complete criminal record, potential inadmissibility, waiver eligibility, and required documentation. Travel should be undertaken cautiously because the individual may be unable to return to the United States for an extended period. The Department of State provides information on administrative processing.

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 arrest or criminal record and will need to apply for a nonimmigrant visa at a U.S. consulate or embassy abroad. What should I consider before traveling? appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

New York and a coalition of states and local governments filed two federal lawsuits on September 14, 2026, seeking to block the Trump administration’s new public charge rule. The cases, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, challenge the rule under the Administrative Procedure Act and argue that it unlawfully expands the public charge ground of inadmissibility while creating uncertainty that may discourage eligible immigrants and their family members from using public benefits. The multistate complaint is available through the official website of the New York State Attorney General.

The rule is scheduled to take effect on September 18, 2026, and may affect certain foreign nationals applying for admission or adjustment to lawful permanent resident status. As of September 15, 2026, no publicly reported court order had blocked the rule, and filing the lawsuits does not by itself suspend the effective date. The Murthy Law Firm is closely monitoring the cases for any request for emergency relief or court order affecting implementation. Additional details and practical guidance will be provided on MurthyDotCom as they become available.

 

Copyright © 2026, MURTHY LAW FIRM. All Rights Reserved

The post NewsFlash! States and Cities Sue to Block New Public Charge Rule appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

A federal district court in Massachusetts has postponed the effective date of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) final rule that would eliminate the duration-of-status (D/S) framework for F-1 students, J-1 exchange visitors, and certain I nonimmigrants. The rule, titled “Establishing a Fixed Time Period of Admission and an Extension of Stay Procedure for Nonimmigrant Academic Students, Exchange Visitors, and Representatives of Foreign Information Media,” had been scheduled to take effect on 15.Sep.2026. The court’s order in Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, et al. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al. postpones the rule’s effective date while the litigation proceeds.

Accordingly, the longstanding D/S framework remains in place for now. Individuals and institutions should continue monitoring the litigation and agency announcements, because the court’s order does not resolve the legal challenge on the merits and the rule could be reinstated or otherwise modified later. Murthy Law Firm is reviewing the decision and will provide further analysis. The final rule is available at Federal Register final rule.

 

Copyright © 2026, MURTHY LAW FIRM. All Rights Reserved

The post NewsFlash! Court Postpones Effective Date of Rule Ending Duration of Status appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is scheduled to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking on September 11, 2026, that would eliminate the discretionary grace period of up to 60 days currently available to certain nonimmigrant workers following the end of employment. The proposed rule, Eliminating the Discretionary 60-day Grace Period, would affect workers in E-1, E-2, E-3, H1B, H1B1, L-1, O-1, and TN status, as well as their dependent family members.

What Is Being Proposed?

Under the current regulation, an eligible nonimmigrant worker whose qualifying employment ends before the expiration of the worker’s authorized validity period generally may receive a discretionary grace period of up to 60 consecutive days, or until the end of the authorized validity period, whichever is shorter. During that period, the worker is not considered to have failed to maintain nonimmigrant status solely because the employment ended. This flexibility may allow time to secure new qualifying employment, have a new employer file a petition, request a change of status, or pursue another available immigration option.

DHS proposes removing this grace-period provision from 8 C.F.R. §214.1(l). If the proposal is finalized as written, an affected worker generally would begin failing to maintain status after the qualifying employment or activity ends, unless the individual is otherwise authorized to remain in the United States. The worker and dependent family members could need to depart promptly or rely upon another timely and legally available basis to remain.

Why Is DHS Proposing the Change?

DHS states that eliminating the grace period would more directly connect a worker’s nonimmigrant status to the employment or activity underlying that status. The agency also asserts that the change would promote program integrity and reduce the administrative burden involved in determining whether the discretionary grace period applies when USCIS adjudicates later petitions and applications.

The proposal acknowledges that affected workers may face lost income, travel expenses, and other costs if they must leave the United States to search for employment and later seek readmission. DHS estimates that approximately 3,795 workers annually have a new Form I-129 filed on their behalf by a new petitioner during the current grace period, with H1B workers accounting for the overwhelming majority of that estimate. The proposal also recognizes potential consequences for work-authorized dependent spouses and their employers.

