US Immigration News

In a decision with real consequences for lawful permanent residents (LPRs) who travel internationally, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on 23.Jun.2026, that a border officer does not need clear and convincing evidence that a green card holder committed a crime before treating that person as an applicant for admission. The 6-to-3 decision in Blanche v. Lau, No. 25-429, makes it easier for the government to channel returning green card holders with criminal histories into the more difficult inadmissibility track, where they can be paroled into the country, detained, or placed in removal proceedings in which the burden of proof falls on the individual rather than on the government.

Background

As a general rule, an LPR returning from a trip abroad is treated as already admitted and is not regarded as “seeking an admission” to the United States. The law lists six narrow exceptions. One of them, subsection (C)(v), allows the government to treat a returning LPR as seeking admission if the person “has committed” an offense described in INA Section 212(a)(2), which includes a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT).

This case arose when Muk Choi Lau, a lawful permanent resident, was charged in New Jersey with trademark counterfeiting and then traveled to China. When he tried to reenter at John F. Kennedy International Airport, the CBP officer did not treat him as already admitted. Instead, citing the pending charge, the officer paroled him into the United States under INA Section 212(d)(5)(A) while his criminal case played out. Lau later pleaded guilty, and the government placed him in removal proceedings on inadmissibility grounds. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Lau, holding that a border officer needed clear and convincing evidence that the LPR actually committed the crime before downgrading the person to “seeking admission,” and that a pending charge alone was not enough.

What the Court Held

The Supreme Court reversed course on that point. Writing for the majority, Justice Thomas held that the INA does not impose any clear and convincing evidence requirement on a border officer before deeming a returning LPR an applicant for admission. The Court explained that while the statute carefully assigns burdens of proof in removal hearings, it places no comparable evidentiary standard on the officer making the initial, on-the-spot determination at the port of entry.

The Court described the process as a two-step framework. At the first step, at the border, the government need only have a basis to conclude that the LPR committed a qualifying offense in order to treat the person as seeking admission rather than already admitted. At the second step, in the removal hearing itself, the government still must prove the case to remove the person, and that is where the heightened proof and the conviction (or admission of the conduct) come into play. The Court emphasized that the statute requires only that the LPR “committed” the offense to trigger the exception, not that the person already be convicted. As the majority put it, “One does not commit a conviction.” The Court declined to follow contrary footnote language from its earlier decision in Vartelas v. Holder, concluding that the plain text of the statute controlled.

Importantly, the Court did not decide whether Lau’s trademark counterfeiting offense is in fact a crime involving moral turpitude. It vacated the Second Circuit’s judgment and sent the case back for that question to be resolved, which means Lau still may prevail on remand if the offense is found not to qualify.

What this Means for Green Card Holders

The practical takeaway is significant. The classification of a returning LPR as “seeking admission” is not a mere formality. It determines which removal track applies, and the two tracks are very different.

If a returning resident is treated as already admitted, the government may pursue removal only on deportability grounds, where the government carries the burden of proof. If, instead, the resident is treated as seeking admission, the government proceeds on inadmissibility grounds, where the burden shifts onto the individual to prove admissibility. Inadmissibility charges can also reach a broader set of offenses and lack some of the time limits that apply on the deportability side. As a practical matter at the airport, a resident reclassified in this way may be paroled into the country, issued temporary evidence of status in place of the physical green card, detained, or referred to immigration court.

After today’s decision, CBP officers have clear authority to make that reclassification based on a pending charge, a prior conviction, or other indications that the traveler committed a qualifying offense, without first meeting a heightened evidentiary standard at the port of entry.

For green card holders, the key cautions are these. International travel carries elevated risk for any LPR who has a criminal charge, a conviction, or even an arrest in their history, including older or seemingly minor matters that might be treated as crimes involving moral turpitude. Whether a particular offense qualifies as a CIMT is a technical and frequently contested question. Any green card holder with a criminal record, including pending charges or matters they believe were resolved long ago, should consult an experienced immigration attorney before traveling abroad and before reentering the United States, and should understand their rights at the port of entry.

Conclusion

Blanche v. Lau strengthens the government’s hand at the border and lowers the practical threshold for treating returning permanent residents with criminal issues as applicants for admission. It does not change the substantive grounds of inadmissibility or remove the government’s ultimate burden in the removal hearing itself, but it does shift the leverage and the procedural posture in ways that can be difficult to undo once a traveler is reclassified. The Murthy Law Firm will continue to monitor developments, including the proceedings on remand and any agency guidance that follows. Green card holders with any criminal history are strongly encouraged to seek individualized legal advice before international travel.

 

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

The post Supreme Court: Border Officers Need No Heightened Proof to Treat Returning Green Card Holders with Criminal Issues as Seeking Admission appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

Answer

A “U” on the Visa Bulletin means the category is unavailable because all available immigrant visa numbers for that fiscal year have been used. As a result, USCIS cannot approve adjustment of status applications or issue immigrant visas in that category while it remains unavailable. In addition, new adjustment applications generally cannot be filed once the category becomes unavailable. The category is expected to reopen at the start of the new fiscal year on October 1, 2026, when a new supply of visa numbers becomes available. (23.Jun.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 noticed that the July 2026 Visa Bulletin shows a “U” for India in the EB2 and EB5 Unreserved categories. What does that mean? appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

A proposed rule issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would increase filing fees for naturalization. The rule proposes $1,330 for paper applications and $1,280 for online filings and eliminates the reduced fee for low-income households. More info.

The post DHS Proposes Citizenship Fee Increase appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

The U.S. Department of State (DOS) has released the July 2026 Visa Bulletin. There is forward movement in select employment-based categories, while certain employment-based categories retrogress. All cutoff dates listed below refer to the final action chart (i.e., Chart A), unless otherwise specified.

Visa Bulletin SummaryEmployment-Based, First Preference (EB1) Category

In the EB1 category, China’s cutoff date moves slightly forward to 01.Jun.2023, while India’s cutoff date retrogresses to 15.Oct.2022. The EB1 category remains current for all other countries of chargeability.

Employment-Based, Second Preference (EB2) Category

In the EB2 category, India’s category becomes “unavailable” (which means that no applications in this category can be filed after June 2026 until the category reopens). EB2 China still has a cutoff date of 01.Sep.2021. The EB2 cutoff date for all other countries remains current.

Employment-Based, Third Preference (EB3) Category

India’s EB3 cutoff date advances to 01.Jan.2014, and China’s EB3 cutoff date advances to 22.Dec.2021. The EB3 cutoff date for all other countries of chargeability also advances to 01.Aug.2024.

EB3 Other Workers

In the EB3 Other Workers category, India’s cutoff date advances to 01.Jan.2014. For China, the cutoff date remains at 01.Apr.2019. The EB3 other workers category advances to a cutoff date of 01.Mar.2022 for all other countries of chargeability.

Employment-Based, Fourth Preference (EB4) Category

In the EB4 category, the cutoff date advances to 15.Sep.2022. This cutoff date also applies to the EB4 program for certain religious workers, which has been renewed through midnight of 30.Sep.2026. After that, if the program is not renewed by Congress, it will become unavailable.

Employment-Based, Fifth Preference (EB5) Category

The EB5 unreserved category for India becomes “unavailable” (which means that no applications in this category can be filed after June 2026 until the category reopens), and China’s unreserved cutoff date advances to 01.Dec.2016. The EB5 category remains current for all other chargeability areas and for the three EB5 set-aside categories (rural, high unemployment, and infrastructure) across all countries.

Family-Based, Second Preference (FB2A and FB2B) Category

In the FB2A family-based category, the cutoff date remains at 01.Jan.2025 for all countries, except Mexico which remains at 01.Jan.2024. In the FB2B family-based category, the cutoff date advances to 22.Nov.2017 for all countries except Mexico and the Philippines.