The Current Grace Period Remains in Effect

This is only a proposed rule. It does not eliminate or otherwise change the existing 60-day discretionary grace-period regulation at this time. DHS must review public comments and publish a final rule before the proposed change could take effect. Any final rule would specify its effective date and may differ from the proposal.

Comments and Practical Considerations

Written comments are due on or before November 10, 2026, and may be submitted through Regulations.gov under DHS Docket No. USCIS-2026-0364.

Employers and affected foreign nationals should monitor this rulemaking closely. If the proposal is finalized, advance planning following a resignation, layoff, or termination would become substantially more important. Foreign nationals facing an end of employment should seek individualized legal advice promptly regarding possible employer-sponsored filings, change-of-status options, adjustment of status, compelling-circumstances employment authorization, or departure and later readmission, as applicable.

Conclusion

The proposed elimination of the 60-day grace period would represent a significant change for many employment-based nonimmigrant workers and their families. The Murthy Law Firm will continue to monitor the rulemaking and provide updates as more information becomes available.

 

Copyright © 2026, MURTHY LAW FIRM. All Rights Reserved

The post NewsFlash! DHS Proposes Eliminating 60-Day Grace Period for Certain Nonimmigrant Workers appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

For many U.S. employers, sponsoring a foreign national for H1B classification begins with the annual H1B cap registration process. Because the demand for H1B visas consistently exceeds the number available each fiscal year, many employers must rely on the H1B lottery before they may file a petition on behalf of a prospective employee.

Not every H1B petition, however, is subject to the annual cap. Congress created several exemptions that allow qualifying employers to file H1B petitions without regard to the annual numerical limitation. In addition, certain petitions filed by employers that are not themselves cap exempt may also qualify for cap-exempt treatment under the applicable regulations.

Determining whether an H1B petition qualifies for the cap exemption is one of the first and most important questions employers should consider before beginning the H1B process. Qualifying for cap-exempt H1B classification may eliminate the need to participate in the annual lottery, reduce hiring delays, and provide greater flexibility when recruiting highly skilled foreign nationals.

This article focuses on employer-based H1B cap exemptions, explains who may qualify, and discusses the rules that apply when an H1B worker transitions between cap-exempt and cap-subject employment.

What Is the H1B Cap?

The H1B category permits U.S. employers to temporarily employ foreign nationals in specialty occupations requiring the theoretical and practical application of specialized knowledge and at least a bachelor’s degree or its equivalent in a specific specialty.

Most new H1B petitions are subject to annual numerical limits established by Congress: 65,000 under the regular cap, plus 20,000 for beneficiaries who hold a qualifying U.S. master’s or higher degree. Employers seeking to file cap-subject petitions generally must first submit electronic registrations. If USCIS receives more registrations than are needed to meet the annual cap, it conducts a weighted selection process that gives preference to registrations associated with higher Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics wage levels.

Certain H1B petitions are exempt from the annual cap and are not limited to the annual cap-registration cycle. They remain subject to all other filing, eligibility, and status requirements.

Which Employers May File Cap-Exempt H1B Petitions?

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) exempts certain categories of employers from the annual H1B cap. These generally include:

• Institutions of higher education;
• Nonprofit entities related to or affiliated with institutions of higher education;
• Nonprofit research organizations; and
• Governmental research organizations.

Determining whether a particular employer qualifies for a cap exemption requires careful analysis of the statutory and regulatory criteria applicable to the specific exemption. Employers should carefully evaluate their eligibility before filing a petition as cap-exempt.

Current regulations provide that a nonprofit research organization or governmental research organization qualifies for a cap exemption if research constitutes a fundamental activity of the organization, rather than its primary purpose. As a result, organizations that engage in meaningful research as one of their core activities may qualify for the exemption even if research is not their principal mission.

Can a Private Employer File a Cap-Exempt H1B Petition?

Yes. Although many cap-exempt petitions are filed by universities and research institutions, a petitioner that is not itself a cap-exempt employer may nevertheless qualify to file a cap-exempt H1B petition in certain circumstances.

Under the regulations, a petition may qualify for cap-exempt treatment if the beneficiary will spend at least one-half of their work time performing duties at a qualifying institution of higher education, an affiliated or related nonprofit entity, nonprofit research organization, or governmental research organization. Those duties must directly further an activity that supports or advances one of the institution’s or organization’s fundamental purposes, missions, objectives, or functions. For this purpose, work performed “at” the qualifying organization may include telework, remote work, or other off-site work performed in the United States.