Conclusion

We will continue to monitor and report on movement and predictions related to the monthly visa bulletin. Subscribe to the free MurthyBulletin to receive weekly updates on the latest in U.S. immigration.

 

Copyright © 2026, MURTHY LAW FIRM. All Rights Reserved

The post July 2026 Visa Bulletin appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

Answer

Yes. In general, applicants may travel internationally while their naturalization applications are pending. However, it is important to avoid any scheduling conflicts with USCIS appointments. Applicants also should ensure that any travel does not affect their ability to satisfy the continuous residence and physical presence requirements for naturalization. (16.Jun.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 applying for naturalization but have heard that USCIS is not scheduling oath ceremonies for many applicants, even when the interview goes well. Am I allowed to travel internationally while my naturalization application is pending? appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

Judge Leo T. Sorokin denied the government’s motion to stay his ruling vacating the $100,000 H1B fee requirement. However, he granted a limited administrative stay pending a possible emergency appeal to the First Circuit, if filed by 18.Jun.2026. More updates to come.

The post Court Grants Temporary Administrative Stay in H1B Fee Case appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

Following the 08.Jun.2026 court decision vacating the $100,000 H1B payment requirement, DHS has announced that it will comply with the order while considering its next steps. As things stand, employers appear able to proceed with affected H1B filings without the additional fee, subject to any future developments.

The post USCIS to Comply with Court Order on H1B Fee appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

A welcome development for EB1A applicants: the government has dropped its appeal of Mukherji in the Eighth Circuit. The broader challenge to USCIS’s “final merits” approach remains litigated elsewhere, so this is an important step, but not yet a nationwide resolution. https://www.murthy.com/2026/01/29/district-court-rules-uscis-use-of-final-merits-determination-in-eb1a-petitions/

The post Mukherji Appeal Dropped appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

The U.S. Department of State (DOS) has published a temporary final rule (TFR) creating a new $750 fee that will allow certain business and tourism visa applicants to secure an expedited visa interview appointment. The TFR is effective from 01.Jul.2026 through 31.Dec.2026. The new service is being offered as a limited pilot, or proof-of-concept, to test demand among applicants who wish to bypass longer visa interview wait times.

How it Works

Under the new program, B-1/B-2 nonimmigrant visa (NIV) applicants who pay the $750 expedited appointment fee may obtain an interview appointment within ten business days, subject to the availability of expedited appointments at the location selected. The service is optional and is in addition to the standard NIV application fee. It will be available only to B-1/B-2 applicants, only at limited overseas posts, and in limited quantities. The list of participating posts will be published on travel.state.gov for the duration of the TFR.

The expedited appointment fee speeds up only the scheduling of the interview. It does not guarantee that a visa will be issued and does not accelerate the adjudication of the application itself.

Conclusion

For frequent business travelers and visitors facing long appointment backlogs, the new option may offer meaningful relief where it is available. Because the service is limited by post and by capacity, and because it remains a pilot subject to change, applicants should monitor travel.state.gov for the current list of participating posts and confirm availability before relying on the expedited option for travel.

 

Copyright © 2026 Murthy Law Firm. All rights reserved.

The post NewsFlash! DOS Launches Pilot Program for $750 Expedited B-1/B-2 Visa Interview Appointments appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

Answer

To preserve and use a PERM PWD in a PERM case, at least one qualifying advertisement must be posted before the PWD expires. If the PWD expires before at least one advertisement is posted, the employer will need to obtain a new PWD and restart the case. (09.Jun.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 Our PERM prevailing wage determination (PWD) expires 30.Jun.2026. Do we still have time to run PERM recruitment based on this PWD? appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

A federal district court in Massachusetts has ruled that the government’s policy implementing President Trump’s 19.Sep.2025 Proclamation imposing a $100,000 supplemental payment requirement for certain H1B petitions is unlawful and vacated the policy in its entirety. In State of California et al. v. Mullin et al., Judge Leo T. Sorokin granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, denied the government’s cross-motion, and denied most of the motion to dismiss.