Example: A software engineer employed by a private technology company may qualify for cap-exempt H1B classification if the engineer spends at least one-half of their work time performing job duties at a university that directly further one of the university’s fundamental purposes, such as its research mission, provided the position otherwise satisfies all applicable regulatory requirements.

Because these determinations are fact-specific, employers should carefully analyze both the beneficiary’s proposed duties and the relationship between those duties and the qualifying organization’s mission before filing a petition.

Employer-Based and Beneficiary-Based Cap Exemptions

This article addresses the most common employer-based H1B cap exemptions. It is important to distinguish these exemptions from situations in which a beneficiary may not be subject to the H1B cap for other reasons.

For example, an individual who has previously been counted against the H1B cap generally is not required to obtain a new cap number during the applicable six-year H1B period when changing employers. Likewise, certain statutory provisions provide cap exemptions for specific categories of physicians and other limited groups. Those exemptions are beyond the scope of this discussion.

Moving from Cap-Exempt to Cap-Subject Employment

A common question arises when an individual employed pursuant to a cap-exempt H1B petition wishes to accept employment with a cap-subject employer.

Whether the individual must first be selected under the annual H1B cap depends primarily on the individual’s H1B history and the nature of the proposed employment.

General Rule

If the beneficiary has never been counted against the H1B cap, moving from cap-exempt employment to employment exclusively with a cap-subject employer generally requires the new employer to secure selection through the annual H1B registration process before USCIS may approve the petition for cap-subject employment.

This situation commonly arises when an individual initially works for a university, teaching hospital, or research organization and later accepts employment with a private company.

Example: An individual who has worked exclusively for a university pursuant to a cap-exempt H1B petition generally must first be selected under the annual H1B cap process before accepting employment solely with a cap-subject employer.

Because cap-subject petitions generally may be filed only after a valid registration has been selected and during the filing period stated in the selection notice, beneficiaries should carefully plan any transition to avoid unnecessary delays or interruptions in employment authorization.

Exception for Concurrent Employment

The regulations recognize an important exception for concurrent employment.

An individual who continues to maintain qualifying cap-exempt H1B employment may generally obtain approval of concurrent H1B employment with a cap-subject employer without first being counted against the H1B cap. This concurrent cap-subject employment is authorized only while the qualifying cap-exempt employment remains in place. If the cap-exempt employment ends, the beneficiary may no longer continue the cap-subject employment under this exception unless another valid basis for H1B employment exists.

This exception can provide valuable flexibility for beneficiaries who wish to gain experience with a private employer while continuing employment with a qualifying cap-exempt organization.

Exception for Individuals Previously Counted Against the H1B Cap

A different rule applies when the beneficiary has previously been counted against the H1B cap.

For example, an individual who initially obtained H1B status through a cap-subject employer and later accepted employment with a university generally does not need to be counted against the cap again before returning to cap-subject employment during the applicable six-year H1B period, provided the individual retains eligibility for the previously allocated cap number. The analysis may depend on the beneficiary’s prior approvals, time spent in H1B status, time spent abroad, recapture eligibility, and other case-specific facts.

Practical Considerations

Before concluding that participation in the annual H1B cap selection process is required, employers should carefully evaluate all available options. Among other things, employers and beneficiaries should consider:

• Whether the petitioner qualifies to file a cap-exempt H1B petition;
• Whether the beneficiary’s position satisfies the regulatory requirements for cap-exempt classification;
• Whether the beneficiary has previously been counted against the H1B cap;
• Whether concurrent cap-exempt and cap-subject employment is available; and
• Whether the timing of any proposed employment change could affect the beneficiary’s ability to maintain uninterrupted work authorization.

Careful planning before filing an H1B petition or changing employers may help determine whether participation in the annual H1B cap selection process is necessary and avoid interruptions in employment authorization.

Conclusion

Employer-based H1B cap exemptions continue to provide an important pathway for qualifying organizations to recruit and retain highly skilled foreign nationals without regard to the annual H1B cap selection process. The rules governing cap-exempt employment have also evolved, expanding opportunities for certain employers and clarifying when petitions filed by private employers may also qualify for cap-exempt treatment.

Before concluding that an H1B petition must be filed under the annual cap, employers should carefully evaluate whether the petition qualifies for an exemption. Beneficiaries considering a change in employment should also assess how the transition may affect their H1B eligibility and whether advance planning is necessary to maintain uninterrupted work authorization.

 

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

The post H1B Cap-Exempt Employment: Who Qualifies and Key Considerations When Changing Employers appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

Answer

If the new rule takes effect as scheduled, an F-1 student who departs the United States after September 15, 2026, generally may be readmitted under the new fixed-period-of-admission framework. If admitted, the student may receive an I-94 with a specific admit-until date rather than D/S. This could affect the student’s grace period and create a future need to request an extension of stay. The student also should consider visa validity, consular processing, and port-of-entry risks before traveling. (08.Sep.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 If I qualify for transition protection under the new F-1 fixed-period-of-admission rule scheduled to take effect on September 15, 2026, what could happen if I travel internationally after that date? appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

The new final rule effective 15.Sep.2026 for F-1 students, including fixed admission on the I-94 record and 30-day grace period, is discussed by Murthy Law Firm attorneys in the September 2026 podcast.

The MP3 is available here and soon can be found in the archive of our podcasts and teleconferences on iTunes. Find more topics under the MurthyAudio tab on our homepage.

 

 

         

The post MurthyAudio: F-1 Students Final Rule Overview appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is considering a proposal that could significantly affect certain H-4 dependent spouses of H1B nonimmigrant workers. Listed under Regulatory Information Number 1615-AD14, the proposal would eliminate the regulatory basis for eligible H-4 spouses to request employment authorization under the c(26) category and would reverse changes made by the 2015 final rule, Employment Authorization for Certain H-4 Dependent Spouses.

The regulatory agenda entry does not itself change the law, terminate existing employment authorization, or prevent H-4 spouses from filing Form I-765 applications. It identifies the matter as a long-term regulatory action, and no date has been announced for publication of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. DHS generally would need to publish a proposed rule, provide an opportunity for public comment, and issue a final rule before any change could take effect.

If finalized, the proposal could affect new applications, renewal requests, pending applications, or existing employment authorization documents, depending on the terms and effective date of the final rule. The agenda entry does not explain how those matters would be handled. H-4 spouses and employers should therefore continue following the current rules and USCIS procedures, while reviewing potential immigration and employment alternatives with experienced immigration counsel.

 

Copyright © 2026, MURTHY LAW FIRM. All Rights Reserved

The post Possible Changes to H-4 Spouse Employment Authorization appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

Answer

Generally, no. Under the new rule’s transition provisions, an F-1 student who is maintaining valid duration-of-status admission when the rule takes effect on September 15, 2026, ordinarily will not automatically receive a new date-specific I-94 on that date. However, this transition protection will be limited. Depending on the student’s program or employment authorization end date, the outside transition date for F nonimmigrants generally will be November 14, 2030. Travel and reentry after September 15, 2026, also may result in admission under the new fixed-period system. (01.Sep.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 currently in F-1 status with an I-94 marked D/S. Under the new F-1 fixed-period-of-admission rule scheduled to take effect on September 15, 2026, will I automatically receive a new I-94 expiration date on that date? appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

Several attorneys from the Murthy Law Firm have been recognized in the 2027 edition of The Best Lawyers in America® for their work in Immigration Law. The attorneys recognized are Sheela Murthy, Founder and CEO; Aron Finkelstein, Member and Senior Counsel; Adam Rosen, Member and Senior Counsel; and Anna Stepanova, Member and Co-Managing Attorney. Recognition by Best Lawyers is based on a peer-review process. Attorneys are evaluated by other lawyers who practice in the same geographic region and legal field. The recognition is not based on paid placement or self-nomination, and no fee is required to be considered or recognized.

In addition to being recognized in the 2027 edition of The Best Lawyers in America®, Anna Stepanova has been named the 2027 Lawyer of the Year for Immigration Law in Baltimore. This distinction is awarded to an individual lawyer who receives the highest overall peer feedback in a specific practice area and geographic region.About The Best Lawyers in America®

For more than 40 years, Best Lawyers has relied on the principle that the best lawyers know who the best lawyers are. Its recognition process is based on peer feedback from legal professionals. The 2027 recognitions are publicly available through Best Lawyers.