The court concluded that the $100,000 payment requirement was, in substance, a tax and that Congress had not delegated to the President authority to impose such a tax through INA sections 212(f) or 215(a). The court also held that the implementing agency materials were legislative rules adopted without APA notice-and-comment rulemaking, exceeded statutory authority, and were arbitrary and capricious.

On 19.Sep.2025, President Trump signed Proclamation 10973, which announced the $100,000 supplemental payment requirement for employers filing certain new H1B petitions. The Proclamation cited concerns that the H1B program had been exploited to suppress wages and displace U.S. workers, especially in STEM fields.

Agencies moved quickly to implement the Proclamation through memoranda, FAQs, webpage guidance, an updated fee schedule, and a payment portal. Those agency actions collectively formed the Policy challenged in this case.

For employers, the ruling removes the court-reviewed basis for the $100,000 payment requirement as implemented by the agencies. The decision is especially important for universities, nonprofit research organizations, and healthcare systems that rely on H1B workers, although appellate activity may still follow.

 

Copyright © 2026 Murthy Law Firm. All rights reserved.

The post NewsFlash! Massachusetts Federal Court Vacates $100,000 H1B Proclamation Policy appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

A federal judge has struck down the Trump Administration’s $100,000 fee on new H1B petitions, ruling that the fee is an unauthorized tax.

The post BREAKING NEWS: $100,000 H1B Fee Ruled Unlawful appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has issued an interim final rule giving officers the discretion to deny, rather than simply reject, a benefit request found to have an invalid signature after the case has been accepted for processing.

Why this Matters

Previously, requests with invalid signatures were typically rejected and returned with the fee. Under the new rule, if the USCIS catches the signature problem only after the case is in adjudication, the agency may deny the case outright and retain the filing fee.

What Invalidates a Signature

The USCIS has flagged the following as an invalid signature:

• A signature copied and pasted as an image from another document
• A stamped signature
• A signature generated by signature software
• A typewritten signature
• A signature placed by anyone other than the requestor (including attorneys, preparers, or interpreters)
• A missing or incorrectly placed signature

Importantly, scanned, faxed, or photocopied reproductions of an original wet-ink signature remain acceptable. Meaning, it is not required to submit the original signed document to the USCIS, but the requester should retain the original for their records.

Ensuring a Proper Signature

The USCIS considers a “valid signature” generally to consist of any handwritten mark or sign made by a requestor in the signature line of a particular form. A thumbprint in place of a written signature is also acceptable, and even an “X” can sometimes suffice. If a requestor uses an “X,” then the USCIS usually will want to ensure that the individual consistently uses an “X.”

Best practices for ensuring a proper signature include:

• Personally sign each form by hand in ink. Do not paste in a signature image or use an electronic signature program.
• Sign each form individually, even when filing multiple petitions.
• Employers filing high volumes of I-129 or I-140 petitions should review internal signature procedures to ensure each form bears an original wet signature.
• If an individual is unsure whether a signing practice complies, ask before filing.

Conclusion

Often, it is little details that can have a big impact on the quality or even the outcome of an immigration filing. Working with a qualified immigration attorney can help ensure that your filing is complete. Individuals with questions about how this rule affects a pending or upcoming filing are welcome to schedule a consultation with a Murthy Law Firm attorney for further guidance.

 

Copyright © 2016-2026, MURTHY LAW FIRM. All Rights Reserved

The post USCIS May Now Deny Benefit Requests with Invalid Signatures appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

On June 5, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island vacated USCIS policies that imposed a hold on asylum and immigration-benefit adjudications for applicants from the Travel Ban / “high-risk” countries, including the January 1, 2026 memorandum extending the hold to additional countries.

The post Federal Court Strikes Down USCIS Benefit Adjudication Pause appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

Doctors Without Borders/ Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) is one of the world’s most respected humanitarian medical organizations, providing lifesaving care to people based solely on need—regardless of race, religion, nationality, gender, or political affiliation. Operating independently and impartially, MSF sends teams of doctors, nurses, logisticians, epidemiologists, and other specialists to some of the most challenging environments on earth, often arriving where conflict, natural disasters, disease outbreaks, or displacement have left communities without access to essential medical care.

The organization’s ability to respond quickly and effectively is particularly critical during outbreaks of infectious diseases such as cholera, measles, yellow fever, and Ebola. As concerns grow globally over recurring Ebola outbreaks and the threat they pose to vulnerable populations, MSF remains on the front lines—establishing emergency treatment centers, conducting vaccination campaigns, strengthening disease surveillance, improving water and sanitation systems, and providing the medical expertise necessary to contain the spread of deadly infections.

MSF’s work saves countless lives every year and offers hope to people facing extraordinary circumstances. Their commitment to delivering care directly to those who need it most, often in remote or dangerous settings, exemplifies humanitarian service at its finest.

Sheela Murthy and the MurthyNAYAK Foundation have made a modest contribution in support of this important work. While any single donation may seem small in the face of such immense challenges, the collective power of thousands of modest gifts enables organizations like MSF to respond rapidly to emergencies, deploy medical teams, purchase critical supplies, and sustain lifesaving programs around the world. Meaningful change is often made possible not by a few large contributions, but by many individuals coming together to support a cause that truly matters.

 

Copyright © 2026, Murthy Law Firm. All Rights Reserved

The post Fighting Outbreaks, Saving Lives: Supporting Doctors Without Borders appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

An overview of employment-based green card options in the EB1 category is offered by Murthy Law Firm attorneys in this podcast recommended for U.S. employers of foreign nationals, broadcasted 03.Jun.2026. Topics include Extraordinary Ability, Outstanding Professor / Researcher, and Multinational Executive.

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: The ABCs of EB1 – Extraordinary Ability, Outstanding Professor / Researcher, and Multinational Executive appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

Answer

While the reported U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reversal and clarification are encouraging, it remains unclear how the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will apply the guidance in the memo. Adjustment of status (AOS) remains a discretionary benefit, and USCIS officers will continue to review each case on an individual basis. Therefore, anyone filing for AOS should consult with a qualified immigration attorney to determine the best course of action for their case. (02.Jun.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 heard that the DHS reversed course on the recent 21.May.2025 AOS memo and now says that most immigrants seeking green cards will not need to leave the U.S. to complete the process. Can you please clarify? appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

After widespread concern over last week’s USCIS policy memo, DHS now says most immigrants seeking green cards will not need to leave the U.S. to complete the process. The agency clarified that qualified applicants should see little impact from the new guidance.

The post DHS Walks Back Green Card Departure Requirement appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

If you are waiting for a green card, you have probably heard about the Visa Bulletin or waiting for a “priority date” to be “current.” For many, these technical terms keep them in the dark. The reality is more straightforward than it sounds. This article breaks down what the U.S. Department of State (DOS) Visa Bulletin actually is, why it exists, and how to read it without needing a law degree.

The Big Picture: Green Cards are Limited

Each year, the U.S. government has a limited number of green cards to give out: 140,000 are employment-based and 226,000 are family-based (parents, spouses, and children under 21 of U.S. citizens are not included in this limit). That national pool is then divided up by subcategories. But within this total amount there is a per-country cap. No single country can use more than a fixed percentage of the green cards available. That means demand can far exceed supply, and when it does, the government has to put people in line to wait for their green cards.

Think of it as a Line with a Ticket Number

The easiest way to picture this system is to imagine a deli counter. Walk in, take a numbered ticket, and wait for your number to be called. Every employment-based and family-based green card applicant gets a ticket number when they enter the system. In immigration terms, that ticket number is called the priority date.

There is not just one line, either. There is a separate line for each employment-based category, and within each category, a separate line for each country of birth. So, an EB1 applicant born in India is in a different line from an EB2 applicant born in India, who is in a different line from an EB2 applicant born in Germany. Every line moves at its own pace, depending on how many people are in it and how many green cards are available for that category and country in a given year.