The Murthy Law Firm congratulates Sheela Murthy, Aron Finkelstein, Adam Rosen, and Anna Stepanova on their recognition in the 2027 edition of The Best Lawyers in America®. The firm also congratulates Ms. Stepanova on being named the 2027 Lawyer of the Year for Immigration Law in Baltimore.

Lawyer of the Year Recognition

The Lawyer of the Year distinction is considered particularly meaningful because it reflects the respect and confidence of fellow attorneys familiar with the recipient’s legal work and professional contributions. Ms. Stepanova’s recognition as the 2027 Lawyer of the Year for Immigration Law in Baltimore highlights her longstanding commitment to serving individuals, families, employers, and other clients navigating the U.S. immigration system.

Conclusion

The recognition of these Murthy Law Firm attorneys reflects their professional accomplishments and ongoing dedication to the practice of U.S. immigration law. Individuals and employers seeking advice about specific immigration matters should consult with experienced immigration counsel.

 

Copyright © 2026, MURTHY LAW FIRM. All Rights Reserved

The post Murthy Law Firm Attorneys Recognized in The Best Lawyers in America® 2027 appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

The USCIS’s recent policy changes, which give officers greater discretion to deny petitions and applications without first issuing an RFE or NOID, are examined in a new ILW.com article by Murthy Law Firm Member Adam J. Rosen. Drawing on Matter of Rehman and the USCIS Policy Manual, Mr. Rosen explains how late-registered birth certificates, secondary evidence, affidavits, and DNA evidence can affect an applicant’s ability to establish identity and parentage. The article, Birth Certificates and the (Possible) End of RFEs, underscores why practitioners should closely evaluate birth records and supporting evidence before filing an I-485.

 

Copyright © 2026, MURTHY LAW FIRM. All Rights Reserved

The post New ILW.com Article Examines Birth Certificates in the Post-RFE Era appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

Noncitizens should not register or vote unless eligible. If a DMV or other system registered you without your consent or understanding, the facts and records matter. Learn more.

The post Erroneous Voter Registration Reminder appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

DHS is considering changes to the H1B program, including revisions to cap-exemption eligibility, increased scrutiny of employers with program violations, and greater oversight of third-party placements. The regulatory agenda currently lists the proposal at the proposed-rule stage; the actual NPRM text has not yet been published. More info.

The post Proposed H1B Rule Under Review appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

Answer

Under the new rule, an F-1 student who needs additional time generally may request an extension of stay from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). This may require a Form I-20 issued or endorsed by the designated school official, a timely extension application, the required filing fee, evidence of sufficient financial support, and any required biometrics. Depending on the circumstances, the student also may consider departing the United States and seeking a new admission, although travel may create visa, consular, and port-of-entry issues. (25.Aug.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 Under the new F-1 fixed-period-of-admission rule scheduled to take effect on September 15, 2026, what should I do if I need more time to complete my F-1 program after my I-94 expires? appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is scheduled to publish a proposed rule in the Federal Register on August 25, 2026, proposing a new $103,265 fee for all H-1B cap-subject petitions, including petitions eligible for the advanced degree exemption. The fee would be in addition to all other applicable filing fees and payments, but would not apply to cap-exempt H-1B petitions or other H-1B filings that are not subject to the annual cap.

The proposal is not effective at this time. DHS will accept public comments for 30 days after publication, and the agency would need to consider those comments before issuing any final rule. Employers should not add the proposed fee to current filings unless and until a final rule establishes an effective date and applicable transition provisions. The proposed rule is identified as DHS Docket No. USCIS-2026-0298, RIN 1615-AD20, and Federal Register Document No. 2026-17324.

 

Copyright © 2026, MURTHY LAW FIRM. All Rights Reserved

The post NewsFlash! DHS Proposes $103,265 Fee for Certain H-1B Petitions appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

A federal judge has struck down the Trump administration’s policy suspending immigrant visa issuance for nationals of 75 countries, ruling that it was contrary to law and exceeded the Secretary of State’s authority. The ruling requires affected cases to receive individualized review, but the government has until September 11 to appeal the decision. More info.

The post Federal Judge Strikes Down 75-Country Immigrant Visa Ban appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.