How You Get Your Ticket Number

Your priority date, the ticket number, depends on the type of case being filed. For EB1 and EB2 National Interest Waiver (NIW) employment-based cases, the priority date is the date the I-140 immigrant petition is filed with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). For standard EB2 and EB3 cases that require PERM labor certification, the priority date is the date the PERM application is filed with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). For family-based cases, the priority date is the date the I-130 immigrant petition is filed. Once you have a priority date, you have your spot in line which is “locked-in” once your immigrant petition (either I-140 or I-130) is approved. From that point on, the only thing left to do is wait for the government to call your number.

Why it Takes Longer for Some Countries

The per-country cap is the reason wait times vary so dramatically depending on where someone was born. For countries with small numbers of applicants, the line moves quickly, and the priority date may be current almost immediately. For countries like India and China, where the number of people waiting is far larger than the number of green cards available per country each year, the line stretches out for years and sometimes decades. The cap is the same regardless of country population, so high-demand countries fill their annual allotment quickly and the rest of the applicants must wait their turn.

A Quick Note on Cross Chargeability

Country of birth is what determines which line a person stands in, not country of citizenship. However, there is a useful rule called cross chargeability that can help some married couples and their children. If a married applicant was born in a backlogged country, but their spouse was born in a country with a faster-moving line, the couple can be “charged” to the spouse’s country of birth for green card purposes. In practical terms, that means a spouse born in, for example, Canada can pull an Indian-born partner into the much shorter Canadian line, and both can move forward together. Cross chargeability also applies in certain situations involving children. This is one of the few legitimate ways to skip ahead in the green card queue, and it is worth raising with counsel any time spouses or children were born in different countries.

Enter the Visa Bulletin

So how does anyone know when their ticket number has been called? That is exactly the Visa Bulletin’s role. The DOS publishes the Visa Bulletin every month, and it shows, for each category and each country, how far down the line the government has gotten. When the date listed in the bulletin reaches or passes your priority date, your number has been called. That is what immigration lawyers mean when they say a priority date is “current.” It means a green card is available for you and you can take the next step, which is filing for adjustment of status if you are in the United States, or applying for an immigrant visa if you are abroad.

How to Read the Visa Bulletin

When you open the Visa Bulletin, you will see charts organized by category, with rows for EB1, EB2, EB3, and so on. The columns list countries, including separate columns for high-demand countries like India and China, and a catch-all column for everywhere else. The cell where your category meets your country shows a date. If your priority date is earlier than the date listed, your number has been called. If your priority date is later than the date listed, you keep waiting until the next bulletin.

There is one extra wrinkle. The bulletin actually shows two separate charts: the Final Action Dates chart and the Dates for Filing chart. The Final Action Dates chart shows the priority dates that have actually been called for green card approval, meaning the government can issue a green card right now to people with those dates. The Dates for Filing chart shows a slightly earlier point in the line, telling applicants they can go ahead and submit the green card application paperwork even though the green card itself is not yet ready to be issued. Filing earlier lets people lock in certain benefits and gets the application process started.

Each month, the USCIS decides which of the two charts can be used for adjustment of status filings and announces it on its website. For consular cases, the Final Action Chart always governs.

The Bottom Line

The Visa Bulletin can look intimidating, but the underlying logic is simple. Green cards are limited. Applicants take a ticket. The Visa Bulletin shows whose number has been called. Knowing your category, your priority date, and how to read the right chart turns a confusing document into a useful one. The Murthy Law Firm attorneys are available to consult on priority dates, cross chargeability, and strategy for navigating the green card process.

 

Copyright © 2026, MURTHY LAW FIRM. All Rights Reserved

The post Visa Bulletin and Priority Dates Made Easy appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.

The Treaty Trader / Investor Visa (nonimmigrant E classification) is designed for the benefit of nationals of a country with which the U.S. has a treaty of commerce and navigation, or a similar agreement. The E classification is divided into two categories. E-1 is for individuals coming to the U.S. to carry on substantial trade. E-2 is for individuals coming to the U.S. to invest a substantial amount of capital or to direct and develop the business operations of an entity in which the individual has already invested funds. A person may qualify as the principal trader or investor or as an employee of a trader or investor company having the same nationality. There are no numerical limitations on E-1/E-2 admissions.

What Countries have Bilateral Treaties with the U.S.?

The list of countries with bilateral treaties with the U.S. is actually very long. The countries range from Japan to Australia, and most of the European Union, to some less-obvious nations, such as Iran, Pakistan, and Taiwan. Most of the countries listed have treaties that cover both the E-1 and E-2 categories, but some only cover one or the other.

Note that the list of treaty countries changes often as new treaties are signed and ratified continually. You can find the most recent list on the U.S. Department of State (DOS) website.

Requirements Applying to Both E-1 and E-2

The individual applying for the E-2 visa must be a national of a treaty country. Additionally, if the person is employed and doing business on behalf of a company, the employing company must be from the same treaty country. If this is the case, the company’s nationality almost always is determined by its ownership, though there are special rules for publicly traded companies. A company must be at least 50 percent owned by individuals with nationality from the treaty country and who are not lawful permanent residents of the U.S. If these owners are in the U.S., they must be in E-1 or E-2 status.

Additionally, in general, unskilled workers usually do not qualify for the E-1 or E-2 category. Rather, these visas are intended for executives, managers, or others with skills and experience that are essential to the efficient operation of the enterprise. Recent adjudication trends also place increased emphasis on documentation of lawful source of funds, business viability, and compliance with evolving security and vetting procedures.

Additional Requirements Specific to E-1 Traders

The international trade must be substantial in the sense that there is a sizable and continuous flow of trade, and more than half of the trade activity must be between the U.S. and the treaty country. The trade may be in a variety of areas such as products, services, or technology, but these items must already exist.

Additional Requirements Specific to E-2 Investors

For E-2 investors, the investment must come from the investor and the money must be “at risk;” so, for example, it cannot be a loan that is secured by the assets of the business itself. The investment also must be “substantial,” meaning that it is enough to provide a sufficient infusion of capital or credit to permit the business undertaking to be successful. There is no fixed minimum dollar amount; the amount is evaluated in proportion to the business. Additionally, the investment must be considered active; this means that a bank account, undeveloped land or stocks, or a not-for-profit organization will not be sufficient. Lastly, it is important to note that the E-2 visa holder can be an investor, or an employee of the individual or company that is making the investment.

Recent Developments Affecting E-2 Investors and Their Families

There have been a few developments surrounding the treaty visas in recent years. For one, spouses of E visa holders are now given work authorization incident to status, meaning they do not need to apply separately for employment authorization.

The most significant update comes into play when someone obtains citizenship of a country that has a bilateral treaty with the U.S. If a person obtains citizenship to be considered a citizen of a country that has a bilateral treaty with the US, the person must be “domiciled” in the treaty country for a “continuous period of not less than three years at any point before applying” for the visa. In other words, the individual actually has to live there for a continuous period of three years in order to qualify.

Conclusion

In summary, the E-1 and E-2 visa categories remain valuable options for traders and investors seeking to engage in business activities in the United States. However, evolving policies, including updated adjudication practices and the domicile requirement, make it increasingly important for applicants to stay informed and plan carefully. By understanding both the longstanding requirements and recent developments, individuals and businesses can better position themselves for success in obtaining and maintaining E visa status.

While some aspects of immigration have changed significantly in the years since MurthyDotCom began publishing articles in 1994, there is much that is still the same. From time to time, we at the Murthy Law Firm refer our clients to articles, like this one, which remains relevant.

 

Copyright © 2012-2026, MURTHY LAW FIRM. All Rights Reserved

The post Overview: E Visas for Traders and Investors appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.